Evergreen economies: institutions, industries and issues in the green economy

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content

EVERGREEN ECONOMIES:

INSTITUTIONS, INDUSTRIES, AND ISSUES IN THE GREEN ECONOMY

by

Laurie Kaye

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Laurie Kaye
ii
Dedication

For Helen--my mother, my inspiration, and my best friend.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the University of Southern California, and the Price School
of Public Policy for allowing me the opportunity to pursue a Ph.D. degree. I would also
like to thank the University for their extremely generous financial support over the last
four years. I am honored by this investment in myself, and in my future.
I would also like to acknowledge the invaluable support of several faculty
members at USC. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair and
advisor Professor Daniel Mazmanian for his patience, counsel, guidance, and support
throughout this process. I would also like to acknowledge Professor Manuel Pastor and
Professor Elizabeth Currid-Halkett for serving on my dissertation committee. Finally, I
would also like to thank Professor Lisa Schweitzer and Professor Yan Tang for serving
on my guidance committee, and for their invaluable input on the dissertation proposal.
Lastly, I would like to thank my mother for her support and sense of humor.

iv
Table of Contents

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables x
Abstract xv

Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Literature Review and Theory Development 7
Briefly Defining Governance 9
Briefly Defining Institutionalism 11
Moving Towards Sustainability: An Institutionally-
Driven Governance Approach

12
Institutionally-Driven Sustainable Governance:
Green Jobs Movement
21
Methodology and Research Design 29
Unit of Analysis 30
Defining the Dependent Variable 33
Methodological Approach 35

Chapter 1: Towards and Institutional Analysis of Green Jobs at the
Metropolitan Level: Institutional Factors Implementing Green
Economic Development in Large Urban Areas

42
Contextual Analysis of Institutional Factors 45
What is the Relationship Between the Level of
Economic Development and the Presence of Green
Jobs?

47
What is the Relationship Between Sustainability
Programs and Green Jobs?

57
What is the Relationship Between Green Jobs and
Environmental Organizations?

61
Conclusion 67
Defining a Green Economy Typology 69
Developing the Typology 70
Interest and Investment in Green Jobs by Urban
Types
93
Conclusion to Chapter 1 118

Chapter 2: Case Study Analysis 137
Introduction to Case Study Analysis 137
Methodology Overview 139
Case Study Selection Based on Dependent Variable 139
v
Case Study Evaluation Methodology: Economic
Development and Institutional Analysis

152
Understanding Green Jobs Distribution: Economic
Development Analysis

154
Independent Variables: Institutional Linkages to the
Green Metropolitan Economy

191
Green Economy Institutional Analysis: Policy, Planning,
and Stakeholder Analysis of the Green Economy

194
Formal Government Approaches to Green
Jobs/Sustainable Governance

195
Nongovernment/Nonprofit Organizations and
Alliances

198
Conclusion to Methodology 203
Case Study Analysis: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA,
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA, San
Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA

205
San Francisco-Oakland Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area
205
Boston-Cambridge Quincy Metropolitan Statistical
Area

302
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan
Statistical Area

391
Case Study Conclusions: Understanding the Green
Economy in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana,
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, and San Francisco-
Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Areas

469

Chapter 3: Conclusions from the Dissertation 516
Main Dissertation Conclusions 516
Framing the Green Economy Movement 523
Framing the Green Economy as an Environmental
Issue

524
Framing the Green Economy as an Economic
Development Issue

525
Framing the Green Economy as a Sustainability
Issue: Integrating Environmental and Economic
Growth

528
Green Economy Regimes: Conclusions Regarding Green
Economy Stakeholder Environment

538
Sketching the Stakeholder Environment 540
Policy Dimensions of the Green Economy 566
Green Economy Policy Types 566
Developing a Green Economy Policy Framework by
Policy Types

575
vi
Linking Framings, Policies, Stakeholders in
Implementing Evergreen Economies

589
Green Collared Jobs Framings, Alliances, and
Policies

590
Green Business Framings, Alliances, and Policies 591
Operationalizing the Framework: Towards a Green
Economy Plan

593

Bibliography 598

Appendix: Included Hyperlinks 607

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1: C a mpbell’s P la nne rs Tr ian g le 3

F ig u re 2: “ Gr e e n J obs” Tr e nds” 46

Figure 3: Green Employment Versus Median Income 40

Figure 4: Green Employment Per Capita and Median Income 51

Figure 5: Green Jobs Versus People in Poverty 53

Figure 6: Relationship Between Per Capita Green Employment and
Poverty Rate

54

Figure 7: Correlations: Pearson and Spearman Correlations for Wealth
and Green Jobs Variables

55

Figure 8: Sustainability Programs Versus Green Jobs 58

Figure 9: Environmental Nonprofits Versus Green Employment 63

Figure 10: Green Jobs Per Capita Versus Environmental Orgs Per Capita 66

Figure 11: Developing the Typology 72

Figure 12: Welch Test Across Urban Types 73

Figure 13: Welch Test 75

Figure 14: Median Income Across Urban Type 75

Figure 15: Population Across Urban Type 76

Figure 16: Sustainability Across Urban Type 76

Figure 17: Sustainability Rankings by City 77

Figure 18: Median Income By City 78

Figure 19: Cities By Urban Type 81

Figure 20: Green Jobs Per Capita By Urban Type 90

viii
Figure 21: Green Jobs By Urban Type 91

Figure 22: Green Jobs By City 92

Figure 23: Green Jobs References by Urban Type 96

Figure 24: Green Jobs References Descriptives by Urban Type 97

Figure 25: Green Jobs References by City 117

Figure 26: Correlations Across Institutional Variables 120

Figure 27: Environmental Organizations by Urban Type 123

Figure 28: Environmental Organizations per 10,00 by Urban Type 123

Figure 29: Environmental Organizations by City 124

Figure 30: Graph of Actual Versus Predicted Location Quotients 132

Figure 31: Understanding the Green Economy 156

Figure 32: San Francisco Sustainability 237

Figure 33: Oakland Sustainability 266

Figure 34: Boston Sustainability 391

Figure 35: Los Angeles Sustainability 416

Figure 36: Green Economy Clusters Per Capita Employment by MSA 472

Figure 37: Green Economy Clusters Per Capita Establishments by MSA 473

Figure 38: Green Economy San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA 474

Figure 39: Green Economy Clusters Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 475

Figure 40: Green Economy Clusters Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
MSA

476

ix
Figure 41: Sustainability Values and Green Jobs Stakeholders 542

Figure 42: Framing the Green Economy Movement 558

Figure 43: Green Economy Plan 597

x
List of Tables

Table 1: City Characteristics by Urban Typology 87

Table 2: Unsustainable Underdogs 98

Table 3: Struggling Startups 101

Table 4: Green Boutiques 106

Table 5: Lagging Leviathans 110

Table 6: Green Giants 113

Table 7: Regression Equations for Green Jobs Per Capita 127

Table 8: Actual versus Predicted Green Jobs Location Quotients 129

Table 9: Regression Equations for Green Jobs References 134

Table 10: Green Jobs by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2006 141

Table 11:Clean-Tech Jobs Ranked by Metropolitan Statistical Area 142

Table 12: Selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas 143

Table 13: Commitment to Sustainability/Incidence of Sustainability
Programs

143

Table 14: Main Green Collared Jobs Alliance Membership Within
Cities/Metropolitan Statistical Areas

146

Table 15: Business and Environmental Associations 148

Table 16: Case Study Selection Table 150

Table 17: Green Economy as Defined by Industry Code 162

Table 18: Occupations Related to The Green Economy 166

Table 19: Green Economy Clusters 180

Table 20: Policy Areas Linked to Broad Policy Areas 196
xi
Table 21: Green Economy Factors Across Cities in the San Francisco-
Oakland-Freemont MSA
206

Table 22: Occupational Location Quotients by San Francisco-Oakland-
Freemont MSA

209

Table 23: Green Occupations San Francisco MSA 215

Table 24: San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA County Business
Patterns

219

Table 25: San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA Location Quotients by
Employment

220

Table 26: San Francisco-Oakland Freemont MSA Location Quotient
Greater Than 1

221

Table 27: Green Industries in the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA 222

Table 28: Demographic Profile San Francisco, California 233

Table 29: Distribution of Nonprofit Groups City of San Francisco 248

Table 30: Demographic Characteristics Oakland, California 262

Table 31: Nonprofit Activity in City of Oakland 275

Table 32: San Francisco MSA: Linking Industry, Occupations, and
Policies

297

Table 33: Green Jobs Regimes: Alliances and Coalitions in San Francisco
MSA

300

Table 34: Geographical Distribution of Green Employment Indicators
Boston Cambridge Quincy MSA

303

Table 35: Occupational Analysis Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 305

Table 36: Green Occupations Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 311

Table 37: County Business Patterns Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 314

Table 38: Location Quotients Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 315

xii
Table 39: Boston Cambridge-Quincy MSA Location Quotients Greater
than 1

316

Table 40: Green Occupational Analysis Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 319

Table 41: Demographics Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 328

Table 42: Nonprofit Environment Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 351

Table 43: Green Economy Alliances Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA 353

Table 44: Linking Industries, Occupations and Policies Boston
Cambridge-Quincy MSA

388

Table 45: Green Economy Indicators Across Cities in Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana MSA

392

Table 46: Occupational Clusters Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
MSA

394

Table 47: Green Occupations Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA 398

Table 48: County Business Patterns Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
MSA

400

Table 49: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA Location Quotients
Greater Than 1

401

Table 50: Green Institutional Analysis Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana MSA

403

Table 51: City of Los Angeles Demographics 412

Table 52: Distribution of Nonprofit Groups City of Los Angeles 432

Table 53: Green Jobs Regimes Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
MSA

463

Table 54: Linking Policies, Occupations, and Industries Los Angeles-
Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
468

Table 55: Total Employment Differences by MSA per Green Economy
Clusters

471
xiii
Table 56: Sustainability Rankings of Cities In Selected MSA by
Sustainelane.com Categories

479

Table 57: Green Building and Construction Cluster Employment
Differences by MSA

482

Table 58: Green Building and Construction Cluster: Industries,
Occupations, and Policies Across MSAs

484

Table 59: Industry Details: Green Building and Construction Cluster 486

Table 60: Transportation and Alternative Fuel Cluster: Industry
Employment Differences by MSAs

491

Table 61: Transportation and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Cluster: Industries
and Occupations Across MSAs

492

Table 62: Transportation and Alternative Fuel Cluster: Occupations and
Industries Across MSAs

493

Table 63: Waste, Waste Management, and Recycling Cluster: Industries
Across MSAs

497

Table 64: Waste, Waste Management, and Recycling Cluster: Policies,
Industries, and Occupations Across MSAs.

498

Table 65: Waste, Waste Management, and Recycling Cluster: Industry
Totals and Occupations Across MSAs

499

Table 66: Environmental Compliance, Sustainability Planning, Pollution
Prevention Cluster: industries and Occupations

502

Table 67: Environmental Compliance, Sustainability Planning, Pollution
Prevention Cluster: Policies, Industries, and Occupations

506

Table 68: Energy Generation, Renewable Energy, Energy Storage
Cluster: Industry and Occupational Total Across MSAs

511

Table 69: Energy Generation, Renewable Energy, Energy Storage
Cluster: Policies, Industries and Occupations

