Course:IGS585/OK2020WT2/GuestMelissaPeneycad

Melissa Peneycad - Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure

To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.

If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.

	Reflection Authors and Commenters
Author	Janna Wale	Adam Kunis	Ayla de Grandpre	Joshua Ayer	Ian Chambers
Commenter	Ian Chambers	Ayla de Grandpre	Adam Kunis	Janna Wale	Joshua Ayer

Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.

Ayla De Grandpre I found Melissa’s presentation highly informative. I was not aware of the Envision Framework prior to this talk, and so the information that Melissa shared with us was largely new to me. One component of this framework that I found really was interesting was the resilience indicators. I thought the framework did a really good job of teasing out the themes that affect sustainability and resilience. This list of indicators also helped me realize that infrastructure may be a key leverage point for the sustainability and resilience of communities, like Keremeos, because it influences so many other aspects (e.g. community cohesion through access and connectivity, or environmental integrity). Having presented on leverage points last week, I feel that this is one key takeaway that we could integrate into our term project: there are so many ways that infrastructure could have an impact on the community, and it is a variable that is controllable at the community level. Another part of the presentation that I found really interesting was the discussion regarding development versus the issue of finite resources. I think about this dilemma often, but It was really refreshing to hear this discussion from a new perspective that I was unfamiliar with (framed in a more engineering-based perspective). I would normally take a much stronger anti-development stance, but Melissa’s discourse caused me to reflect on this position, and to challenge my biases. I still think that we need to seriously consider the implications of unbridled development, but I am hopeful that programs such as Envision might be able to inspire a more ethical and eco-centric version of development. I am particularly curious now to explore the potential avenues of green infrastructure projects for Keremeos, particularly as an avenue to attract young people and to create new jobs and economic impetus. Overall, Melissa's presentation helped me realize the potential for green or sustainable infrastructure as a leverage point to enact sustainable and resilient transformations in the community. Comment Author Hi Ayla, I totally agree with you that infrastructure can be a great segway to further incorporate sustainability into the community. I appreciate that you expanded upon the ways in which we use publicly funded infrastructure and I think beyond the plethora of impacts, it is also important to consider its use across a wide range of demographics and socio-economic positions. I think that infrastructure can be a great community development to bolster equity and careful consideration should be given to how its building materials are sourced. I think your perspective on the use of finite resources greatly depends on the value you assign as a discount rate; the value of tomorrow versus today. I talked about this in my Game Theory presentation in Greg's class and I believe it will be an important consideration for Keremeos. Keremeos may only have another 30 years before they are highly burdened with health care costs which may siphon away infrastructure tax funding. However as Melissa mentioned, there are ways to make a project more sustainable without driving up costs.

Joshua Ayer I thought that Melissa's presentation was very inspiring and reminded me most of Mark Holland's presentation. I think the similarity lies in their mutual emphasis on development frameworks and templates that can be used to innovate sustainably. I think that consultancy institutes like Envision can serve as tremendous actors in steering societies towards smarter and more sustainable development, functioning as networks, think tanks, and regulators through their ratings system. However, in the interest of nuance, I also think that development tools like Envision have a limit insofar as they are influential only so far as they are contracted to develop, which means there has to first be an interest in developing sustainably before Envision has the opportunity to positively affect the outcome of development, this to me has a 'preaching to the choir' sort of effect. Again, institutes like ISI and programs like Envision are a huge benefit and obviously help demonstrate the feasibility and preferability of sustainable developments, but I am worried that their benefits and influence could be isolated to certain public spheres. When asked about the interest by private firms in the Envision framework Melissa responded that what limited interest there is from the private sector in the Envision package arises predominantly from shareholders' desires to demonstrate that they are contributing to social equity. My concern is that I am not sure this incentive is strong enough to make Envision's development a mainstream option given the challenges and costs associated with their infrastructure projects. At the end of the day, I think it is hard to convince any private developer to opt-in to a project that has the perception of being costly, time-consuming, and challenging. With that said, I wonder if there are ways for governments to further incentivize private developers to consider Envision's strategies. I think this could take the form of subsidies, tax benefits, and other monetary incentives, but I also wonder if there could ever be a way for governments to internalize some of the strategies in by-law. I think that the Keremeos context is a good example of this trade off between the benefits of sustainable development in infrastructure and costs and challenges it is associated with. At the end of the day, I wonder how feasible, if not desirable, projects of this sort are for a locality such as Keremeos where funds are relatively low and the need to grow and diversify or face a crisis can over-rides the desire for climate sustainability. I really appreciated Melissa's anecdote at the end of her presentation when she recounted the 'bells and whistles' public infrastructure project that her firm was hired to consult on. After removing all the extra sustainability features, the project came in under-budget. I think more stories and examples like that are what's needed to shift the perception that sustainable development is a cost-inducing head-ache. Additionally, given that much of Keremeos' budget is supplemented by government grants, I wonder if there is the opportunity for governments to tie public infrastructure and development grants together meaningfully with firms like Melissa's. Janna Wale Joshua, I agree, I was reminded of Mark's presentation, and agree that it was most likely attributed to the development frameworks. I feel similarly that there is a potential for Envision to be isolated and only applicable in certain situations and specific contexts. I had not considered the potential for incentivization, and whether or not something like this would make Envision more appealing. Keremeos is absolutely a wonderful example of this type of trade off, and I think using it as a case study could shed light on other small communities that may be having similar struggles. I think another issue with "sustainability" is its lack of concrete definition other than the one Melissa presented at the beginning of her presentation. I think by creating a stronger definition, we can also reduce some of the headache associated with it. As well, creating more accessible granting (like you mentioned) I think would make a huge difference for lower capacity communities like Keremeos!

