Sustainable communities exist due to the efforts of concerned city leaders and involved citizens. There is no one-size-fits-all solution or operating manual to guide communities when developing a sustainable initiative. This chapter will explore four elements innovation leaders should consider to help accomplish sustainable initiatives. These four elements are: destination, collaboration, evaluation, and education. There is no particular order of application of these four items as when placed into action, some or all of them may even be exercised at the same time. This chapter will review how these four elements were instrumental in Dubuque, Iowa’s sustainable changes.

Innovation is critical for long term survival of an organization (Janssen, 2000; Imran, 2011). Innovative behavior is an intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas. The method of sustainable community implementation is a new approach to encourage positive community development. Doloitte’s (2013) research concluded sustainability drives innovation in a significant way. It has been determined that sustainable leaders are likely to be similar to innovation leaders. Even if an organization did not have a specific process for innovation, just including sustainability in a group’s thinking process generated value (Doloitte, 2013). Thus, innovation leaders can help to drive sustainability initiatives as they provide a different perspective to analyze a situation. City leaders, as well as residents, are interested in maintaining a strong vibrant community to live in, which will be inviting to travelers and future residents.

Description

Sustainability is a new complex science harmoniously synchronizing economic, social, and ecological studies (Todorov and Marinova, 2011; Kates et al., 2001; Norgaard, 1994). The combination of these three disciplines has become known as the triple bottom line. The concept of sustainability is most often associated with the 1987 Brundtland report which described sustainability as “meeting the need of the present without comprising the needs of the future” (United Nations, 1987: para.2). Prior to the notable Brundtland report, Senator Henry Jackson in 1969 introduced a Senate bill stating the purpose of the Environmental Act was to “lay the framework for a continuing program of research and study which will ensure the present and future generations of Americans will be able to live in and enjoy an environment free of hazards to mental and physical well-being” (Luther, 2005: p. 4). Senator Jackson’s bill is now known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the first United States environmental policy. NEPA was signed by President Nixon in 1970.

The term sustainability may be relatively new, but city leaders for over a century have been interested in developing clean, heathy, productive communities. Issues discussed during the first National City Planning Conference in 1909 were similar to issues today: public health, wilderness protection, conservation of natural resources and urban parks (Daniels, 2009; Meck and Retzlaff, 2009). Cities in the progressive period, during the late 1800s to early1900s, were experiencing fast growth leading to challenges such as air-pollution from factories, sanitation issues from horse drawn transportation, water contamination from minimal sewage treatment systems, and conservation of natural resources (Daniels, 2009). Attendees of the 1909 National City Planning Conference did not speak of sustainability but rather discussed city beautification, garden cities, and conservation of natural resources. Howard (1902) published Garden Cities of Tomorrow in which he presented a plan to improve health, natural resources, and economics for city residents. Howard’s Garden city was a combination of good attributes from country and city life while balancing development to protecting nature (Howard, 1902). Howard’s intent resembles the intent of sustainability.

City leaders of today just as leaders of the past are concerned about the vibrancy of the community coupled with the health and wellbeing of the residents. Sustainable leaders are prepared to respond to a complex world (Ferdig, 2007). Traditionally, leaders focused on a particular area or discipline (Trickett and Lee, 2010). Sustainable leaders, in contrast, consider the impact on the organization by all three elements of the triple bottom line: profit, people and the planet (Tideman, Arts and Zandeem, 2013; Quinn and Baltes, 2007). Newtonian physics and Darwinian biology place humans as the superior survivors above the natural environment, economy, and social elements, but now organizations consider themselves as a non-autonomous part; inseparable from the social, economic, and natural environment. Long term survival of organizations will require strong leaders who recognize interdependence with stakeholders and the ecological systems; possess exceptional moral courage; and are open minded long range planners (Mackey, 2007; Tideman, Arts and Zandeem, 2013).