514

Table 70: Green Economy Regimes 565

xiv
Table 71: Green Economy Policies By MSA 573

Table: 72: Linking Green Economy Framing, Coalitions, and Policies 593

xv
Abstract
My research e x a mi ne s the bur g e onin g “ gr e e n e c o nom y ” movem e nt at t he sub-
national scale. “ Gr e e n jo bs” a re a r g ua bl y a unique window on, a lesse r -explored aspect
of, a potential indicator of success, and a way of anchoring the discourse of
sust a inabili t y ’s trilog y o f e quit y , e c onomi c , a nd e nvironmen tal va lues. A lt houg h the re is
an established literature around sustainability, there is little scholarship and actionable
poli c ies a round the “ gr e e n e c onom y ” de spit e a f lu rr y of r e c e nt pol it ica l rh e toric a nd a myriad of imagined opportunities for mutually-beneficial ends. My research seeks to
begin to bridge this gap and to explain differences in the variation of green economic
opportunities within cities. Drawing from a predominately institutional perspective, I
utilize mixed methods to examine what institutional factors might account for differences
in the amount and type of green employment activities within metropolitan areas.
First, I utilize regression analysis of the 55 most populous, domestic cities and
c or oll a r y metr opoli tan st a ti sti c a l ar e a s in a n e x a mi na ti on of the dist ributi on of “ g re e n
emp lo y ment” a s def in e d b y the r e c e nt B rookin g s Instit uti on st ud y . Thr ou g h a c ontent
a na l y sis , I a lso provide a qua nti fic a ti on of the w a y in which the ter m “ g r e e n jobs” ha s
be e n incr e a sin g l y int e g ra ted into ea c h c it y ’s muni c ipal we bsit e . I th ereby identify the
manner through which “ g r e e n jobs ” h a ve be e n re f e re nc e d withi n the c it y ’s poli c y platfo rm a nd a lso i de nti f y spe c ific “ gr e e n jobs ini ti a ti ve s.” B y li nking thi s discussi on
with “green employment ” levels, I provide a typology of metropolitan areas.
Second, I utilize case study analysis of several metropolitan areas to examine the
relationship between institutions--including government agencies, policies, and nonprofit
xvi
alliances-- a nd the pr e va l e nc e a nd t y p e of “ gr e e n e mpl o y m e nt” w it hin seve r a l
metropolitan statistical areas domestically. In doing so, I also develop a framework for
qua nti f y in g a nd id e nti f y i ng “ gr e e n e c onomi c a c ti vit ies” ( including the d e v e lopm e nt of a “ gr e e n e c onom y ” fr a m e wor k a ppli c a ble to the St a nda rd O c c upa ti ona l C la ssi fic a ti on
(SOC) code and the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code) that
I believe is replicable across metropolitan statistical areas. Not all cities are equally
posi ti one d for the sa me v isi on of “ gr e e n jobs .” I identif y a pa c k a g e o f policie s and
programs that can be employed; I link such a package to the institutional reality of
disparate cities.
Through this approach, I identify and explain a compelling range of institutional
fa c tors a tt ributi n g to di ff e re nc e s in t he qua nti t y a n d diver sit y of “ g re e n e mp lo y ment.” The research contributes to the theory of sustainable development, as well as provides
rig or a nd de pth t o the pr a c ti c a l applica ti on of “ g re e n e c onom y ” g o a ls for c i ti e s and regions aiming to bol ster “ gr e e n e mpl o y m e nt” a nd c ur re ntl y f a c e d with a dearth of
methods a nd poli c ies f or qua nti f y in g “ gr e e n e mpl o y ment,” id e nti f y in g a re a s of
oppor tuni t y , a nd de v e lop ing e f fe c ti ve poli c y mec h a nism s to b olst e r “ g r e e n e mpl o y ment” within their jurisdictions.
1
Introduction
A. Introduction
Environmentalists, and especially progressive activists and the political
leadership, historically framed the disparate values and corresponding policy aims of
economic growth and environmental preservation as mutually exclusive. Development
decisions were characterized as a mutually exclusive choice between the economy,
e nvironmen t, and e quit y c onsi de ra ti ons. This “ iss ue f ra mi n g ” a nd/or g e rma ne bra nd o f
messaging drove a wedge between environmentalists and other progressives, including
labor interests seeking to protect workers and to foster economic development in their
c omm unit ies. This fr a mi ng a nd m e ssa g in g , ofte n re fe rr e d to a s “e c onom y ve rsus the
e nvironmen t,” f or e stalled the possibi li t y of e nviro nmenta li sts joi ning f or c e s with labor in
response to environmental pollution. Under this framing of progressive issues and the
corollary understanding of the nature of the development process at the outset of the
environmental movement in the 1970s, it follows that progressive activists seeking to
foster social justice were unable to form effective coalitions leading to the
implementation of sustainability measures (incorporating both environmental, economic
and equity-driven principals) well into the 1990s and beyond (Andrews, 1999;
Rosenbaum, 2002; Hays 2005).
A lack of leadership around sustainability and environmental preservation meant
(and currently, to much the same extent) that the same development that provided much-
needed job growth in a community was simultaneously negatively impacting the health of
the same population through the propagation of pollutants including criteria air pollutants
2
that directly lead to serious health impacts including cancer and asthma (Rodricks, 1992).
Economic goals were also underprovided. Rather than working together to forge new
strategies for green growth and mutually lobbying government actors to structure
environmental regulations in ways that will incentivize entrepreneurs to find the most
cost efficient strategies to meet standards, effective coalitions were not formed.
Resultantly, environmental regulations often failed to meet the grade by being overly
proscriptive (Rosenbaum, 2002). This conception of environmental preservation and
economic growth was a lose-lose proposition for communities; it has forestalled growth
and has overlooked critical business opportunities. In choosing between economic or
environmental goals, government institutions were unable to develop policy and planning
tools to effectively foster sustainable development in communities.
The conflicts in governance inherent to the conceptual and practical conflicts
emerging from development were most notably and aptly conceptualized by Scott
C a mpbell (1996) throu g h his construc ti on of the pla nne r’ s tri a n g le a nd the c or re spondi n g three principal conflicts that stand in the w a y of pl a nne rs a nd poli c y m a ke rs ’ pur suit of
sustainability goals. First, the property conflict juxtaposes economic growth and equity
in conflicts between the rich and the poor, including the competition between private and
public interest and classic disputes around gentrification. Second, the resources conflict
juxtaposes economic and ecological goals in conflicts around the priorities of natural
re sourc e s. This most c losel y a li g ns wit h the “ e nvir onment ve rsus e c onom y ” de ba tes of decades past. Third and finally, Campbell portrays the development process as a
ba lanc in g a c t betwe e n so c ial e quit y a nd e nvironm e ntal pr e se rva ti on. Thr ou g h Campbe ll ’s
3
visioning, the traditional goals and values of equity, economy, and environment can be
understood as sometimes in conflict with one another and theoretically and practically
disarticulated in different circumstances. The challenge of sustainability requires
comprehensively resolving the three bi-lateral challenges, as displayed in the figure
below, posed along each axis of the triangle of conflicts.

Figure 1:
Ca m p b e ll ’s P lan n e r s T r ian gle

Ta ke n Dir e c tl y F rom Ca mpbell, S c ott . 1996. “ Gr e e n Ci ti e s, Gr owin g C it ies, J ust C it ies:
Ur ba n P lannin g a nd the C ontra dictions of Sust a inable De v e lopm e nt.” Journal of
American Planning Association 62: 196-316.

Sustainability can become a new aim for planners, as well as more broadly among
policymakers who aim to improve conditions in their community. This may represent a
fundamental shift in addressing development conflicts. And, as some scholars assert, the
pur porte d “ n e w g r e e n e c onom y ” o r a ne w “ e nviro nmenta l epoc h” (Ma z ma nian a nd Kr a ft,
2010) may provide a nexus between environmental preservation and economic
4
de ve lopm e nt t hr ou g h the c re a ti on of a ne w “ pa r a d ig m” of sust a inabl e e c on omi c g ro wth.
(Roberts, 2004) More specifically, a green economy includes a wide spectrum of
products that do not adversely affect the environment while providing economic benefits
in t he f or m of r e v e nue a n d job cr e a ti on (O C ED, 1 999). Ne w c lasse s of “ e n vironmenta ll y fr iendl y ” busi ne sses are now considering sustainability in their corporate choices as the
cost of pollution is increasing while the marginal cost of pollution reduction is dropping
and the consumer demand for green products is increasing. Government procurement
polities around green products are also fueling niche markets and altering corporate
behavior. And perhaps offering the starkest example, environmental regulations are
creating business opportunities in a subset of innovation-driven, new green industries.
New efficiencies, regulatory opportunities, and consumer responses are making
sustainable development an economic possibility for some communities (Wasik, 1995;
Roberts 2004; Lopez, Garcia and Rodriguez, 2007).
This dissertation broadly investigates these conflicts as defined by Campbell
(1996) and the purported shift that may engender from a new sustainable economic
development approach to addressing these historical development conflicts —seeking to
overcome these development conflicts through integrating economic development,
environmental preservation and equity values. Specifically, I broadly examine the
political and economic sources of sustainable economic growth or the green economy
movement in the domestic and international context through an exploration of
Campbe ll ’s pla nne r’ s tria ng le. I h y p othesiz e that e c onomi c c ha n ge s ar e ine x trica bl y intertwined with institutional changes in the governance structure and in reconciling
5
economic, equity and economic considerations and conflicts in planning. Focusing
predominately on a sub-national scale (and largely at the local and regional level) the two
predominate, interrelated research questions are:

1) What institutional and governance structure is emerging in order to facilitate the
adoption of green jobs strategies and policies? What are the critical components of
the institutionally driven, governance structure of the green jobs movement? Who
are the critical players, and how has this manifested within formal and informal
institutions at the sub-national scale?

2) From a policy and planning driven standpoint, what types of economic
d e ve lop m e n t and e n vironm e n tal m e asu r e s (o r “gr e e n j ob s str a te gies”) ar e or c ou ld ideally be the achievable deliverables of this new formal and informal institutional
governance structure? What is the output of these efforts that broadly seek to
overcome the three development conflicts as outlined by Campbell; or, what are the
successes and failures of these burgeoning policy and planning efforts at the sub-
national level?

The remainder of this section details the ways in which these research questions are
approached in this dissertation. First, I provide a literature review and development of
relevant theoretical perspectives in this investigation. Second, I briefly describe the
6
research methodology proposed, building on the theoretical perspectives reviewed, in the
investigation of these linked research questions. Through this analysis, I aim to enter the
conversation around sustainable communities through the avenue of green jobs. The
dissertation therefore envisions green jobs as a response to the changes within the
production process and corollary paradigm, and the emergence of the new eco-movement
and prospect of new jobs. Green jobs are arguably a unique window on, a lesser-explored
aspect of, a potential indicator of success, and a way of anchoring the discourse of
C a mpbell’s tril og y of e q uit y , e c onom y , a nd e nvir onmenta l value s.
7
B. Literature Review and Theory Development
This dissertation focuses on green economic development at the sub-national level
through an examination of the role of organizations and alliances such as green-blue
coalitions or green collared jobs alliances, green business associations, and formal
g ove rnme nt i nsti tut ions i n ove rc omi n g C a mpbell’ s dev e lopm e nt conf li cts through the
purpo rte d e me r g e nc e of t he “ ne w gr e e n e c onom y ” . The r e se a r c h identifie s a nd a na l y z e s
the institutions that are key actors in green economic development as specific to the
pursuit of green jobs--engendering the constellations of groups both outside and inside of
the formal government structure working around these issues. These institutions and the
extant and emergent sustainability governance structure can play a key role in green
economic development through a variety of policy tools to be examined through the
methodological approach identified in subsequent sections below.
How can the rise of this new social movement and corollary policy outcomes be
understood within the institutional framework around sustainable governance?
Undergirding this analysis, this dissertation will employ the scholarly literature around
governance and institutionalism to inform an understanding of the rise of the green jobs
movement through a paradigm shift in the governance of environmental preservation,
economic development, and equity goals at the metropolitan level. In order to
conceptualize the role of institutional and governance perspectives in understanding and
analyzing the green jobs movement, the following brief literature review provides a
merged theoretical perspective. First, the governance perspective and the institutional
perspectives are defined. Building on this, a theoretical perspective based upon both
8
governance and institutional components, and which integrates the sustainability
literature, is developed.
Dr a win g on Dou g lass No rth’ s (1990) a ss e rtion t ha t “inst it uti ons m a t ter ,” the
dissertation hypothesizes that both governmental and nongovernmental institutions--as
well as informal institutions such as norms, culture and social mores--are important in
understanding and governing the sustainability movement and the arguably closely
married green jobs movement. Theories of governance and institutionalism are
instructive in understanding the green jobs movement, and in particular deepening the
understanding of the role of different significant stakeholder groups in pushing for
changes through the development of policy and planning mechanisms focused on green-
jobs driven economic development strategies. A governance and institutionally-driven
perspective is likewise instructive in understanding the role of municipal and regional
institutions. Such formal institutions have relationships with other stakeholders, as
described above, including emergent green jobs coalition. Such relationships characterize
municipal approaches around fostering environmentally sustainable economic growth,
and the complex and often challenging governance of this growth. And most broadly, this
dissertation examines what institutional mechanisms may address two primary concerns.
First, it is critical to identify what institutional and governance structure may sustain the
green jobs and umbrella sustainability movement into the future. Second, it is also critical
to consider, given the tri-fold sustainability values, how equity and efficiency goals are or
idea ll y c ould be inc or po r a ted w it hin t he de ve lopm e nt of the “ ne w g re e n e c onom y .”