Adam Kunis I have to admit that despite Melissa’s great presentation, I am skeptical of the Envision framework. A great deal of my early master’s work was based on sustainability certification. While sustainability certification can be a strong consumer decision driver for niche markets, during my literature review I found a number of articles that highlighted the ineffectiveness of sustainability certification on broader markets. These studies noted that consumers failed to distinguish 3rd party verified certifications from greenwashing and that there were negative perceptions about the quality, value, and positioning of the certified product. For producers, especially small to medium sized businesses, were upset over the cost for application, lengthy paperwork process, and lack of continued support once certified. Similar concerns have been brought up in my thesis interviews by business owners and it has been stated several times that it is a struggle to sort through the plethora of sustainability certifications and know which is the right fit. As Melissa mentioned, there are over 700 competing certifications, and I am skeptical that there is room in the market for another and that consumers can distinguish Envision from other certifications. Despite the negatives I have voiced, I do believe that sustainability certification has its place and can be used to shift consumer demands towards more responsibly created products. Since infrastructure has a long lifecycle, I think incorporating sustainability is critically important. Infrastructure must serve the current generation in addition to future generations. An important consideration is that the payback period for these projects can be many years and that infrastructure projects are typically publicly funded. If my taxes are going towards a project I did not have a say in, I would hope that the project is sustainably built. I believe this will be a growing trend for future generations as sustainability certifications may ensure greater equity. I admire that Melissa stated over 190 infrastructure projects have been built in this manner and hope that this framework gains popularity through mainstream recognition. Overall, I imagine that the demand for sustainability will drastically increase due to the forces of climate change. The effectiveness for certifications to build resilience will remain a question mark as risks and vulnerabilities may be compounded by unexpected future overlapping stressors. Finally, I found the fact that Envision uses a “credit” system interesting as these scorecard systems can be flawed. I appreciated Melissa’s transparency with this as I have several friends that are LEED certified architects who have been required to add erroneous features to a design for points in the LEED system. This adds cost and material to the project in exchange for marketing value. I also once lived in a LEED building where there was no enforcement of the policy that was promised. For example, despite designated recycling stations, all of the recycling was disposed of as trash and the promised water bottle refill stations were never built. I hope that Envision expands to include policy, although enforcement will be tricky. Ayla De Grandpre Adam, I appreciate the critical lens that you brought to your reflection, as I had not considered many of the aspects that you dissected. In particular, I am also concerned about the accessibility and equity of these standards and certifications. In my own research, I am considering the challenges and opportunities associated with other certifications, such as "organic", and exploring if and how these types of certifications might constrain or enable sustainability and resilience. While the case of organics is quite different to building standard certifications, given that organic certifications as well known and accepted, I think that all certifications share the commonality of creating barriers for smaller to mid-sized businesses in terms of accessibility (as you were saying). Organic growers require a great deal of financial capital, expertise and time inputs to get certified, and I can only imagine the same is true for builders. Another commonality is the restricted accessibility for the consumer: organic foods, and I'm sure Envision-certified infrastructure are costly to purchase. Lastly, I also appreciated your comment on the enforcement and up-keep of these certifications - to my knowledge organics are also required to provide very little in the way of proof that they are upholding all of the standards. Overall, thank you for your insightful comment. It caused me to look a bit more critically at this presentation, but also to consider parallels with my own area of research in food systems.

Janna Wale

Reflecting on Melissa’s presentation about the Envision framework, there were several points where I wish I could have gotten some clarification from her, had I been a part of the live class. I found it interesting to note that she opened with the “classic” definition of sustainability; in my own readings and research, this definition is now more recently being viewed as fundamentally flawed, since economic prosperity is often not weighed equally with the other pillars of sustainability given our capitalist society. Since they are not weighed equally, it becomes very difficult to argue for continued economic drive without taking away from the potential of future generations. As this is essentially the basis for the framework, I will admit that I feel skeptical about its successful application (as I currently understand it from rewatching the zoom recording). Furthering this point, her second slide which discussed development versus resources seemed contrary to the way that I understand the concept of sustainability. Should sustainability not be considered as developing in such a way as to preserve or maintain integrity of the resources, rather than either having one or the other? I think by creating this binary, we pigeonhole possible opportunities for sustainable development, or the exploration of what this could look like given the current state of our resources balanced with current perceived needs.

