‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Costs of inaction (CI) analysis [Chapter 7]
To create a more positive problem-identifying and opportunity-creating approach to planning 
and design, we need to identify the ongoing costs of designed waste that eco-retrofitting and eco-
innovation could address. CI analysis can also be used to prioritize problems to address, and to put 
eco-retrofitting projects on an equal footing in cost–benefit type considerations. CI analysis would 
consider such matters as the following:
•
It is often argued that we cannot change to solar energy because of the infrastructure and
jobs already allocated to fossil fuels; that is, we consider the sunk cost when deciding to invest
in fossil fuel research and development (a risky public investment).
• 
We seldom count the public funds already spent in cleaning up the externalities of fossil fuel
and nuclear sources of energy, but we do count the public funds already invested in solar
energy as a negative, even though solar energy avoids many of the externalities of fossil fuels.
• 
Impact assessments do not ‘weigh in’ the relative benefits of natural systems and their
potential to replace high-maintenance, capital-intensive urban infrastructure. Approvals are
still based on relativity, not sustainability.
• 
On a pristine site, no ecological ‘compensation’ is required, only social compensation,
because we cannot increase the carrying capacity of nature. Also, green field development
can, in some cases, make it easier to claim ‘offsets’ (such as locating near public transport).
• 
Existing development control and rating tools are biased towards green field development
because they ignore embodied waste. Using criteria based on new buildings will favour new
buildings.
Step 5: Consider ‘How and What’ to Trace and Measure 
For comprehensive ‘rurban’ and ‘glocal’ planning purposes, identifying waste, linear flows or 
imbalances in inputs or outputs is not adequate. A complete regional planning exercise or audit 
requires questioning basic planning assumptions. A SmartMode approach would therefore make 
the assumptions of a study explicit, and question the determination of any systems boundaries or 
parameters. Such questions hopefully provide a ‘reality check’.

---

262
Positive Development