9
1. Briefly Defining Governance
W ha t i s g ove rna n c e ? Ac c or ding to I n g ra m “ g ov e r na nc e —whether public or
private has been defined simply as a general exercise of authority, where authority refers
to systems of accountability and control. It includes global and local arrangements,
formal structures and informal norms and practices, and spontaneous and international
s y stems of c ont rol.” Gov e rna nc e blends both private and public players and can often
incorporate nonprofit players.
The way in which the governance structure is defined will fundamentally shape
how development issues within a place are addressed. According to Pierre, the concept of
governance is increasingly discussed within academic papers. It combines regime theory,
theories of the local state, and the urban political economy into a single conceptual
framework (Pierre, 1999). The move towards place-based analysis and place-based
driven solutions looks to an understanding of the endemic differences between different
geographical areas. Place can be defined in reference to the uniqueness of neighborhoods.
A place is a holistic concept that is more than just the bricks and mortar; it is a concept
that incorporates the social relationships and the formal and informal institutional
components that govern its day-to-day interactions, and that can foster or retard
de ve lopm e nt i n a socie t y . P ra tt in “G rids of Diff e r e nc e ” ( 1998) notes that “ , r e lations h ips
be twe e n pla c e a nd identif y a re c ompl e x a nd va ria ble” a nd, more ov e r, “ P lac e s ar e ti e d up
with s oc ial bounda rie s.” P lac e -based solutions do offer help in addressing societal
problems and can be a key link in understanding the societal relationships that underlie
10
and reinforce the institutional structure. Place-based solutions are fundamentally focused
on developing governance and social capital in order to find solutions to problems.
Place-based solutions are also important because they can consider problems at
the regional scale. They seek to develop governance at these levels. New regionalism
recognizes the delineation between government and governance. It acknowledges that
new regional structures are enabling regional governance that is not tied to a single
muni c ipalit y . S c ott ( 2007) notes “ , r e g ion a li st ef fo rts ha ve be e n c ondit ione d b y environmentalist traditions, a strong sense of local autonomy, concerns for quality of life
issues and opportunity structures provided by the federal and state governmen ts.” S uc h a regional approach is necessitated by a range of complex challenges spanning from
climate change mitigation to economic development in a rapidly globalizing world.
Therefore, place based perspectives provide a broad, contextual understanding of
both governmental and nongovernmental actors. Through this incorporation of diverse
actors, we may be able to better understand the diverse policy outcomes that vary across
different geographical areas and different geographical scopes. Place —which can be
defined at different geographical scales including at the metropolitan scale —provides a
dynamic container for understanding interactions between unique, particular players
within the policy space.

11
2. Briefly Defining Institutionalism
Institutionalism has been described and defined by scholars in a myriad of ways.
The institutional framework can be broadly divided into two principal camps: rational
choice, or the new institutional economics framework offering more sociologically
driven, institutional understandings of social phenomena. At its very root, institutional
analysis is grounded in the notion that institutions matter —be they informal or formal in
na ture . Ac c or din g to Dou g las N o rth ( 1999) “ , inst i tut ions and the r ules of the ga me in
society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human
interactions. In consequence, they structure incentives and constrain action in human
e x c ha nge , whe the r polit ica l, socia l or e c onomi c .” I nsti tut ions, in t his per spec ti ve sh ape
societal change as they drive collective action, and provide levels of certainty for reaping
benefits from collective action efforts (North, 1999) This perspective, and the
relationship between social movements, draws on the work of such scholars as Mancur
Olsen throug h th e noti on of c onc e ptu a li z a ti on of ty p e s o f g oods, “ f re e - ridi ng ” pot e nti a l
generally within groups, and the collective action problems that consequently result from
the pursuit of environmental preservation (Ainsworth, 2002)
Likewise, scholars have differently constructed the relationship between
individuals and institutions. Johan Olson (1984) sketched the trajectory of
inst it uti ona li s m and note d that poli ti c a l t he or y h a s tra dit ionall y se e n “ inst it uti ons a s
determining, ordering, or modifying individual motives, and as acting autonomously in
ter ms of ins ti tut ional ne e ds.” A lt e rna ti ve l y , Olson a sser ts t ha t m ode rn po li ti c a l t he or ist s
“ a ssum e that poli ti c a l phenome na a re be st und e rst ood a s the a gg r e g a te c on se que nc e s o f
12
behavior comprehensi ve a t t he indi vidual or grou p leve l.” A s not e d b y T a n g a nd F e rr is
(1993 ) some scho la rs a ss e rt tha t “inst it uti ons c re a t e c onst ra int s in whi c h in divi dua ls
pursue their goals through their interactions with one another, and thus individuals are
interested in pa rticipa ti n g in t he proc e ss of c ra fting i nsti tut ions to consti tut e be tt e r g a ins.”
Institutions, therefore structure the incentives for individuals, and therefore define the
actions that individuals within groups choose to take. Individuals within social
movements and within government agencies rationally act in terms of rules constructed
through these institutional frameworks, and likewise can help to account for an
understanding of the political institutions in the first place.
Therefore, institutional analysis provides a framework focused on the incentives
and structural relationship through which actors derive and implement policy. Current
policies, as well as their future trajectories, can be viewed and understood with this
structure of incentives and constraints.

3. Moving Towards Sustainability: An Institutionally-Driven Governance Approach
How can theories of governance and institutionalism explain the rise of green jobs
coalitions and other alliances related alliances merging economic, environmental, and
equity-driven goals, and government agency approaches towards environmentally
preservative economic development through emergent green jobs strategies, policies, and
planning mechanisms? And, how can the rise in attention around green economic growth,
or green jobs specifically, be understood within the context of the equity, environmental,
a nd e c onomi c v a lues c ha ra c te riz ing C a mpbell’s planne r’ s tri a n g le? B oth g o ve rna nc e a nd
13
institutionalism provide insights into the range of incentives and constraints of critical
actors, as well as focus on the role of these actors in overcoming constrains and
responding to incentives through new alliances, networks, and resultant policy and
programmatic outcomes.
In the broadest sense, the discussion around green jobs can be grounded within
the de ve lopm e nt di sc ours e . Dr a wing on C a mb e ll ’s pla nne r’ s trian g l e , a c ritica l problem
facing public affairs scholars and practitioners, compounded by the ability to guide actors
from the ground up, is how to best shape development in a manner that is preservative of
equity, environmental, and economic goals. Strategies likewise seek to effectively and
equitably address attributable negative neighborhood effects including environmental
degradation. Namely, how can we establish sustainable economic development solutions
in communities and also provide effective regional solutions to environmental hazards
and economic needs in the urban context? Integration of environmental preservation into
economic development efforts may fundamentally change local economic development
strategies, and I purport that this may fundamentally change environmental governance
for cities and for regions.
Arguably, the green jobs movement from a place-based governance perspective
can therefore be understood as historically rooted in the sustainable development
movement. The Brundtland report provided the first comprehensive definition of
sust a inable de ve lopm e nt a s “de ve lopm e nt t ha t m e e ts t he ne e ds of this g e n e ra ti on without compromising the needs of future g e n e r a ti ons” ( La ng h e ll e , 1999) . Mor e r e c e ntl y ,
sust a inabili t y h a s bee n d e sc ribe d b y R e inha rt ( 20 00) a s “, a str a te g y or d e ve lopm e nt path
14
is sustainable if it involves no net decrease in total assets, or equivalently, if it involves
the c re a ti on of va lue.” Thus, major changes relative to the development processes are
needed in order to achieve so-called sustainable economic development in communities.
Governance and institutional changes within the sustainability discourse, in this
theoretical perspective, can predominately occur through the rise of social movements
and a proliferation of new coalitions and associations. As noted above, place-based
frameworks seek to explain and understand complex social relationships that are endemic
to a pa rticula r “ plac e ” . S oc ial moveme nts, d e fine d b y F or m and J e nkins a s “c oll e c ti ve changes to existing arrangements of power and distribution by people with common
purposes and solidarities, in sustained interactions with common purposes and
solidarities, in sustained interac ti on with elit e s, op pone nts and a uthorit ies,” a nd g ov e rne d
by the institutional structures, can lead to social change. They may govern the
development of smart growth principals in urban development situations. Therefore,
specifically, the ways in which the constellation of normative environmental values are
c onne c ted to p e ople’ s in divi dua l ex pe rie nc e s ma y a id i n unde rsta ndin g wh y indi viduals
begin to become increasingly concerned about the environment, or in preserving their
place as coined by Peter Cannavo (2007) and resultantly begin to join environmental
int e re st groups, a ll ianc e s such a s the r ise o f “ blue - g r e e n” c oa li ti ons, a nd br oa de r soc i a l
movements. Understanding these social and inter-organizational relationships is essential
to comprehensively understanding the possibility set around sustainable economic
de ve lopm e nt. As not e d b y R obe rts (2 004 ) “ , mor e than is t he c a se in m a n y c onve nti ona l
approaches to economic development the promotion of environmentally sound economic
15
development requires the introduction and implementation of comprehensive and
integrative spatial and sectoral management strategies and such strategies are frequently
based upon the assumptions that sociopolitical change is a necessary precondition for the
effective adjustment of the balance between the economy and the environment. This
adjustment to the environment-economy balance has led to the development of a number
of theories that attempt to combine economic development and environmental protection
“ with s y n e r g ist ic e ff e c ts. ”
This framework may be further enriched through an understanding of pluralism as
a guiding force in spawning environmental interest groups at all scopes of government,
and as a key component of understanding the governance of environmental policy.
Scholars such as Zachary Smith (2007) in The Environmental Policy Paradox, provide an
understanding of the pluralism perspective. Pluralism or group theory examines the
manner by which interest groups interact with each other and the ways in which they
influence the policy-making process. The individual is the backbone of policy-making
process through their role within the larger interest group movement. Thus, this group
becomes the primary unit of analysis and the interaction between different groups will
determine the public policy results that are expressed through the interest group
movement. Thus, the group becomes the primary unit of analysis and the interaction
between different groups through alliances will determine the public policy results that
are expressed through the institutional filtering of interest group power. Therefore,
a c c or din g to S mi th (2007) “ , in t he plura li st s y stem g roups for m and dissol ve in re sponse
to growth, development and importance in society. The strength of the particular group in
16
the policy-making process depends on the importance of an issue at a given time and
combination of resources (for example voting power and campaign contributions) that a
g roup h a s at is di sposal to i nf luenc e poli c y mak e r s.”
Given this, how does the institutional, governance structure shape development —
including the constellation of environmental, economic development, and social justice
goals? Specifically, policy-making is understood through the conceptual construction of
the policy cycle. Historically, acc or din g to S mi th (2007) “ , in t he plura li sm conc e pti on,
there are several points in which environmental interest groups interacted within the
process and gained increasing prominence. The policy cycle provides an understanding of
the way that policy is made .” The poli c y c y c le, un de r g irde d b y the notion o f issue framing, consists of three principal components: 1) agenda setting, 2) policy making, and
3) policy implementation. Kingdon (1995), moreover, provided a dynamic model of
these stages along the policymaking process. The policy cycle helps to explain the venues
for interaction between interest groups and the government structures within a place. The
processes of agenda setting and issue framing are key in establishing an understanding of
the interest group constellations that have developed throughout the historical trajectory
of the environmental movement, and continuing through the recent surge in interest in the
green jobs movement. As attested by scholars such as Larkoff (2003) and Schon and Rein
(1994), issue framing is a key element of the political discourse. Thus, issue framing is a
key element of the political discourse and rhetoric around the sustainable economic
development movement. Framing has been noted across social science disciplines
17
including cognitive psychology, linguistics and discourse analysis, media, and political
science and policy studies (Benford and Snow, 2000).
This understanding of policy development, formulation, and social movements
can inform our understanding and investigation of sustainability (and eventually of green
jobs development). It may be particularly instructive in terms of understanding the rise
of groups and their respective policy goals within the framework of sustainability. As
noted by Campbell and other scholars, a fundamental paradox arises within the nonprofit,
progressive community that can be understood in the institutional frame through the
construction of incentives for groups. In the domestic context, the issue framing of
“ e c onom y ve rsus the e nv ironm e nt” w a s pr e vious ly a ppli e d to m a n y d e ve lo pment
de c isi ons. As noted a t t he outset, e nvironmen tal mea sure s w e re s e e n a s “ j ob kil ler s.”
Bolstering development, particularly in the fordest era of mass production, was seen as
the way to foster improvement in communities. In the past, the business community and
development community was able to thwart environmental measures through this very
effective issue framing and messaging. Sustainability conceptions were not added to the
debate and environmental degradation from a proliferation of polluting sources resulted.
This provided a win-win solution for the business community, and a lose-lose proposition
for activists and politicians who represented communities that were in need of both
economic development goals and environmental preservation. Equity considerations were
often roundly discarded within the planning process, particularly lacking strong
coalitions. (Pastor and Benner, 2011)
18
Thus, prior to the concept of sustainable economic development, progressive
politicians often face a paradox in trying to develop sustainably based upon this brand of
economic growth. Often, their progressive political stance could make them politically
aligned with both the labor and the environmental movement. The paradox occurs when
the progressive politician is faced with a development opportunity in a poor, urban
neighborhood or in a developing country. The progressive politicians traditionally faced a
zero sum game between the environment and economic development. Either the
politician could align with labor/business, or he can align with environmentalists. The
environmentalist and labor communities, often representing the same disenfranchised
communities, reach a standstill.
A suboptimal result occurred that is akin to the unsustainable development that
has characterized the landscape. Namely, labor will tend to unite with business interests
in the name of jobs. Economic concerns, through the collusion of economic and labor
interests, trumps environmental concerns in these communities. Development devoid of
environmental protection tends to occur in poorer communities. Many urban
environmental public heath problems occurred and continue to fester because of
proximity of populations to polluting sources; and, the way that class mixes have played
out across the metropolitan landscape is key (Pulido, 2000). A suboptimal result in
community outcomes occurred and the overall development of social capital was quelled.
Often, resultant development opportunities were needlessly polluting. Moreover, local
economic development opportunities were not fully realized by providing jobs to
residents and alleviating local poverty (Rosenbaum, 2006). Historically, therefore, there
19
was no formal or institutional structure of governance through which stakeholders could
form appropriate networks, forge alliances, and mobilize social capital to achieve local
benefits. New formal and informal institutions are needed to deal with the current
tensions between environmental and economic goals.
This dissertation hypothesizes that governance through the sustainable
development conception provides an opportunity for a new issue framing and/or
messaging approach that enables the space for a redefined governance of environmental
and economic development issues. This paradox around environmental preservation
described above has to some extent been overcome through the purported, recent rise of
“ blue- g r e e n c o a li ti ons” a s a me c ha nism to pot e nti a ll y sol ve som e of th e c o nf li c ts
summ a riz e d b y C a mpbel l’s planne r’ s tria ngle. Blue-green coalitions, as new and
emerging alliances, are made up of both labor and environmental players. Traditionally,
environmentalists viewed growth in a negative light and often opposed development.
And, labor representatives felt that development was necessary in order to provide
economic benefits to the community. An adversarial relationship arose within the
networked relationship between these two camps. Thus, there was not a pre-existing
movement to provide this range of benefits —there was no movement equipped to
integrate these values into strategic, sustainable future growth. This can be understood
through the scholarly discourse around social movement fit. As summarized by McVeigh
(1995 ) w ho e x plains: “ Man y c ontempor a r y move ments, such a s those promoting
wome n’ s ri g hts, t he e nvir onment, g a y rig hts, a nd p ro -life and pro-choice concerns, are
not strictly engaged in distributive batters, but instead are promotive of values of
20
c oll e c ti ve va lues…S kolp e l (1992) c a ll s atte nti on to t he “ fit” b e tw e e n a gr o ups’ polit ica l
orientations and the established political institutions designed to incorporate those
int e re st, wha t we mi g ht c a ll the “ ove r a ll struc ture of poli ti c a l opportuni t y ” (G a mson 1975, Jenkin 1985, McAdams 1982, Tilly 1978) where there is a poor fit between a
g roup ’s inter e sts a nd the c a pa c it y of e stabli shed p oli ti c a l i nsti tut ions… ”
Creating new governance structures around environmental, economic, and equity-
driven values, sustainable development allows politicians and the progressive community
to overcome collective action problems and to create a new, better fitting, institutional
structure, building on the issue framing established in the governance section above, by
integrating both economic development and environmental goals. As noted by Roberts
(2004 ) “ , B y e mphasiz ing the pote nti a l c ontribut ion of e nvironmen tall y so und e c onomi c activity to the achievement of sustainable development, it is also important to note that
such an approach has proved to be an important and effective means for delivering social
justice and inclusion now and in the future. Many of the economic activities that have
been established as environmental businesses offer employment and income-earning
opportunities to people who live in socially excluded and or economically declining
communities. This search for new understandings and explanations has lead to a
widening and deepening of the development discourse, both in relation to the theory,
structure and content of the individual elements of sustainable development itself and
with regard to the nature of the relationship between sustainable development and various
other a ssocia ted polic y fi e lds i nc ludi ng loca l a nd r e g ion a l ec onomi c e nti ti e s.” B y makin g triple-bottom line opportunities available within the sustainability framework,
21
progressive activists and institutions do not need to choose between economic and
environmental goals and sustainable development, a much better third option, can
become the logical choice. They can unite with a common set of goals and engender
enough political pressure in order to ensure sustainability outcomes in development
decisions. In doing so, they provide a new institutional nexus for dealing with
development decisions in communities and in providing economic and environmental
goods to these communities. In the future, the sustainability movement or paradigm will
likely continue to engage in the process of institutionalizing their values and in
solidifying a collective identity.