Siciliano (2012) explained leadership as a process of influencing people; leaders must not harm their followers but motivate the entire organization in healthy productive endeavors. Sustainable leaders do not have to have a formal leadership role in a city rather they can be regular citizens striving to take account for their impact on the local and global environment, society and economics (Ferdig, 2007). Ferdig explained sustainable leaders operate on an expanded view of how the complex universe operates which includes realizing paradox, contradictions, and view point differences are natural characteristics of healthy human network interaction. Though it can be challenging to contend with conflict while working with different viewpoints, sustainable leaders must be able to put their egos aside and consider the many perspectives of a situation and allow concepts to meld together for a rewarding result. Sharing knowledge and insight is characteristic of sustainable leaders. Both good and bad is to be shared as it allows others to learn from their mistakes and make improvements to success (Ferdig, 2007; Ferdig and Ludema, 2005).

Leaders must realize actions in one area of an organization may have adverse implications in other areas (Ferdig, 2007). No single action is isolated, but is intrinsically linked with other results. While traditional leadership skills; strategic thinking, contingency planning, communicating, and coordinating remain critical, the sustainable leader engages other leaders to make a sustainable impact on the organization and community (Ferdig, 2007). Adverse repercussions can be reduced when leaders from different areas with similar desires collaborate, explore, learn, and devise a realistic course of action (Ferdig, 2007). Sustainable leadership requires a holistic approach where everything is connected.

The story

Cities around the world are addressing sustainability in different ways and for various reasons. Dubuque, Iowa will be briefly reviewed in part because of the city’s success in implementing sustainable practices but as an example of how it utilized innovative approaches to achieve sustainable goals. Dubuque’s successful history reveals four elements of sustainable leadership were utilized repeatedly. These four sustainable leadership elements: destination, collaboration, evaluation, and education may be applied repeatedly and in different orders as will be seen in the following case study.

Dubuque, Iowa, is a progressive community located in eastern Iowa on the Mississippi River with a population of approximately 58,000 people. Dubuque was not always a vibrant city. In the 1980s, it led the United States in unemployment (23 percent) which was attributed to the Midwest farm crisis and collapse of local manufacturing (Knight Foundation, 2013). The city of Dubuque set sustainability as a priority goal in 2006 when Mayor Roy D. Buol received full City Council support to focus on sustainability. Dubuque began its sustainable transformation by involving individuals from the city and surrounding community. The City Council approval to create a city-wide taskforce which included individuals with diverse backgrounds: local government, schools, utility companies, religious organizations, neighborhood associations, youth groups, non-profits, environmental organizations and business leaders. Nearly 900 community surveys were completed to gain insight on citizens’ needs and desires. Dubuque 2.0, a community engagement initiative, was started in 2009 by the Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque and Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce. Dubuque 2.0 represents over 1,400 businesses and 400 non-profits to inspire sustainability throughout the community, implementing projects like the Sustainability Challenge, community cafes, and a Green Asset Map. The Dubuque 2.0 Foundation identified what they called the missing link: awareness and participation of individual residents. The foundation joined forces with City Hall’s Sustain Dubuque and area businesses such as IBM (Knight Foundation, 2013). Many different approaches were utilized to engage citizens and learn directly from individuals about what was working and their recommended changes. Some of the engagement activities include: community cafés, resident surveys, personal resource use, online and offline community games. Community cafés held in participating restaurants provided residents an opportunity to discuss sustainable issues. Generally 30–50 people attended events resulting in greater understanding and regulation change support. Surveys assisted in identifying community priorities, and gaps in resources and services. Personalized resource use data, a pilot program, allowed users to compare their water and electrical use. Online and offline community games encouraged action in learning, in contrast to passive observation. Participants learned ways to reduce their carbon and water footprints. Cash prizes and a point system provided incentive for behavior changes (Knight Foundation, 2013). These are just a few tools Dubuque has utilized to educate community members.

