The Sustainability Imperative - Sustainable Design: The Science of Sustainability and Green Engineering - page 242

settle as the sheet flow enters the impounded water before reaching the yard
inlet. Once the water and the sediment arrive, physical and biological processes
go to work on the chemical compounds: filtering (sand beds and soil), sorbing
(roots, soil, mulch, and ground cover), and transpiring (larger plants). These
processes are complemented by microbial decomposition on and under the soil
surface, along with nutrient removal that occurs in the root zone of diverse
plant life. These processes act together to improve water quality.
Source : The principal source for this discussion and the source of the figure is the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, “The greening curve: lessons learned in the design of the new EPA
campus in North Carolina.” EPA 220/K-02/001, 2001.
Environmental quality continues to be used, knowingly or innocently, to work
against fairness: Ironically, people who are likely to be exposed to the hazards
brought about by land-use decisions often do not participate in identifying and
selecting options before land-use decisions are made. This is a type of “vexa-
tion without representation.” In fact, since everything designers do may have an
impact on health, safety, and welfare, inclusiveness should be standard operating
procedure for all designs that potentially affect the public. Green design profes-
sionals can help continue to raise their client's appreciation of fairness and justice,
as well as the improvement in the “bottom line” that can result from strong en-
vironmental programs. Sustainable design is gaining ground, so that professionals
are called upon less to “sell” green programs, and more to provide reasonable and
integrated design options. We simply must be attentive that even green plans can
be unfair.
It is incorrect to conclude that the only way that environmental injustice oc-
curs is financial. Certainly, ample cases can be found where the profit motive
and its driving corporate decisions have driven the choice to site environmentally
hazardous facilities where people are less likely to complain. However, public
decisions have also brought lower socioeconomic communities into environ-
mental harms way. Although public agencies such as housing authorities and
public works administrations do not have a profit motive per se, they do need to
address budgetary and policy considerations. If open space is cheaper and certain
neighborhoods are less likely to complain (or by extension, vote against elected
officials), the “default” for unpopular facilities such as landfills and hazardous
waste sites may be to locate them in lower-income neighborhoods where they
are less likely to attract attention. Elected and appointed officials and bureaucrats
may be more likely to site other types of unpopular projects, such as public hous-
ing projects, in areas where complaints are less likely to be put forth or where
land is cheaper.