4. Institutionally-Driven Sustainable Governance: Green Jobs Movement
The green economy is arguably an important paradigm shift that has sweeping
public policy consequences for development decisions and for the ways in which capital
can be generated in society. Green jobs can be understood as a component of the
sust a inabili t y discou rse . The r ise of “ blue - g r e e n ” c oa li ti ons, g r e e n jobs e c o nomi c development strategies such as clean tech efforts at the government agency level, and
business-environmental alliances are actively adding a new dimension to environmental
governance by uniting these once disparate interests in different amalgamations and
e nga g in g the f ull a r ra y of c onflic ts of C a mpbell’s planne r’ s trian g l e . Result a nt g r e e n jobs policies at the sub-national level further come to define the institutional and governance
structure of novel approaches towards the pursuit of sustainability.
22
Green jobs governance is closely linked to that of sustainability, and potentially to
the rise of a new social movement through an eventual confluence of new alliances.
Social movements are a significant component of fostering social change. As noted by
P a stor e t. al. ( 2010) “ , S o c ial moveme nts have d e f ined muc h of A mer i c a ’s socia l cha n g e over the last sixty years, from civil rights, to gender equality, to environmental regulators.
They are sustained groupings that develop a frame based on shared values, maintain a
link with real and broad-based in the community, and build for a long-term
tra nsfor mation i n s y st e ms of powe r. ” As me nti one d a bove in pa rticula r r e f e re nc e to
sustainability, both labor and environmental groups (particularly environmental justice
groups in the urban context) often primarily represent and advocate for the same
communities. However, operating together was fundamentally made difficult by this
issue framing.
New discursive processes may explain a rise in collective action in this vein and
the creation of useful alliances. The integration of new collective action frames, as noted
b y B e nf o rd a nd S now ( 2 000), a re hin ge d on “ , the manne r in w hich the y a r e spl i ced
together and articulated such that a new angle or visions, vantage point, and/or
int e g r a ti on is pr ovided.” The iss ue f ra mi n g pr e do mi na tel y c h a ra c ter iz e d b y environmental regulations is now increasingly altered to an issue framing that seeks
“ tripl e bot tom li ne ” outcome s fr om deve lopm e nt de c isi ons t hr oug h the c o nc e pti on of the
green economy. This new issue framing inherent to blue green coalitions and other
sustainability approaches can be understood through what some scholars who study issue
framing in socia l m ove m e nts def ine a s is sue fr a mi ng throu g h a “ stra te g i c pr oc e ss.” A s
23
e x plaine d b y B e nf or d a n d S now ( 2000) “ , B y stra teg ic p roc e ss, we r e fe r to f ra mi n g processes that are deliberative, utilitarian, and goal directed. Frames are developed and
deployed to achieve specific purpose —to recruit new members, to mobilize adherents,
and so forth. Strategic efforts by social movements organization to link their interests and
interpretive frames with those of prospective constituents and actual or prospective
res ourc e prov ider s we r e i nit iall y c onc e ptualiz e d a s “f ra m e a li g nment pr oc e s s.” Mor e spec ifica ll y , both fr a me b ridg in g or “ the linki ng of two or more ideolo g ica ll y c on gr ue nt
but st ruc tura ll y un c onne c ted f ra mes re g a rding a pa rticula r issue or pr obl e m” or f r a me
e x tension whe re “ a n so c ial moveme nt or g a niz a ti on’s inter e sts a nd f ra me( s ) a s ex tending beyond its primary interest to include issues and concerns that are presumed to be of
im porta nc e to pol it ica l a dhe re nts” a re li ke l y r e lev a nt t o the ne w push towa rds sust ainable
economic development and jobs in the green economy. Here, a new strategic issue
framing specifically creates a major impetus towards the creation of new coalitions and
the necessitation of new government institutions to integrate economic development
specifically focused around green jobs.
Green jobs, as the outcome of this movement, are a critical vehicle of achieving
the sustainability ideals as described above. Simply put, green jobs provide employment
opportunities that will lead to the environmental preservation dictated in the sustainability
vision described above. As touched on above, sustainability is hinged on integrating
economic and environmental goals in economic development decisions. Higgens (1996)
refined the definition and notes that : “Sus taina ble de ve lopm e nt i s a c onc e pt whic h
encourages both economic growth and a healthy environment. It recognizes the
24
desirability of economic growth and change and acknowledges the right of individuals
and organizations to pursue economic goals, including sales and profits. At the same
ti me, how e ve r, it re c o g ni z e s that t oda y ’s de c isi ons m ust per mi t future ge ne r a ti ons t o
enjoy a quality of life that is at least as good as that which we enjoy today. It must
therefore be sustainable, correct past damage to the environment, and prevent undesirable
futur e im pa c ts.” S c hola rs ha ve c onti nue d to de fine “ sust a inable e c onomi c d e ve lopm e nt.”
R obe rts (2 004) notes that “ , S ustaina ble e c onomi c de ve lopm e nt st ra te g ies p romote
mutually beneficial environmental, social an d e c o nomi c proc e sses….S usta inable economic development are ideas related to: The effective and efficient use and
management of natural resources; The promotion of a hierarchy of waste solutions that
places the avoidance of waste at the top of the list and the disposal of unsorted waste at
the top of the list and the disposal of unsorted waste a the bottom of the list of options;
The introduction of new methods and techniques for design, production, distribution and
end-of-life management, which emphasize the avoidance or minimization of waste and
environmental damage; The establishment of new economic activities based on
opportunities for the production of environmental goods and services and for the
distribution, maintenance and eventual disposal of such products; The promotion of high
standards of environmental management and performance in all aspect of economic
development and in all aspects of economic development and in all business activities,
including energy conservation environmental sound construction, green transport and a
wide range of other occupational areas; The establishment of new and collective and
25
collaborative institutional structures that can assist in the introduction and management of
sust a inable e c onomi c d e ve lopm e nt.” Si mi lar l y , a s not ed by Reinhardt (2000)
“ ,mac ro e c onomi c de finiti ons of sustaina bil it y f oc u s on t he ne e d to m a int a in a ggre g a t e stocks of natural and manufactured capital constant over time so that future generations
have consumption possibilities similar to those of the cu rr e nt gene r a ti on.”
Green jobs become an integral part of this paradigm by providing economic
opportunities that lead to a net environmental gain for communities and provides
sustainability outputs. Simply put, jobs must be fueled by markets, and green jobs are no
different in this regard. New categories of goods and services related to environmental
protection are emerging and creating opportunities for jobs and economic development in
c omm unit ies. A s not e d by H a rdjona a n d Kle in (20 03), “ Or ga niz a ti ons a re p rofit driven
a nd fo ster the c a se o f c or pora te sustaina bil it y a nd socia l re sponsi bil it y …Or g a niz a ti ons
promote corporate social responsibility when it is profitable, risk reducing, or improves
re putation.” A nd a s not e d b y Mas a ne t L lodra (20 06), “ the busine ss world is trying to
incor pora te th e ne w v a lue soc iet y ha s con c e rnin g the e nvironmen t” a nd re c e nt re se a rc h
suggests that 90% of firms globally report on social responsibility (Montiel, 2008). Once
again, employees can ideally move from going to work at the polluting factory or
unsust a inable off ic e e nvi ronme nt, t o the “ g re e n fa c tor y ” or in a n “ e nviron menta ll y fr iendl y ” c o rpor a t e c ult ur e .
An expansive literature on green jobs does not currently exist. However, a sizable
literature exists around the notion of green companies and is particularly focused on the
firm level of analysis. Some of these analyses have focused directly on green goods and
26
services producers. However, many more of the analyses have focused on the green
economy from the perspectives of co rpo ra ti ons t ha t ar e incor po ra ti n g “ g r e e n” or
sustainability practices within their corporate model. Much of the academic discussion
has focused on ideas of corporate sustainability that has been defined by academics in a
myriad of ways (Dahlsrud, 2006) and can be widely seen as described by Marrewijle
(2003 ) a s “ a c ompan y ’ s a c ti vit ies -voluntary by definition-demonstrating the inclusion of
social and environmental concerns in business operation and interaction with
stake holder s.” F irm sus ta inabili t y str a te g i es, linking theory directly to practice have been
li ke wise de fine d a nd de s c ribe d b y scho la rs suc h a s R e inhar t (2000) , who n ote tha t “f or a firm..a sustainable strategy is one that involves no net decrease in total assets or,
equivalently involves the creat ion of v a lue.” I n re c e nt scholar l y discour se , t he diver sit y o f
g r e e n pr a c ti c e s and de finiti ons ha ve c onsi de ra bl y e x pa nde d a nd include “ in teg r a ted
models of c or por a te sustaina bil it y .” ( Youn g a nd Till e y , 2006)
At the same time, despite any commitment to sustainability, it is important to note
that not all jobs (or perhaps even most jobs) are or will be green jobs in the future, but the
green jobs movement aims to increase the proportion of jobs that can provide
environmental benefits to communities. Moreover, a green economy does enforce
constraints on the type and nature of economic development in communities. Olluf
Langelle (1999) notes that the goal of development lies in the satisfaction of human need.
Sustainability then becomes a constraint on the goal of development. Langhelle explains
that “ ,e a c h g e ne ra ti on is pe rmitt e d to pursue it s int e re sts onl y in w a y s that do not
27
undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This may be called
the pr oviso of sustaina bil it y .”
Therefore, in expanding the sustainability analysis to a green jobs approach, we
can theoretically couch the development of the green jobs movement as a potential
alteration of the governance structure through new institutional elements in the form of a
rise of uncommon coalitions, associations, and agencies that are actively responding to
this issue framing that unites labor and environmental interest in a way sufficient to gain
political power and necessitate new policy and planning mechanisms. As noted by
scholars such a s S now a n d B e nf o rd ( 2000) “ , f r a m ing proc e sses a nd poli ti c a l opportuni t y a re li nke d int e r a c ti ve l y .” And, it m a y a lso ev e n be possi ble tha t g re e n jobs c re a te a li nk
between short- and long-term policy aims that make addressing environmental issues
such as climate change difficult, by creating the institutional space for governance of
immediate environmental, equitable, and economic outcomes in tandem.
In sum, from an institutional and governance driven framework, green jobs can be
understood in the context of drivers and dynamics, ecological challenges, and an array of
institutional and social processes. The sustainable governance of green jobs thus
incorporates institutions, and the policy formation process--transforming these elements
in tandem as ideas interact with leaders, social movements, and potentially societal
change. The sustainable governance of green jobs requires informal institutions such as
the range of relevant actors and formal institutions (as germane to the conception of
governance) to reach across the traditional nonprofit and governmental silos through
which economic development and environmental preservation were accomplished at the
28
metropolitan level. This will create a range of possibilities and complications in
integrating sustainable economic development in communities as a key outcome of
nonprofit groups and government institutions. At the most basic level, it will evaluate the
claim that institutions and governance at the sub-national level can play a significant role
in fostering green jobs as a component of sustainable governance aims. Thus, a
governance-driven prospective will assist in clarifying this dynamic.
29
C. Methodology and Research Design
Building on the institutionally-driven, sustainable governance perspective
developed and briefly described above, this dissertation will broadly examine the green
jobs movement. Through quantitative and qualitative methods, I will analyze the range of
significant formal and informal institutions governing the pursuit of green jobs strategies
at the sub-national level. Qualitative methods will then be used to define and assess the
range of tools available to achieve green economic development goals available to
studied blue green coalitions, green jobs associations, and relevant government
institutions at the sub-national, metropolitan level.
As mentioned above, the dissertation aims to build on the trajectory of research
around sustainable development, and in particular research around sustainable cities and
regions. In doing so, this research aims to serve both the practitioner and academic
audience by providing additional, rigorous examination of sustainability efforts that flesh
out the political rhetoric and the variety of potentially questionable assumptions around
green jobs as a component of the sustainable development movement and paradigm.
Political will to push for sustainable development/green jobs is ripe in many
communities. I ndust r y , a rg u a bl y , is s ta rting to se e the ma rke t ben e fits of “ going g re e n” both within and beyond the current production possibilities curve. Politicians easily
embrace the win-win concept. However, it can be argued that communities have been
largely unable to harness this political will because of the lack of information on
actionable policies and the appropriate institutional structure to implement resultant
30
ideas. This dissertation aims to address this gap, and to provide a more rigorous and
complete understanding of the relevant actors including new alliances and agencies.