The Dubuque Sustainable Initiative raised awareness about the importance of measuring community sustainability. In 2011, the City of Dubuque determined that a single model was not sufficient and partnered with the University of Iowa School of Urban and Regional Planning. This partnership stimulated the development of 60 qualitative and quantitative indicators relating to 11 principle areas of sustainability. Their indicators did not provide a firm rating of a community’s sustainability. Rather the data reported Dubuque’s historical trend and how it correlated to selected comparison cities. The indicator project provided insight on what was going well in the community and potential areas to focus on for the future. Concluding remarks in Dubuque’s Sustainability Progress Report 2012 state that goals should be set and regular data updates should be completed to more effectively monitor changes.

In 2014, Dubuque joined the STAR Community network and began collecting more data. On April 2, 2015 a 4-STAR rating was achieved. Due to the dynamics of the data, the STAR Community Rating lasts for three years after the award date. Ratings range from 1 to 5-STAR with a 5-STAR being the highest rating. Participating communities may select measures from a list on which to report data, therefore it is not a true head-to-head comparison as each community could have a different combination of indicators. It is a rating not a ranking system (STAR Communities, 2016).

The City of Dubuque shares best practices with other cities and initiated a sustainable conference called Growing Sustainable Communities in 2005. The conference hosts national and global speakers for public- and private-sector leaders with an interest in sustainability. Dubuque is also a participant in the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) Heartland Local Government Sustainability Network. USDN (2016) allows local government sustainable professionals from the United States and Canada to share best practices and to promote urban solutions. Plastric and Parzen (2012) explained a typical reason for establishing a network is peer-to-peer exchange and learning. Peer learning is an initial step to pursuing more difficult tasks such as inventing solutions and influencing state and federal policy makers (Plastric and Parzen, 2012). Sustainable insight is also passed on to other communities through published documents, web sites, conferences, networking and conversation.

Sustainable Dubuque is a community-created, citizen-led initiative. Under the 2006 umbrella initiative which set sustainability as a priority Dubuque developed goals and objectives. Indicator data has been collected and evaluated to help monitor and guide future projects. Success is attributed to Dubuque’s balanced long-term life quality approach where no one in the community is left out. Dubuque’s sustainability commitment has led to greater awareness “that our community is like an ecosystem, where everything is truly linked to everything” (Carstens, 2010: 11). The City of Dubuque is continually expanding awareness, creating partnerships and encouraging community involvement (Sustainable Dubuque, 2012).

Discussion

Today’s sustainable leaders recognize, as Howard did in his 1902 Garden City Plan, the importance of addressing the three areas of economics, culture, and environment for the development of a vibrant city which would improve the quality of life for people and help maintain the resources for future generations. Since it is difficult for one individual to possess all of this knowledge, communities should consider utilizing a sustainable leadership team to orchestrate environmental community development. Sixteen of Chicago’s City Center of Sustainability managers felt having diverse skills in their organization brought broader solution opportunities for projects (Young, 2010). The Chicago city managers realized the value of multi-disciplinary working together as did city leaders in Dubuque, IA. The City of Dubuque developed a comprehensive plan that integrated the three pillars of sustainability. Dubuque’s use of the sustainability pillars along with a multi-disciplinary focused task force, transformed its community into a leader of sustainability.

The characteristics of sustainable leadership which will be discussed below align with Ferdig’s (2007) thoughts about what sustainable leaders can do to be more successful: collaborate, explore, learn, and devise a realistic course of action. The order of the four items is not indicative of a step process or priority of importance as sustainable leaders apply these four items continually and sometimes all at the same time through a planning process. The four critical elements of developing a strong healthy community where people want to live are:

Destination/goal: More is accomplished when organizations have established goals. Leaders have defined a direction of what needs to be accomplished next and what the organization is to accomplish. Mapes and Wolch (2011) explained the breadth and depth of a sustainable community was due to the goals and outcome. Establishment of goals allowed communities to impact not only neighborhoods but individuals. In some situations the sustainable initiative impact can go beyond the city. Sustainability generally does not just happen; it needs a plan to provide guidance. Adger and Jordan (2009) explain a direction needs to be carefully thought through and deliberated over prior to execution. Sustainable progress should satisfy all partners (Esty and Winston, 2009). Establishing a target allows not only the sustainability committee but the whole city administration and city residents to recognize the goal and align themselves to help achieve desired results.