Something else I found interesting was the separation between quality of life and wellbeing. From an Indigenous perspective, these are intrinsically linked. I wonder if a more culturally appropriate adapted version of the Envision framework would eliminate the separation here, and whether or not it would increase the effectiveness of the framework as a whole. Personally, I feel that wellbeing and quality of life are closely tied, and should be considered as two parts of overall health, which in turn is affected by the natural world.

What I found helpful about Melissa’s presentation were the pieces that focused more on making the “right” choice; the factors that she mentioned and discussed were factors that I think will be relevant when we are looking at our Keremeos case study. I also agreed with her assertion of needing a diversity of perspectives, and the need for proper consideration of the different voices present. In my own work with the province, having a diversity of perspectives is something that is more often being considered as important at decision-making tables, and is something that I feel will positively impact resource management outcomes. Lastly, something that was notably absent from this discussion and presentation was involvement and impacts of First Nations groups, and the degree to which Indigenous people are involved in provincial and federal decision-making concerning natural resources. Thinking back, this is the only presentation that did not mention this and the far reaching implications of having a diversity governing bodies operating within Canada.

Ian Chambers

Janna,

I find it really interesting that much of your research views the Brundtland reports definition of sustainability as fundamentally flawed. From my reflections I think it is pretty obvious that I have similar issues with this definition, but I’ve noticed how widely accepted it is in the sustainability discourse. My research focuses mainly on ecosystems and therefore sustainability in my experience has mainly focused on minimizing or preventing environmental impacts and hasn’t really included economic, social or cultural aspects. I totally understand the importance of including these aspects, but I think how they are included in the Brundtland reports definition is problematic. It’s nice to hear that more literature is critical of this definition, I’d like to learn more about these alternate definitions as it would be great to find a definition of sustainability that I am comfortable with – especially given the theme of our master’s program. I also hadn’t really considered the separation between quality of life and wellbeing until reading your reflection. Perhaps that is a cultural perspective that I have inherited, but thinking about it more in depth, I agree that it should be seen as two parts of overall health. Health in our colonial culture seems to just focus on physical wellbeing and less on mental or emotional well-being which is closely intertwined with quality of life. Thinking back to Lael Parrot’s presentation, I am reminded of how our health is also closely connected to the landscapes that we inhabit. Viewing health as more holistic with all of these different aspects I think would be hugely beneficial in a variety of ways, especially in terms of sustainability.

Ian Chambers I really enjoyed Melissa’s presentation and the introduction to the Envision framework that she presented. I was totally unaware of Envision before this presentation and was really impressed with the number of aspects it took into consideration. I’ve always viewed development as a kind of antithesis to sustainability but the Envision framework and Melissa’s presentation challenged my understanding and made me think of development as a tool to help achieve sustainable goals. The plot that Melissa presented of the worlds biocapacity versus the human development index really stood out to me. Not a single country was high on the development index and below the global biocapacity which I think is why I’ve viewed development as opposing sustainability. For our quality of life, we need to be high on the human development index but for global health we need to be below the worlds biocapacity. Development doesn’t have to oppose sustainability; smart and innovative infrastructure can couple these aspects to help achieve both. Envision sounds like a fantastic framework that can help produce these projects that meet sustainability goals while enriching our lives. Another point that Melissa brought up that really stuck with me was when she talked about building for the future. Infrastructure has a relatively long lifespan making it necessary to plan for the future. Projects must meet the current demands but also be flexible enough to adapt to future needs. I had never really considered infrastructure as being adaptable before, but Melissa’s presentation really highlighted the need for this feature. I also found it really interesting when Melissa was talking about the challenges to sustainable infrastructure. One of the challenges she brought up was the lack of information and the shortages in data and benchmarks for infrastructure projects which makes it hard to gauge how a project should be performing. I thought this was really interesting as there are plenty of infrastructure projects around the world so I would have assumed there was plenty of data to match. Also, infrastructure is largely publicly funded, so we should have access to data from these projects. I wonder why this type of information isn’t readily available, having access to it would let us see how current projects are performing and aim to create new projects that perform better. Joshua Ayer Hi Ian! I also had never heard of envision before and found Melissa's presentation very informative. I like the point you brought up about not the longevity of infrastructure and how this is inherently different from private sector projects, as infrastructure is both publicly funded and intended to last a very long time. The other difference your reflection made me think of is between the needs that public infrastructure is theoretically addressing versus those of the private sector; presumably the private sector is fulfilling the market needs, or creating it, but in some manner are temporary and dependent upon investors, consumers, demand, etc. whereas the public infrastructure is intended for services that are more persistent, such as waste treatment centers and highways. It just makes me think about what would have to change in not only the incentives but also the type of goods/services being provided to make projects like those developed in consultation with Envision more widespread. Of course, as you bring up, flexibility is a necessary part of the future, and I also really enjoyed this point in Melissa's presentation, it reminded me of some circular economy projects I've seen where entire buildings are designed to be disassembled and re-assembled in completely new units from the same pieces. The idea of not just building things to last but change and evolve with the world is fascinating.