1. Unit of Analysis
As dictated by an institutionally driven approach focused on governance factors,
the dissertation examines the relevant formal and informal actors, agencies, associations,
policies and plans germane to the green jobs movement. As such, the primary unit of
analysis is the sub-national governance structure —the regional or local/municipal green
jobs movement consisting of both formal and informal institutions. This includes the
identification, examination, and analysis of a wide range of key players and outcomes
within this context that traditionally represents various combinations of equity,
environment, and economy values. Studied elements therefore assume a critical role in
the mult it ude of de ve lopm e nt conf li c ts t ha t fa ll int o Campbe ll ’s thr e e -pronged typology.
Geographically, the sub-national scale includes the metropolitan statistical area, county,
and city level. All three levels will be explored, based upon strategic spheres of influence
and data limitations, within the dissertation and specified accordingly. Together, they
provide a nexus of localized and regional activity around the green economy.
Currently, no comprehensive study of the green jobs movement exists at the
localized level. Previously, many analyses focusing on case studies of business actors or
of progressive government agencies, were methodologically oriented towards the firm
level of analysis. These studies, often qualitative in nature, have sought to describe and
unde rsta nd g r e e n busi ne s s pra c ti c e s b y p rof il ing re leva nt cor por a te a c tors’ s tra te g ies
31
aimed at corporate responsibility and sustainability (Marrewijk, 2003; Reinhardt,
2000l;Hardjono and de Klein, 2003; Estrafer, 2006). Alternatively, large quantitative
analyses have been conducted on sustainability or environmental quality more generally
through the employment of sustainability indicators (quantitative measure of the level of
sustainability within a community that range from carbon footprint analysis, to levels of
pollution present in the locale). Often these studies utilize regression analysis, as well as
develop indicators in order to determine the level of sustainability generally (including
quality of life issues and economic factors), and environmental sustainability more
specifically (Levette, 1996; Esty, 2001).
Understanding the green jobs movement at the regional/local metropolitan level,
however, is increasingly receiving attention as a part of the broader turn towards
sustain a ble g ov e rna n c e . As noted b y R obe rts (2 0 04) “ , S uc h st ra te g ies no w f or m an
essential basis for local and regional development, some of which have proved to be of
particular value. The theory and practice of sustainable development have been
introduced in recent years, some which have proved to be of particular value. The theory
and practice of sustainable economic development has made rapid progress, and this
approach to local and regional development is now generally accepted as offering the
opportunity to solve a range of environmental and economic progress and this approach
to local and regional development is now generally accepted as offering the opportunity
to solve a range of environmental and economic problems and to promote new economic
activities t ha t ca n g e n e ra t e jobs in socia ll y e x c lude d c omm unit ies.” More ov e r, a s
mentioned by Roberts (2004), sustainable economic development has often been
32
envisioned as a critical component of the sustainable economic development
movement —despite differences in defining the movement. He purports that:
Sustainable economic development is a difficult to define and somewhat elusive
concept. It has been variously described as a means of promoting community-
ba se d e c onomi c d e ve lop ment, a s “ma kin g e x ist in g busi ne ss a c ti v ity more
environmentally sustainable (Gibbs 2002) as a balance between attracting and
development business and recognizing the environmental capacity that each
region has (Allen 2001, 25) and in a more specific application as the shift from a
linear to cyclic economy (Fedrigo 1999) central to the concept of sustainable
economic development.

Drawing back to theories of place-based analysis briefly sketched above, understanding
green economic activity and the social movement groups and institutions that govern this
movement builds upon a trajectory of understanding localized economic opportunities
and environmental problems.
The sub-national level provides a feasible geographical scope in order to
understand the operation of formal institutions within government agencies, along with
the operation of social networks of associations, coalitions, and other significant
governance units germane to the place (largely defined as the metropolitan area here). As
noted b y C ox a nd Mair ( 1985) “ , c onc omi tant with t he c ontemporary restructuring of
loca l ec onomi e s in t he U nit e d S tate s has be e n a di sti nc ti ve loca l pol it ics.” C ritica l ac tors
can effectively organize at this level, and it is easier to understand the way in which
policy and planning tools are integrated. Thus, bounding my analysis to the sub-national
geographic scope will help to ensure meaningful analysis of sustainable economic
development behaviors. Moreover, green jobs can be strategically examined at the sub-
national level because the distribution of employment is highly variable across
33
metro poli tan la ndsca pe s. Ac c or din g to t he US C ou nc il of Ma y or ’s stud y of Gr e e n J obs,
in 2006, green jobs were distributed across the county with varying levels within
particular metropolitan areas, thus indicating that there may be some differences in why
green jobs tend to locate in certain metropolitan areas at higher prevalence. Research
results indicate that approximately 85% of jobs were located in metropolitan areas. At the
same time, although there is variation domestically of green employment, the
metropolitan scale remains a particularly important geographical scale in that green jobs
a re a lso hi g hl y c on c e ntra ted in metr opoli tan hubs. The stud y notes that, “ It is not
surprising that the highest ranking areas are some of the largest metropolitan economies
in the country, especially considering that over half of the country's Green Jobs are in the
e ng in e e rin g , le ga l, re se a r c h, a nd c onsul ti ng c a te g o r y . ” Thus, the me tropoli t a n sca le
provides both an appropriate metric to understand governance elements, as well as the
emergence of green jobs in particular.

2. Defining the Dependent Variable
The presence of green jobs within metropolitan areas is the primary dependent
variable analyzed in this study. Green jobs are increasingly focused on as a means of job
creation in an environmentally preservative manner. Employment in industries and
occupations that are broadly considered linked with the green economy, particularly in
terms of their relationship to reconciling conflicts between economy and environment,
are increasingly being measured at both the state-wide and municipal/regional scale
34
(defined here by city, metropolitan statistical area, or at the county level as appropriate in
the analysis).
It is important to note that, developing a definition of green jobs is difficult, and
there has not been a standardized definition of what economic opportunities are
subsum e d unde r the “ gr e e n e c onom y .” F oll owin g a n ini ti a l l it e ra ture r e vi e w, it i s evide nt
that there is currently no standardized definition across municipalities, states, and other
inst it uti ona l ele ments of t he “ g re e n e c onom y . ” Ho we ve r, the re a re inc re a sing l y sophisticated methodologies for defining and estimating green jobs within the current
industrial and occupational taxonomies. Specifically, three primary and interrelated
de finiti ons of g r e e n jobs a re uti li z e d throug hout t h e stud y : US C ounc il of Ma y o r’ s
definition, Brookings Institution definition, and the definition put forth by CleanEdge, as
follows:
-US Council of Mayors (2006): “ An y a c ti vit y that g e n e ra t e s ele c tricit y usi n g renewable or nuclear fuels, agriculture jobs, supplying corn or soy for
transportation fuel, manufacturing jobs producing goods used in renewable
power generation, equipment dealers and wholesalers specializing in renewable
energy, or energy efficiency products, construction and installation of energy and
pollution management system, government administration of environmental
programs, and supporting jobs in the engineering, legal, and consult ing fie l ds”.
-Cleanedge (2008): “ C le a ntec h jobs ..a r e a dir e c t r e sult of the de ve lopm e nt of development, production, and/or deployment of technologies, that harness
renewable materials and energy sources, reduce the use of natural resources by
35
using them more efficiently and productive, and cut or eliminate pollution and
tox ic w a ste.”
-Brookings Institution (2011): “ De fine d a s the s e c tor of the e c onom y that
pr oduc e s g oods a nd s e rvi c e s with a n e nvironm e ntal be ne fit.”
The definition of green jobs employed within this study will be further covered in the
sections below, and explored as appropriate.