Dawn Rittenhouse, DuPont’s Director of Sustainable Development, explained that setting seemingly impossible goals, like zero or beyond zero, encourages strategic thinking and transformation in the organization. Stretch goals may not be met immediately but in the long run more is accomplished (Tebo, 2015; Esty and Winston, 2009). Setting what may seem like an impossible stretch goal may be an extreme approach, but it goes along with the thought more is accomplished if a goal has been determined. Establishing a direction allows much more to be achieved. Caution should be exercised when setting goals so that they are not too extreme as the goals should never overextend the organization’s ability. Esty and Winston (2009) expressed that once the goal is publicized, it is no longer voluntary. Stakeholders will be expecting change and may be disappointed if they do not see progress.

Collaboration: Sustainable leaders have been realizing that everything is connected (Carstens, 2010; Ferdig, 2005). Complex interconnectivity of sustainable issues lends itself to system thinking (Hunting and Tilbury, 2006). Traditional analysis separates an individual element. Jay Forrester (1998), the father of system thinking, explained systems dynamics in contrast to traditional analysis as a dynamic complex process which considers the impact the single element has on the various parts of the whole system (Aronson, 1996; León, 2008; Trombulak, 2016). There is no end to the systems as the systems thinking process attempts to review the impact the single element has on each aspect of a system. It is a very comprehensive look at relationships between various components in an organization. Systems thinking is a rather big concept when a person pauses to consider their implications. Everything is interconnected and it could be impossible to assess the interconnectedness of a situation (Senge, n.d.). Sustainable leaders, when developing plans, should work with and consider as many stakeholders as practical.

Sustainable partnerships will require leaders to breakdown traditional silos/compartments between interdisciplinary strategies, departments, and government agencies. Benton-Short and Cseh (2015) explain that sustainable community plans include key leaders from various municipal departments such as parks and recreation, engineering, zoning, sanitation, and many others. Local community organizations and non-profit groups can assist municipalities gain public input by way of community meetings and workshops; this was undertaken in the development of extensive plans (Benton-Short and Cseh, 2015). Strong working relationships are needed between industry, government, and non-profit and general public. The United States government has led by example. On June 16, 2009 EPA, HUD and DOT joined to improve access to affordable housing, provide more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment (EPA, 2010). Positive communication between groups can help assure all relevant resources are being utilized. Coordination between groups can also help minimize cost, reduce redundancy, and minimize conflict (EPA, 2016). People in every aspect of a project need to work together as the project could include multiple departments which in the traditional work structure have been isolated from each other. It could mean different government agencies such as city, township, county, and state would need to work together to minimize an adverse impact on citizens.

Tideman, Arts, and Zandee (2013) point out that the values of business, the economy, the environment, and society are no longer separate. This requires leaders to modify their traditional problem solving approaches. A dynamic process described by Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011) as ‘creating shared value’ allows the stakeholder’s economic and social values to be considered to develop new opportunities. Social values cover a range of areas similar to sustainability: environmental impact, energy use, health, and safety just to mention a few. Businesses such as GE, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson and Johnson, Nestlé, Unilever, and Walmart have experienced profit by requiring their leaders to develop a deeper appreciation for societal needs and to collaborate across profit/non-profit boundaries. Internal and external municipal collaborations will lead to more successful sustainable plans in part due to the comprehensive input but also each party will be able to educate others about how issues can impact different entities (Benton-Short and Cseh, 2015).

The sustainable leader’s role in working with multiple departments and disciplines inside and outside the community offices is just as critical for the success of the environmental project as influencing the local citizens (Bossink, 2007). These leaders should be strategic thinkers with exceptional moral courage who can withstand scrutiny and criticism while being instrumental in establishing long term goals and procedures. Senge et al. (2008) explained that collaboration is about relationships that demonstrate genuine caring and mutual vulnerability. The three capabilities of collaboration, convening, listening, and nurturing a shared commitment, are not always easy to accomplish. Hard work and the best of people are needed as participants to work between departments and or organizations.

Measure: A method of bringing understanding to a complex system is through the use of several measurements or indicators. Meadows (1998) explained indicators as means of measuring and monitoring things people care about and value. Developing indicators and monitoring change will help assist people to better understand a city’s intent (Mapes and Wolch, 2011; Johnson and Schaltegger, 2016). The complex nature of sustainability measuring or monitoring a community’s sustainability can be an extremely complex enduring process but a very important element of success.

Sustainable communities develop due to many items; this makes it difficult to limit what is measured. Sustainable indicators can never capture the full picture of a community’s sustainable efforts (Burbach, 2012). They can, however, help define key aspects of specific items (Pinter et al., 2005). Several models/methods of monitoring a community’s sustainable practices are being utilized, but there is not a definitive recognized standard with the possible exception of Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities (STAR Communities). STAR Communities, the first voluntary framework for evaluating liveability and sustainability of United States communities, was released in October 2012 (STAR Communities, 2013).

Indicator systems are comprised of quantitative and qualitative indices, which should address all three global systems: humanity, economy, and nature (Scerri and James, 2010). A sustainable model should assess one component against the other two components such as economy against humanity and nature. Sustainable development should synchronize and harmonize the economic, social, and ecological processes while remaining separate from the political sustainability development process (Todorov and Marinova, 2011; Pinter et al., 2005). Todorov and Marinova (2011) explain a sustainable global development system as a meta-system which is in a state of dynamic balance. The system is in a state of equilibrium which does not cause vibration/fluctuation. Indicator models should provide decision makers relevant, unbiased, and scientific evidence (Pinter et al., 2005; Hasna, 2009).

Various types of indicator models: (a) quantitative, (b) physical, (c) conceptual, and (d) standardized are available but can never capture the full sustainable story of a community (Todorov and Marinova, 2011; Burbach, 2012; Kline, 2000). As an example, an indicator may address the number of acres of wetlands that were lost but it does not investigate if wetlands lost were essential for (a) flood control, (b) wildlife habitat, or (c) city development (Kline, 2000). However, indicators have been known to promote interactive knowledge sharing, which in turn has led to building relationships enabling citizens to learn from each other. Mutual sharing of knowledge results in improving understanding and practices on a given sector of the community (Gonzalez et al., 2011). People who share knowledge/information share their values and allow communities to better evaluate situations and make better informed decisions which are more agreeable to all parties and will have a more positive result (Kline, 2000; Meadows, 1998). Sustainable indicators provide a solid basis for all levels of community decision-making and help communities be self-regulating if indicators are integrated with environmental and development systems (Ghosh et al., 2006; Meadows, 1998). Indicators have been a critical tool, helping people gain more control over their lives and ensure a healthier future for themselves and the next generation (Kline, 2000; Hasna, 2009; Yigitcanlar and Dur, 2009).

Share/educate: The science of sustainability is a relatively new concept. Sustainable community leaders will need to educate people from the city administration to the residents. Some people are completely unfamiliar with the term sustainability. Some recognize the concept by a different term while others believe it only relates to recycling household waste or using less fuel. It is therefore important to reinforce an understanding of sustainability as a complex system. Learning about sustainable communities involves understanding an interdependent and balanced relationship between society, culture, politics, and economics. Educators should focus on conveying the intent of sustainable practices, knowledge-sharing, and renewal. Sharing best practices with other communities and helping them learn from each other’s experiences will promote more improvement. Educating people about complex sustainable principles will allow them to understand the importance of engaging in sustainable practices. This continual educational process could be viewed as an extended appreciative inquiry process. Appreciative inquiry theory is, as explained by Cooperrider and Whitney (n.d.), an affirmative process where the union between people and the organization that they discuss comes together for a positive outcome. The group is able to analyze each of the multiple ideas then combine them for positive outcome which does not inversely impact anyone. The whole process builds knowledge and energy for the community and all other communities which learn from each other.