3. Methodological Approach
As noted above, green jobs can be constructed as a critical component of sustainable
development. Sustainability has increasingly been the subject of research and
investi g a ti on si nc e the B r untl a nd c omm iss ion’s ini ti a l ef for ts. As s uc h, the l it e ra ture on
sustainability has traditionally focused on efforts to develop an empirically driven notion
of sustainability that is rooted in positivistic methods. Positivism, the traditional approach
to social science knowledge, is rooted in empirical description of facts in an effort to
provide generalized knowledge. Objectivity, the hallmark of science, is principally
discovered through the results of quasi-experimentation. This knowledge, and its
objective quality, is rooted in observation and the pursuit of systematic, comparable, and
replicable results (Morgan, 1984). A variety of approaches have been employed towards
quantifying sustainability and defining degrees of sustainability in the empirical tradition.
These measurements aim to provide a standardized, objective measure of sustainability
within communities. Several scholars, providing a snapshot of much of the mainstream
literature on this topic, have provided background in this regard through the use of
36
largely empirical, descriptive methodology. Roger Levette (1998) substantiated the
im porta nc e of sustaina bil it y f a c tors in hi s ar ti c le e nti tl e d “ S ustaina bil it y I n dica tors.” Michael Toman (1994) further investigated the importance of developing sustainability
indi c a tors in hi s ar ti c le e nti tl e d “ Ec onomi c s and S us taina bil it y . ” B uil ding on L e v e tt e ’s
work, Michael Toman (1994) argued that policy gains have been compromised because
of the absence of a uniform and overarching definition of sustainability. Both scholars
call for more empirically based research from soc ial sc ienc e “ pr a c ti c e ” in orde r to br in g new scholarly rigor to the growing discourse around sustainability generally. Otherwise,
the reality is likely that conversations will never drift beyond subjectively rhetorical into
objectively scientific.
This research seeks to build upon the empirical tradition and calls for further
investigation of the understanding, analysis, and implementation of sustainability aims
within current and developing governance structures. Some quantitative methods are
initially employed in order to more broadly explore a range of institutional factors that
may lead to differing provisions of green jobs within metropolitan areas. A qualitative,
and largely exploratory, inductively-driven approach, was employed to explore the
research questions and institutional factors through a detailed multiple-case study
approach. The proposed research design largely utilizes qualitative methodology in order
to provide further contextual analysis around the burgeoning green jobs movement, and
the resultant policy and planning mechanisms employed. As such, this dissertation
additionally proposes a move towards qualitative analysis, rather than predominately
quantitative methods, in an examination of sustainability aims through green jobs
37
development. Given the complex interrelationships between equity, environmental, and
economic aims intrinsic to the sustainability paradigm, a qualitative approach can be used
in order to understand the broader contextual dimensions of sustainability, and
particularly the governance structure around green jobs aims.
I n point of fa c t, t he a ppro a c h uti li z e d he re buil ds upon e mer g e nt “ c omm unit y ba s e d” studies around sustainability. Sustainability has also been empirically measured at the
community level through a broad definition of what leads to sustainability within a
c omm unit y . Ac c or din g to He mpel, ( 2009) “ , one of the w a y s to m ove f ro m ‘c louds to
c onc re t e ’ is to construc t r e li a ble sustaina bil it y indi c a tors that c a n be tailore d to di ve rse communities and periodically moni tore d for c h a n g e s in d ir e c ti on or int e nsi t y .” Environmental footprint analysis has been popularly used to estimate the environmental
impact of human activity within a given area. A range of sustainability indicators that
have been employed in community level examinations of sustainability and include, for
example: percent of workforce covered by health insurance; greenhouse gas emissions
per capita; number of community gardens; landfilled solid waste (tons per year); number
of endangered and threatened species; pounds of toxics produced per year; waster and the
use of wastewater flows. The elements of sustainability have been operationalized
through the use of empirically measured indicators such as vehicles miles traveled
measured through co2 emissions per year, resource consumption and solid waste through
the me a sure m e nt of soli d wa ste/c a pit a , a nd so on.” Thus, sust a inabili t y indi c a tors a nd the
examination of business practices seek to provide objective uniformity and thereby aid in
the development of policies to achieve sustainability (Hempel, 2009).
38
S ome studi e s hav e pa rtic ular l y a pproa c he d a “ c o mm unit y b a se d” c onc e pti on a nd
corollary unit of analysis of sustainability directly from the governance, institutional
level. Many sub-national actors are increasingly engaging in efforts to move towards
sustainable development--as evidenced by a range of sustainability plans and programs,
and through the adoption of climate change goals and pledges through prominent
organizations including ICLEI and the Conference of Mayors. Kent Portney, for
example, has evaluated the incidence of sustainability programs and policies across a
variety of cities. Predominately focusing on the institutional structure, he identifies a
c it y ’s le v e l of sust a inabil it y a s uni que l y l inked to the quality and breath of sustainability
policies and programs. Therefore, cities are indexed and ranked according to the adoption
of these relevant strategies, plans, and pledges (Mazmanian and Kraft, 2010).
Additionally, and in a similar institutionally-driven and governance-conscious vein,
scholars have conducted a variety of surveys of crucial actors in order to assess the
incidence of sustainable strategies. These surveys predominately seek to understand the
way in which sustainability is understood by key actors and institutions, and is
manifested in a range of policies and programs. Evaluations of these strategies, including
an identification of barriers, is sometimes included within the distributed surveys, and
captures elements of sustainable governance at the sub-national level (Devashree and
Paterson, 2008).
F oll owing in t his m e thodol og ica l t r a jec tor y , thi s d iss e rta ti on’s me thodol ogy qualitatively and quantitatively examines the institutional elements of governing green
jobs, as a particular and not previously exhaustively studied component of sustainable
39
development at the sub-national level. In order to facilitate this process, multiple
domestic cities were examined in order to determine the relationship between key
institutional factors and the development of green economic opportunities within
metropolitan areas. Overall, how was data broadly collected on the institutional and
governance structure related to the attainment of green jobs for selected metropolitan
areas? Specifically, analysis (which will be described in more detail within the
corresponding sections below) occurred in two veins.
First, I examined institutional factors within the 55 most populous cities in order to
develop an overall framework for the interaction between key institutional factors and the
incidence of green jobs. This provides a background and baseline understanding of
important factors. Analysis was then conducted quantitatively through the use of
descriptive and inferential statistics. In addition, baseline information was conducted
through rudimentary content analysis of city websites in order to determine the scope of
policy and planning tools utilized by cities around green economy approaches. Jointly
through this approach, I develop an overarching typology of cities that aims to provide a
baseline understanding of green economic activities within metropolitan areas.
Second, more detailed case study analysis was utilized in order to more deeply
understand the institutional factors intrinsic to the green economy. Multiple case studies
were selected in order to address the two research questions outlined above. Through this
approach I develop context around the green economy at the metropolitan level. Through
the selection of a small number of metropolitan case studies, I am better able to address
the complexity of the varying governance structures around the conception and
40
implementation of green jobs strategies. This more detailed analysis likewise aims to
better understand the manner in which the debate is being effectively framed and
manifested within the metropolitan structure including in extant city planning tools, the
non-governmental actors that are important, and the emergence of alliances between key
actors within and outside of the formal government structure.
Relevant information was gathered through a variety of mechanisms. In order to
accommodate this investigation, a range of qualitative methods were utilized within this
multiple-case study, exploratory, investigative, and analytical approach. Qualitative
information on relevant institutions, policies, plans and other relevant factors was
specifically ascertained through a multi-prong approach for selected case studies:
(1) systematic content review of public documents and availability of public data.
(2) systematic internet searches of available public information on groups and
policy approaches.
(3) literature reviews of academic sources as appropriate.
Additionally, on a very limited basis, I also utilized informational interviews as well as
observation of relevant coalitions and associations engaging in relevant green jobs
governance. Analysis of such information was done through two stages. First, I sketch a
contextual understanding of sustainable governance within the municipal area; I then
provide a more detailed qualitative analysis of green jobs actors, plans, and policies
within these cases.

41
Taken together, this approach aims to provide the depth and breadth appropriate to
understand the burgeoning green economy movement at the sub-national level. It aims to
identify what policy and planning structures are emerging around green economy goals,
and ultimately to define the relationships that matter in the fostering of such goals.
42
Chapter 1: Towards an Institutional Analysis of Green Jobs at the Metropolitan
Level: Institutional Factors Impacting Green Economic Development in Large
Urban Areas

Empirical evidence suggests substantial variation in the number of green jobs
across cities/metropolitan regions. Industrial and occupational distributions, and points of
comparative advantage, vary across urban areas; this variation is likely attributable to a
wide array of factors. In the first analytical section of the dissertation, I seek to examine
and develop indicators informing the relationship between the prevalence of green jobs
and hypothesized critical factors.
It is critical to note at the outset that green economic activity does not take place
in an economic vacuum. To a certain extent, the existing economic environment at the
regional scale defines green employment. Green occupations and industries are a part of
the broader economic reality of metropolitan regions, and is often a subset of existing
prevalent industries and occupations. Simply put, a prevalence of wind farm
manufacturers may occur through a prevalence of wind, rather than a complex
governance structure incentivizing market demand. Economic conditions matter and may
dictate the distribution of green employment regardless of other institutionally-driven
factors.
Extant economic realities and happenstance, however, likely does not tell the
entire tale of green job differentials at the sub-national scale. In addition, I argue that
institutional factors matter in terms of explaining the distribution of opportunities in the
green economy. Institutional factors, moreover, may help to provide indicators of the
types of cities and metropolitan regions where green employment is likely to be
43
prevalent, and were areas of opportunity may lie. As compared to other industry and
occupational categories, green industries and occupations may be particularly married to
the institutional context. Green jobs are closely related to changing environmental
regulations. Environmental regulations may directly and principally fuel the market for
green employment. Moreover, many green goods and services are consumer-driven.
Thus, certain types of cities may have a more robust market driving employment
opportunities. Given the nature of green jobs, then, institutional indicators may provide a
useful tool in identifying and interpolating green economy variation at the sub-national
scale.
In this section, I specifically ask: What institutional factors may account for, or
be indicators of, green employment opportunities at the sub-national scale? In order to
examine trends related to the distribution of green employment at the sub-national scale, I
examine critical factors across the 55 largest cities in the United States, as defined by
their total population. As an initial step in understanding the institutional dimensions of
the green jobs movement, both in terms of the government and non-government structure,
this allows me to explore the nexus between green jobs and the metropolitan governance
structure spanning within and beyond direct government action.
Analysis is done in two interconnected stages. First, I examine the relationship
between the prevalence of green jobs and a variety of other key factors including median
income, the prevalence of environmental organizations, and the prevalence of
sustainability policies and measures. Second, through this understanding of critical
factors, I develop a typology of urban types in order to understand and efficiently
44
categorize places in accordance with the major factors accounting for diversity in
frequency and types of approaches towards green economy goals. Through qualitative
content analysis, I identify green jobs efforts within these urban types.

45
A. Contextual Analysis of Institutional Factors
The notion of green jobs, both as an environmental and economic development
aim, has received increasing attention in recent years. Both at the national and sub-
national level, green jobs and the green economy is increasingly seen as a goal around
which government action and interest group attention is organizing. Google trends, as a
rudimentary manner to pick up trends in key terms across search data, clearly illuminates
an uptick in this focus. As summarized in the figure below, the term was increasingly
utilized since the end of 2007, with a significant peak in 2009. The results are similarly
c or robor a ted thr ou g h pro que st s e a rc h e s of the te r m “g r e e n jobs .” F rom 20 00 -2005, the
term was referenced 26 times. From 2000-2010, the term appeared with a frequency of
1074. A se a r c h in t he da t e r a n g e o f 200 8 to 2010 y i e lds 10 66 r e fe re nc e s. T hus, “ gr e e n
jobs” ma y b e a n inc re a si ng l y uti li z e d rhe toric a l h ook f or both ec onomi c d e ve lopm e nt
planning and environmental preservation efforts domestically.

46
Figure 2:
“G r e e n Job s” T r e n d s

What institutional factors may account for differences in both interest and
opportunities between different metropolitan areas? Despite the aggregate domestic
interest in green jobs as a policy and planning aim, not all cities and regions have the
same level of interest in developing policy and planning mechanisms around green
economic development. Likewise, not all cities and corollary metropolitan regions may
be created equal in terms of appropriateness for green jobs. The degree of opportunities,
as well as the particular industries and occupations that would fall under such a subset
may vary and be responsive to institutional differences stemming from one locale to the
next locale. The following section aims to build analytical rigor around the burgeoning
discussion related to green jobs at the sub-national level in order to better understand
what might account for some of the key differences between places. Through this
approach, factors pertinent to green economic opportunities are examined.
In the following analysis, I ask three specific questions important to an
institutional examination of cities and metropolitan statistical areas, and the prevalence of
47
green employment within these places. First, what is the relationship between the level of
economic development and wealth, and the presence of green jobs within metropolitan
areas? Second, what is the relationship between sustainability programming and green
jobs? And third, what is the relationship between environmental nonprofits and the
prevalence of green jobs within these metropolitan areas? I develop a database of the 55
largest cities as measured by their population, and corollary metropolitan statistical areas.
Data and analysis will be described in the sections below.
Taken together, this analysis aims to develop several indicators at the
metropolitan level that may be correlated with higher levels of green employment. Such
indicators illuminate patterns within the disparate distribution of green jobs. Moreover,
such indicators could be utilized to extrapolate beyond the current sample 55 included
cities to indicate in the types of factors that may be correlated with opportunities in the
green economy at the sub-national scale. In doing so, I examine several key questions
around the relationship between critical characteristics and the prevalence of green jobs
in metropolitan areas.

1. What is the relationship between the level of economic development and the
presence of green jobs?

As previously discussed, there is a considerable literature around the relationship
between economic development and environmental quality. The environmental Kuznets
curve most famously explored this relationship through a well-known curvilinear
estimation of the nexus between environmental pollution and economic growth. The
relationship between urbanization, technological advance, and environmental
48
pr e se rv a ti on is c onst ruc te d a s an inve rte d “ u” with e nvironmen tal de g r a da ti on ini ti a ll y increasing, and then decreasing after some tipping point triggered by technological
innovation. (PERC, 2002)
Building on these assumptions and observed relationships, it may be expected that
higher levels of wealth would lead to a higher number of green jobs within a city or
metropolitan region. It can be hypothesized the cities and metropolitan areas with greater
wealth have greater access to resources. This access to resources allows these
cities/metropolitan areas to have the resources needed, in terms of time and money, to
enact environmental policies within their jurisdictions. These environmental policies,
ranging from renewable energy programs to green building policies, may create the
impetus for the green goods and services market, further translating into green jobs.
Moreover, many environmental goods and services could be considered to be luxury
items. Consumer demand for such goods and services may stimulate demand for such
goods. Places with higher levels of wealth may have the sort of consumers that would
demand these sorts of luxury, green goods. This heightened demand may lead to greater
employment opportunities in green jobs. Economic wealth and growth may be critical
indicators of the number of green jobs within a metropolitan area.
Measuring economic development and wealth is a potentially complex process.
For the purposes of this analysis, I first measure economic development and wealth by
median income as measured and reported by the NCCS dataset. Median, rather than mean
income, is utilized in order to hedge off the effect of outliers at either end of the income
spectrum. Although simplistic, this chosen indicator does provide some insight into
49
understanding the basic wealth profile of the city. Moreover, this measurement
particularly makes sense at an individual, consumer level as described above. As
indicated above, green jobs will be measured by the Brookings Institution recent data set
compiling numbers of green jobs. Both variables are measured at the metropolitan
statistical level for each included city.
First, in order to examine this relationship I can first correlate median income
with the total number of green jobs. As indicated below, the median income is somewhat
positively correlated with the number of green jobs at the metropolitan statistical area.
The correlation, calculated at .485, is statistically significant at the .05 level. The
spearman coefficient is calculated at .546 (p=.000). The relationship between green
employment and median income is summarized by the figure below.