Sharing knowledge with other communities is important as it allows all parties to expand and improve. A partnership for Sustainable Cities was an idea during a 2009 meeting which developed into a firm commitment (Hoornweg and Freire, 2013). Seattle is a city known for implementing better sustainable policies which have helped to promote competiveness, attract business and deal with pollution, and so is known as a good learning city. Since 1993, Seattle has been cultivating relationships with cities to capture best practices.

One benefit from collaborating with multiple entities when working on a sustainable community project is the ability to gain knowledge. Businesses like IBM, Cisco Systems, and Philips have partnered with local communities by concentrating on particular areas of sustainability. For example, Philips’ Livable Cities Program focuses on how lighting can influence the quality of life, improve public safety, increase energy efficiency, and enhance mental health (Hoornweg and Freire, 2013). A critical role of sustainable leadership is to influence community citizens to be involved, committed and even take ownership of the project (Carstens, 2010).

Summary

Whatever the organization, there is a desire for leadership competencies to achieve superior organizational performance (Quinn and Baltes, 2007). Dubuque city leaders had a desire to improve their community for the residents. This realization prompted the utilization of innovation leadership to promote change and achieve a sustainable community. A community where residents would have economic security, a better quality of life and healthy ecosystems for many years into the future.

Four elements used for innovative sustainable development discussed in this chapter were: destination, collaboration, evaluation and education. Similarities can be seen in these four elements and the CREATE Model explained earlier in the book. Destination is setting a goal. Establishing a city sustainable goal helps the city departments focus on incorporating sustainable practices in their activities. A city goal also encourages all community organizations and individuals to concentrate their efforts. The complex nature of sustainability links multiple community entities together. Communities are like eco-systems (Carstens, 2019), making it critical that all stakeholders work together. Actions taken by one group can affect the whole community. Collection of solid data provides leaders the ability to make decisions based on sound information rather than perception. Leaders are able to evaluate data to identify priorities and monitor change. The last element addressed in this chapter was education. Sharing sustainable information within a community is as critical as passing it on to other cities. Reinforcing peoples’ understanding of the complexity of sustainability allows them to be more engaged resulting in a more positive impact.

Sustainability is not a rocket science but is a new science that intertwines humanity with old and new technologies (Scerri and James, 2010). Many tools are available which can assist sustainable development in a community, however at the base of each sustainable plan are four elements: destination, collaboration, evaluation, and education. These four items are always in play in a dynamic sustainable plan. A natural instinct is to always make improvements: in the case of a sustainable community there is desire to make innovative changes based on the triple bottom line resulting in improving the quality of life for all.

References

Adger, N and Jordan, A, 2009, Governing Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Aronson, D, 1996, Overview of Systems Thinking. Available at http://wwwthinkingnet/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticlepdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Bossink, BAG, 2007, ‘Leadership for sustainable innovation’, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 135–149.

Benton-Short, L, and Cseh, M, 2015, ‘Changing cities, changing culture’, Advances In Developing Human Resources, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 460–472.

Burbach, C, 2012, Creating the Sustainable City: A Community Engagement Strategy that’s Working. Available at http://mcgraw-hillresearchfoundationorg/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dubuque-paper-09_27_12-FINALSPpdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Carstens, L, 2010, ‘Defining, inspiring, and implementing sustainability’, National Civic Review, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 11–16.