50
Figure 3:
Green Employment Versus Median Income

Second, I can utilize a two-sample t test in order to determine if the number of
green jobs is statistically significantly different within metropolitan statistical areas with
higher levels of median income. In order to do so, I utilize a t test dividing MSAs into
two groups utilizing the mean median income (46968.24). For MSAs whose median
income is greater to or equal to 46968.24, the mean number of green jobs is 42340.5714.
For MSAs whose median income is less than 46968.24, the mean number of green jobs is
22202.9118. According to the t test (t score=2.466, p=.019), the number of green jobs is
51
statistically significantly different for those MSAs that have median incomes greater than
or equal to 46968.24.
Weaker results are found between median income and green employment when
measured at a per capita basis. Correlation between median income and green
employment is .562 (p=.001). There is positive correlation between median income and
the per capita green jobs rate, accounting for differences in the population size from one
metropolitan statistical area to another.
Figure 4:
Green Employment Per Capita and Median Income

52
Based upon this cursory analysis, it appears that there is some degree of positive
correlation between median income in MSAs and the quantity of green jobs, as measured
by the Brookings Institution. Further analysis should look towards the integration of
further measures of economic activities in terms of their relationship to green jobs.
Specifically, income inequality should be examined. For example, in a very rudimentary
manner, data can also be collected on the number of individuals in poverty from the
national center for charitable statistics. The correlation between the amount of green
employment and number of those in poverty is .469 (p=.000) using a person correlation,
and .841 (p=.000) using a spearman coefficient. Additionally, wealth inequity can be
examined by looking at the relationship between the poverty rate and the number of green
jobs at a per capita basis in order to control for population differences. Here, I find a
pearson coefficient of .606 (p=.000) and a statistically insignificant spearman coefficient
of -.276 (p=.055). Such relationships are summarized by the scatterplots below. The
evidence is therefore not strong enough to definitely ascertain the relationship.
Interestingly, increasing poverty rates may be correlated with increasing number of green
jobs at a per capita basis. Thus, although higher median income may be associated with
higher levels of green employment at a per capita basis, higher poverty rates may also be
correlated with higher rates of green employment. Given measures of wealth inequity,
future research should examine the relationship between these factors and the prevalence
of green jobs through a more complex portrayal of economic growth and wealth within
these communities.
53
Despite the limitations described above, there does appear to be some relationship
between wealth and the prevalence of green employment within metropolitan statistical
areas. Based upon this initial analysis, the overall level of wealth may play a role in
fostering an environment palatable to green economic activities.

Figure 5:
Green Jobs Versus People in Poverty

54
Figure 6:
Relationship Between Per Capita Green Employment and Poverty Rate

55

Figure 7:
Correlations: Pearson and Spearman Correlations for Wealth and Green Jobs
Variables

Correlations
Greenjob povrate greenpercap povertyr Medianincome
Greenjob
Pearson
Correlation
1 -.101 .162 .479
**
.485
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)

.489 .266 .001 .000
N 49 49 49 49 49
povrate
Pearson
Correlation
-.101 1 .841
**
.110 -.181
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.489

.000 .454 .212
N 49 49 49 49 49
greenpercap
Pearson
Correlation
.162 .841
**
1 -.040 .207
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.266 .000

.783 .154
N 49 49 49 49 49
Number in
Poverty
Pearson
Correlation
.479
**
.110 -.040 1 -.010
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .454 .783

.947
N 49 49 49 49 49
Medianincome
Pearson
Correlation
.485
**
-.181 .207 -.010 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .212 .154 .947

N 49 49 49 49 49
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

56
Figure 7, Continued
Correlations
Greenj
ob
Povra
te
greenper
cap
povert
yr
Medianinco
me
Spearma
n's rho
Greenjob
Correlati
on
Coeffici
ent
1.000 -.193 .612
**
.606
**
.546
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
. .184 .000 .000 .000
N 49 49 49 49 49
povrate
Correlati
on
Coeffici
ent
-.193 1.000 -.276 .367
**
-.627
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.184 . .055 .009 .000
N 49 49 49 49 49
greenperca
p
Correlati
on
Coeffici
ent
.612
**
-.276 1.000 -.051 .431
**

Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .055 . .726 .002
N 49 49 49 49 49
Number in
Poverty
Correlati
on
Coeffici
ent
.606
**
.367
**
-.051 1.000 .036
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .009 .726 . .808
N 49 49 49 49 49
Medianinco
me
Correlati
on
Coeffici
ent
.546
**

-
.627
**

.431
**
.036 1.000
57

Figure 7, Continued

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .808 .
N 49 49 49 49 49
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

2. What is the Relationship Between Sustainability Programs and Green Jobs?
Green jobs may be the employment vehicle of sustainable economic growth.
Thus, I can hypothesize that higher incidences of green jobs could be more highly
correlated with sustainability policies in general. An institutional focus on sustainability
may be indicative of the types of factors that would tend to fuel interest in green jobs
policies. Sustainability policies, therefore, may be linked with the development of green
jobs policies, as well as the presence of green employment within the metropolitan area.
Overall sustainability can be measured through two primary indices. First, overall
sustainability was recently ranked through an index developed by Kent Portney. Second,
overall sustainability can be measured and ranked through the use of data from
sustainelane.com.
1

58
(a) First, I utilize the data compiled by Kent Portney (2011) in his study of
sustainable cities. When I generate a correlation between the number of green jobs and
the sustainability rating utilizing a spearman coefficient, I find a correlation coefficient of
.378, which is significant at the .01 level (.004). I find a weak positive correlation that is
statistically significant at the .05 level. The relationship is further seen in the scatter plot
between green jobs and sustainability by MSA.

Figure 8:
Sustainability Programs Versus Green Jobs

1
In both cases of measurement of sustainability approaches at the sub-national
level, this analysis requires the comparison of two different scopes and scales of
governance. Here, sustainability is measured at the city level and programs and plans are
defined by city jurisdictional boundaries. However, green jobs data is available at the
metropolitan statistical area level. Such differences in geographical scopes should be
considered in interpreting the strength of the analysis.

59

I can also examine this relationship through the employment of a t-test, seeking to
determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference among the number
of green jobs based upon the level of sustainability within the MSA. In order to do so, I
divided the MSAs by the mean sustainability score (25.31). Of those MSAs who have at
least a score of 25.31, the mean number of green jobs was 34251.70. Of those MSA with
less than a score of 23.51, the mean number of green jobs was 24516.00. However, the t
score, indicates that this is not necessary a statistically significant difference. With a t
score of 52.937 (p=.199), I fail to reject the null hypothesize that the mean difference
between green jobs for those MSAs with higher than average levels of sustainability
policies and MSAs with lower than average levels of sustainability policies as defined by
Ke nt P or tne y ’s I nde x , is equa l. The r e for e , the pr e se nc e of sustain a bil it y po li c ies ma y , in
fact, have limited effect on differences in green employment numbers at the metropolitan
level.

(b) Alter na ti ve l y , I uti li z e sust a inela ne .c om’s met ric s to ex a mi ne the r e lations hip
between green jobs and sustainability. Rather than a continuous measure of sustainability,
sustainelane provides a ranking of the largest populated cities. In order to examine the
relationship between the sustainability ranking and the prevalence of green jobs, I
correlate green jobs with the quantification of sustainability programs developed through
sust a inela ne ’s r a nking s o f c it ies. I n ord e r to e x a mi ne thi s re lations hip, I h a ve coded the
data so that the top ten MSAs out of the total sample of 55 are coded 1 and the others are
c ode d a s 0. I s e e thi s du mm y va ria bl e a s de fining t he “ top” or most sust a inable c it ies. I n
60
doing so, I c a n look at ho w be ing a “ top cit y ” mi ght be r e lat ed to a higher prevalence of
g r e e n jobs . F o r “ top citi e s” we f ind an ov e r a ll mea n of 5 5039.2 g re e n jobs . F or the r e st of
the cities, I find a lower overall mean of 24303.53. The t test indicates that there is a
statistically significant difference in the n umb e r of g r e e n jobs f or “ top citi e s ” ve rsus other lar ge c it ies. ( t=2.468, p = . 032) A le ve ne ’s te st (1.4 21;; p=.239) r e v e a ls t ha t t he re is
homogeneity in variances and therefore a t test is an appropriate measure (through the use
of S P S S ’s A NO VA f unc t ion, s im ilar results are also obtained (11.133; p=.002).)
I fur ther e x a mi ne pa rticu lar c a te g o rie s with in sus tainlane ’s sustaina bil it y ra nking s
for c it ies. O f p a rticula r in ter e st, i s the c a te g o r y r a n king c it y ’s g r e e n e c onom y / gr e e n
business efforts. This was defined b y sust a inela n e a s: “ Categories of analysis were based
on SustainLane primary research except where noted: Green, or LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environment) buildings per capita; Farmers' markets per capita; Presence of a
city or public-private incubator for clean technology industries, including renewable
energy, advanced transportation, advanced water treatment, alternative fuels, green
buil ding , a nd e n e r g y e ff i c ienc y ’ Pr e se nc e withi n the c it y o f a g r e e n busi ne s s di re c tor y ,
e it he r pub li c or pr ivat e .” A dummy variable was generated coded 1 for those cities that
we re ra ted “ lea din g ” o r “ a dva nc e d” in t his ar e a . T he mea n number o f g re e n jobs for those
cities with innovative green economy policies is 29610.5263. The mean number of green
jobs for those cities that are not leading or advanced is 24762.53. However, according to
the T test, I am not able to say that the mean number of green jobs for those cities with
higher levels of green economy measures was statistically significantly different from
those cities that were rated lower. (t=27.962, p=.104)
61
In conclusion, it appears that there is potentially a weak positive relationship
between sustainability programs and green jobs. The evidence is mixed. There are a
variety of limitations from this particularly analysis, including the nexus between city and
metropolitan statistical geographical scopes. Additionally, the skewedness of the data
may account for difficulties in calculating accurate T Values. Further research is required
to more accurately explore this link.

3. What is the relationship between green jobs and environmental nonprofit
organizations?

Nonprofit actors may be key elements of the institutional structure around the
green economy. Given the environmental goals pertinent to the green economy, it may be
logical to conclude that environmental nonprofits may have some relationship to the
incidence of green jobs within metropolitan area. Given the literature around
sustainability, a positive correlation could be hypothesized between the incidence of
environmental organizations and the incidence of green jobs within cities and
metropolitan statistical areas.
In this case, data was collected by metropolitan statistical area, rather than within
a particular city. This is most appropriate given that environmental organizations are
outside of the institutional structure of the city and are therefore not logically confined to
municipal jurisdictional boarders. Cities were matched with their appropriate
metropolitan statistical area.
Data can be ascertained at the metropolitan statistical area level from the datasets
available at the National Center for Charitable Statistics. The center provides data on
62
nonprofits at the municipal level available from datasets at the National Center for
Charitable Statistics (NCCS) The Center provides data on all 501 (c) 3 organizations
including public charities and private foundation. Information is broken down by relevant
type of nonprofits including by environmental organizations. NCCS quantified the
number of environmental organizations, similarly to median income data and population
data, by 2000 numbers. Future analysis should look towards updating this information to
reflect 2011 numbers.
The strength of nonprofit behavior among environmental organizations was
measured in terms of the aggregate number of environmental organizations within
selected cities by their metropolitan statistical areas. The data suggests that the number of
environmental organizations is tightly related to the aggregate number of green jobs
within metropolitan statistical areas. A statistically significant spearman correlation
coefficient of .897 (p=.000) indicates a relatively strong positive correlation between the
number of environmental organizations and the prevalence of green employment within
metropolitan statistical areas. The relationship can be confirmed and summarized by the
scatterplot included below.