Cooperrider, D and Whitney, D, n.d., A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry. Available at https://appreciativeinquirycaseedu/uploads/Whatisai.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Daniels, TL, 2009, ‘A trail across time: American environmental planning from city beautiful to sustainability’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 178–192.

Doloitte, 2013, ‘Sustainability Driven Innovation: Harnessing sustainability’s ability to spark innovation’. Available at http://wwwgreenproforg/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sustainability_Driven_Innovation_102513pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

EPA, 2010, ‘Partnership for sustainable communities: A year of progress for American communities’. Available at https://nepisepagov/Exe/ZyNETexe/P1008O9Dtxt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006%20Thru%202010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C06THRU10%5CTXT%5C00000021%5CP1008O9Dtxt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

EPA, 2016, ‘Framework for creating a smart growth economic development strategy: a tool for small cities and towns’. Available at https://wwwepagov/sites/production/files/2016–01/documents/small_town_econ_dev_tool_010516.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Esty, DC and Winston, AS, 2009, Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Ferdig, MA, 2007, ‘Sustainability Leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future’, Journal of Change Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–35.

Ferdig, MA and Ludema, JD, 2005, Transformative Interactions: Qualities of Conversation that Heighten the Vitality of Self-Organizational Change. Available at http://wwwsustainabilityleadershipinstituteorg/downloads/Ferdig_CH05.PDF [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Forrester, JW, 1989, The Beginning of System Dynamics. Available at http://webmitedu/sysdyn/sd-intro/D-4165-1.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Ghosh, S, Vale, R and Vale, B, 2006, ‘Indications from Sustainability Indicators’, Journal of Urban Design, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 263–275.

Gonzalez, A, Donnelly, A, Jones, M, Klostermann, J, Groot, A and Breil, M, 2011, ‘Community of practice approach to developing urban sustainability indicators’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 591–617.

Hasna, AM, 2009, ‘Ethics and sustainability in engineering’. Available at http://wwwinter-disciplinarynet/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Hasna-Paper1.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Hoornweg, D and Freire, M, 2013, Building Sustainability in an Urbanizing World. Washington, DC.

Howard, E, 1902, Garden City of Tomorrow. Available at http://wwwlibrarycornelledu/Reps/DOCS/howard.htm [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Hunting, SA and Tilbury, D, 2006, ‘Shifting towards sustainability: Six insights into successful organizational change for sustainability’, Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability, ARIES, Sydney.

Imran, R and Anis-ul-Haque, M, 2011, ‘Mediating effect of organizational climate between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior’, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 183–199.

Janssen, O, 2000, ‘Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behaviour’, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 287–302.

Johnson, MP and Schaltegger, S, 2016, ‘Two decades of sustainability management tools for SMEs: How far have we come?’, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 54, no. 2 pp. 481–505.

Kates, RW, Clark, WC, Corell, R, Hall, JM, Jaeger, CC, Lowe, I and Mooney, H, 2001, ‘Sustainability science’, Science, vol. 292, no. 5517, p. 641.

Kline, E, 2000, ‘Planning and creating eco-cities: indicators as a tool for shaping development and measuring’, Local Environment, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 343.

Knight Foundation, 2013, ‘Dubuque 20: How the community foundation of greater Dubuque used environmental information to spark citizen action’. Available at http://icmaorg/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/304684/Dubuque_20_How_the_Community_Foundation_of_Greater_Dubuque_Used_Environmental_Information_to_Spark_C [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

León, JA, 2008, ‘Systems thinking: the key for the creation of truly desired futures’, International Journal of Reality Therapy, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 15–20.

Luther, L, 2005, ‘The national environmental policy act: Background and implementation’, RL33152 Congressional Research Service: Report, 1–38. Available at http://wwwftadotgov/documents/Unit1_01CRSReport.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Mackey, J, 2007, ‘Conscious capitalism: Creating a new paradigm for business’. Available at http://wwwwholeplanetfoundationorg/files/uploaded/John_Mackey-Conscious_Capitalism.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Mapes, J and Wolch, J, 2011, ‘Living green: The promise and pitfalls of new sustainable communities’, Journal of Urban Design, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 105–126.

Meadows, D, 1998, ‘Indicators and information systems for sustainable development Balton Group’. Available at http://wwwsustainabilityinstituteorg/pubs/Indicators&Information.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Meck, S and Retzlaff, RC, 2009, ‘A familiar ring: A retrospective on the first national conference on city planning 1909’, Planning & Environmental Law, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 3–10.

Meck, S and Retzlaff, RC, 2012, ‘President Jimmy Carter’s urban policy: A reconstruction and an appraisal’, Journal of Planning History, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 242–280.

Norgaard, R, 1994, Development Betrayed: Then End of the Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future, Routledge Chapman & Hall, New York.

Pinter, L, Hardi, P and Bartelmus, P, 2005, ‘Indicators of sustainable development: proposals for a way forward’. Available at http://wwwiisdorg/pdf/2005/measure_indicators_sd_way_forward.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Plastrik, P and Parzen, J, 2012, Urban Sustainability Directors Network, USDN, Regional Network Development Guidebook. Available at http://usdnorg/uploads/cms/documents/usdn-regional-network-development-guidebook.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Porter, ME and Kramer, MR, 2006, ‘Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 78–92.

Porter, ME and Kramer, MR, 2011, ‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 62–77.

Scerri, A and James, P, 2010, ‘Accounting for sustainability: Combining qualitative and quantitative research in developing indicators of sustainability’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 41–53.

Senge, P, (n.d.), Systems Thinking. Available at https://wwwsolonlineorg/?page=SystemsThinking [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Senge, P, Kruschwitz, K, Laur, J and Schley, S, 2008, The Necessary Revolution: Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, Broadway Books: New York.

Siciliano, V, 2012, ‘Leadership beyond the triple bottom line’, Sustainable Industries. Available at http://sustainableindustriescom/articles/2012/03/leadership-beyond-triple-bottom-line [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

STAR Communities, 2013, ‘History & development’. Available at http://wwwstarcommunitiesorg/rating-system/history [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

STAR Communities, 2016, ‘Dubuque, IA recognized for sustainability excellence’.Available at http://wwwstarcommunitiesorg/press-releases/dubuque-ia-recognized-for-sustainability-excellence/ [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Sustainable Dubuque, 2012, ‘Creating a national model for sustainability’. Available at http://wwwcityofdubuqueorg/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2702 [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Tebo, P, 2015, ‘Sustainable Scotland network annual conference’. Available at https://wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=9q0mAjxnOtA [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Tideman, SG, Arts, MC and Zandee, DP, 2013, ‘Sustainable Leadership’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 49, pp. 17–33.

Todorov, V and Marinova, D, 2011, ‘Modelling Sustainability’, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 1397–1408.

Trickett, L and Lee, P, 2010, ‘Leadership of subregional places in the context of growth’, Policy Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 429–440.

Trombulak, S, 2016, ‘Jay Forrester, the father of systems thinking’. Available at http://sitesmiddleburyedu/schooloftheenvironment/category/systems-thinking/ [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Quinn, L and Baltes, J, 2007, ‘Leadership and the triple bottom line’. Available at https://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/tripleBottomLine.pdf [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

United Nations, 1987, ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment And Development’. Accessed at http://wwwunorg/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

USDN, 2016, ‘Connecting people fostering innovation’. Available at http://usdnorg/homehtml?returnUrl=%2findex.html [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Yigitcanlar, T and Dur, F, 2009, ‘Developing a sustainability assessment model: the sustainable infrastructure, land-use, environment and transport model of sustainability’. Available at http://eprintsquteduau/38638/ [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Young, RF, 2010, ‘The greening of Chicago: Environmental leaders and organizational learning in the transition toward a sustainable metropolitan region’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1051–1068.