63
Figure 9:
Environmental Nonprofits Versus Green Employment

The aggregate number of environmental organizations may not fully account for
the strength of environmental stakeholders within the metropolitan governance structure.
This estimation counts all environmental stakeholder groups as equal units, regardless of
their size. Obviously, larger nonprofit groups may have a greater impact. In order to
further test the relationship between environmental interest group influence, and the
prevalence of green employment, environmental interest group influence can be
differently measured.
Specifically, the size of environmental interest groups can likewise be measured
in two primary ways, and then the correlation between the number of green jobs with
64
these factors can be ascertained. First, the size of these interest groups is measured by the
total number of environmental contributions and outside grants. This number was
correlated with the number of green jobs within the included MSA. The correlation
coefficient is .354(p=.009). Second, the size of these interest groups can be measured by
the total amount of revenue of environmental organizations within the MSA. The
correlation coefficient is .602208. Thus, both of these factors are relatively strongly
related to the prevalence of green employment within metropolitan statistical areas. The
strength of the relationship is significant in understanding factors fostering green
economic activity within the metropolitan statistical level.
However, it is also important to consider the role of population in this estimation.
Large numbers of green jobs are largely correlated with population. Similarly,
environmental organizations are similarly correlated with population--potentially creating
a spurious relationship between environmental organizations and green employment. In
order to control for the effects of population, I can look at the relationship between green
employment at a per capita basis, and environmental organizations at a per capita basis.
In fact, at a per capita basis, the number of environmental organization is a relatively
convincing predictor of the number of green jobs in the selected metropolitan statistical
areas. Additionally, the relationship appears to be relatively linear. A simple univariate
OLS regression line utilizing metropolitan based data for each of the metropolitan
statistical areas indicates an R square of .910; approximately 91% of the variation in
green jobs per capita is explained, therefore, by the variation in number of environmental
organizations per capita within metropolitan statistical areas. (GREENJOBSPERCAP=-
65
.001+208.36Environmentalorgspercapita; p=.000) When median income is added as a
covariate into the regression line, the correlation coefficient is estimated at zero and it is
statistically insignificant, the coefficient on environmental organizations at a per capita
basis remains statistically significant. (GREENJOBSPERCAP=
.001+.209Environorgs(p=.000)+.000Medianincome(P=.587); Rsquare=.910). Full
regression lines are included at the end of the document. Such analysis should be
expanded upon in future research in order to more fully account for differences in size
differentials between places, and assure that the results are not connected with
correlations in population. For example, instead of comparing a per capita green
employment rate, with a per capita environmental organization rate, I can utilize the total
number of establishments as a denominator for the dependent variables. The correlation
between green jobs per total establishments and the number of environmental
organization per capita is statistically significant and nominally positively correlated at
.358 (.011). Similarly, I can also look at green employment per the total employment as
measured by BLS. The indicated correlation coefficient is .415 and is statistically
significant (.003). Thus, there is less of a tight relationship indicated when measuring
green jobs by this metrics.
Regardless of the limitations here, environmental organizations appear to have an
impact on the opportunities in the green economy. Thus, comparatively environmental
organizations appear to have a more leading effect on the number of green jobs, at both
the aggregate and per capita level. And, in terms of identifying opportunities in the green
economy more generally, knowing the number of environmental organizations does
66
provide an indicator of green jobs —although it may be difficult to deconstruct how much
of the effect is coming from environmental organizations or population alone.

Figure 10:
Green Jobs Per Capita Versus Environmental Orgs Per Capita

67
4. Conclusion
The above analysis sought to identify key factors closely linked to the provision
of green jobs within metropolitan areas. Both the metropolitan statistical area and the city
level were utilized, as appropriate, as the unit of analysis. Through this analysis of 55
large cities and corollary metropolitan statistical areas, it is evident that institutional
factors should be considered in understanding differences in interest and opportunities
around green jobs. Patterns do emerge around the incidence of green employment, and
the institutional context of the particular city and metropolitan statistical area.
As indicated above, several contextual elements remain key and provide useful
indicators of green economic activity at the sub-national scale. Data suggest a statistically
significant nexus between several key factors, and the prevalence of green jobs at the
metropolitan statistical area. First, median income is positively related to the prevalence
of green jobs at the metropolitan statistical area. Higher median incomes may provide
higher levels of opportunities in terms of green jobs through providing a context of higher
resources in pursuit of green jobs goals within metropolitan areas. Second, evidence is
mixed relative to the nexus between sustainability programs at the city level and green
jobs, as measured at the metropolitan statistical area. Higher levels of sustainability
programs and plans may have some positive relationship with the prevalence of green
jobs. Third and finally, the relationship between environmental organizations and the
prevalence of green jobs was also considered in the above analysis. A relatively strong
linear relationship is indicated between the prevalence of green jobs and environmental
68
interest groups within metropolitan areas. Together, these factors may provide indicators
of green economy opportunities at the sub-national scale.

69
B. Defining a Green Economy Institutional Typology
The construction of a typology is useful for grouping like cases of cities in order
to further understand the variation in institutional factors that may account for variation
in the number of green jobs within metropolitan areas. As noted by Bailey (1971)
“ ,C lust e r a na l y sis see ks t o divi de a set of objec ts i nto a small num be r of r e l a ti ve l y
homogeneous groups on the basis of their similarity over N variables. Conversely
variables can be grouped according to their similarity across all objects. Cluster analysis
can be viewed either as a means of summarizing a data set or as a means of constructing a
t y polo g y .” S im il a rl y , a s noted b y B ru c e a nd W it t (1971) “ , F or man y y e a rs r e se a rc he rs
have worked to develop typological procedures that would enable them to classify cities
in ways conducive to the analysis of both environmental structures and the interaction of
the city as an environment with the patterned activity of intra- c it y b e ha vio ra l var iabl e s”
This developed typology can be used in order to link combinations of key
institutional factors, including the distribution of green jobs related programs, with the
range of green employment within cities. Building on the analysis described above,
relevant institutional factors and green employment within cities and corollary
metropolitan statistical areas can be further examined. The strength of environmental
interest group activity, wealth, and sustainability programming may have a nexus with
the prevalence of green economic activity at the sub-national level.

70
1. Developing the Typology
An urban typology was developed through a multi-tiered approach. Cities were
grouped through a process of case selection and then organizing like-cases into 5 urban
types. First, cities were organized based upon critical background categoristics of the
corollary metropolitan statistical areas in which they sit; such factors were somewhat
identified and defined in the section above. Rather than calculating such factors at the
city level, utilizing the metropolitan statistical scale enables a richer and more
comprehensive understanding of such factors that do not begin and end at city
jurisdictional boundaries. I am ultimately attempting to understand economic linkages,
and such a scale incorporates economically linked areas. Population numbers by city
alone may not appropriately gauge the mass of individuals and thus potential employees.
Aggregate resources in the region, moreover, extend beyond city action and may thus not
be defined by differences in median income that start and stop at city jurisdictional
borders.
Specifically, key institutional background categoristics include income and
population. F irst, citi e s we re divi de d int o “ small ” a nd “ lar ge ” c a te g or ies b a se d upon the
total population in the metropolitan statistical area. The break-off point is defined by the
mean population level within the metropolitan statistical area; those MSAs with lower
than the mean calculated from all included metropolitan statistical areas, and those above
or equal to it were grouped into two categories. By then comparing cases within these
two categories, I can ensure that I am somewhat comparing the metropolitan areas in
whic h these c it ies sit . Dr a wing on th e scho lar ship a round “ me ga r e g ions,” diff e re n c e s
71
may be particularly stark within metropolitan statistical areas with exceptionally high
populations and a large volume of economic activities.
Second, the factor of wealth was considered. Although a multitude of different
factors can play a role, size and wealth collectively provide some baseline for differences
in the resources and the nature of included cities pertinent to the green economy. The
analysis defined above indicates that these factors may play somewhat of a role; median
income mattered in terms of the distribution of green jobs within metropolitan statistical
areas. C it ies, w it hin t he ir subdi vided c a te g or ies o f “ lar g e ” a nd “ sm a ll ” metr opoli tan
statistical area, were then selected based upon median income at the metropolitan
statis ti c a l ar e a . Th e mea n media n income wa s d e te rmine d for “ la r g e ” a nd “ s mall” c a se s,
and subdivided appropriately.
Finally, cities were selected based upon a sustainability variable at the municipal
level. This aims to draw the analysis tighter into the municipal scale by identifying what
particular actions cities take within their jurisdiction. As indicated by the analysis above,
some evidence exists indicating a relationship between sustainability programs and plans
in aggregate, and the prevalence of green jobs within metropolitan statistical areas.
Utilizing the number of programs as identifie d b y Ke nt P or tne y ’s w or k (20 11), the mea n
number of sustaina bil it y pr ogra ms wa s c a lcula t e d for “ small ” a nd “ lar ge c it ies” respectively. Cities were then organized based upon this variable. The process of
selecting cities based upon this typology is summarized by figure 11 below.

72
Figure 11:
Developing the Typology

In sum, significant diversity in types of cities are somewhat effectively grouped
and analyzed through the use of this typology. The descriptives of the key included
categories are displayed below. In addition, in order to test to ensure that all categories
were statistically significantly different across city type, I ran a Welch test (variances
were not always homogenous and thus ANOVA could not be used). As summarized
73
below, I find that the differences are statistically significant across urban type. This
indicates that this division may be an effective way to group like cities.

Figure 12:
Welch Test Across Urban Types

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound
Greenjob 1 7 7015.2857 3038.03861 1148.27066 4205.5686 9825.0028 2695.00 11515.00
2 6 12302.5000 6514.16361 2659.39616 5466.3045 19138.6955 5327.00 24194.00
3 1
1
17763.3636 10905.51298 3288.13588 10436.9403 25089.7869 1677.00 37750.00
4 1
1
42734.3636 31063.71721 9366.06314 21865.4745 63603.2528 15347.00 89592.00
5 1
6
46919.9375 33561.17654 8390.29413 29036.4489 64803.4261 9797.00 152034.00
Total 5
1
30178.7451 28840.52205 4038.48086 22067.2176 38290.2726 1677.00 152034.00
Sustaine11SSust
ain
1 7 17.4286 4.99524 1.88802 12.8087 22.0484 7.00 23.00
2 6 27.3333 2.65832 1.08525 24.5436 30.1231 25.00 32.00
3 1
1
28.1818 2.82199 .85086 26.2860 30.0777 23.00 31.00
4 1
1
20.9091 3.75379 1.13181 18.3873 23.4309 16.00 28.00
5 1
6
29.8750 3.63089 .90772 27.9402 31.8098 23.00 35.00
Total 5
1
25.5686 5.82496 .81566 23.9303 27.2069 7.00 35.00
Population 1 7 933368.0000 352824.17905 133355.00490 607060.0581 1259675.9419 545220.00 1569541.0
0

74
Figure 12, Continued

2 6 1225057.1667 588476.56693 240244.55243 607488.8841 1842625.4492 712738.00 2253362.0
0
3 1
1
1320615.5455 392891.79681 118461.33393 1056667.2449 1584563.8460 298806.00 1682585.0
0
4 1
1
4703716.5455 3198157.42777 964280.74622 2555165.1506 6852267.9403 1702625.00 9519338.0
0
5 1
6
3578733.7500 2329812.57243 582453.14311 2337264.2628 4820203.2372 1563282.00 9314235.0
0
Total 5
1
2694339.4510 2449778.64171 343037.62423 2005328.1050 3383350.7969 298806.00 9519338.0
0
Medianincome 1 7 39484.2857 4643.58822 1755.11138 35189.6829 43778.8885 31051.00 44981.00
2 6 37788.8333 2240.31948 914.60660 35437.7622 40139.9044 34960.00 40821.00
3 1
1
49277.0909 8879.21864 2677.18515 43311.9507 55242.2312 42439.00 74335.00
4 1
1
42955.4545 3456.38176 1042.13831 40633.4257 45277.4834 37406.00 49175.00
5 1
6
53740.3750 7143.92066 1785.98016 49933.6484 57547.1016 42468.00 63450.00
Total 5
1
46618.1765 8589.31727 1202.74499 44202.3921 49033.9609 31051.00 74335.00
environorg 1 7 36.1429 14.15896 5.35158 23.0480 49.2377 18.00 61.00
2 6 54.6667 11.79265 4.81433 42.2910 67.0423 40.00 67.00
3 1
1
91.1818 36.97247 11.14762 66.3434 116.0203 58.00 171.00
4 1
1
173.6364 108.51753 32.71927 100.7333 246.5394 46.00 338.00
5 1
6
214.6875 122.59457 30.64864 149.3615 280.0135 52.00 531.00
Total 5
1
135.8627 110.00037 15.40313 104.9246 166.8008 18.00 531.00

75

Figure 13:
Welch Test

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

Statistic
a
df1 df2 Sig.
Greenjob Welch 10.116 4 19.784 .000
Sustaine11SSustain Welch 14.852 4 18.592 .000
Population Welch 7.884 4 19.491 .001
Medianincome Welch 17.008 4 20.495 .000
environorg Welch 14.486 4 22.324 .000
a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Figure 14:
Median Income Across Urban Type

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1 2 3 4 5
Median Income
76
Figure 15:
Population Across Urban Type

Figure 16:
Sustainability Across Urban Type

0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
1 2 3 4 5
Population
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5
Sustainability
77
Figure 17: Sustainability Rankings by City

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
wichita
Tulsa
Memphis
El Paso
Tucson
Louisville
Miami
San Jose
Austin
Nashville
Raleigh
Jacksonville
St Louis
Tampa
Cleveland
Long Beach
Fortworth
Detroit
Seattle
Portland
New York
Oakland
San Diego
Chicago
Las Vegas
Kansas City
Sustainability Rankings by City Type
78

Figure 18: Median Income By City

79
Based upon the methodology described above, I have developed the following
typology below in order to group cities according to appropriate and relevant baseline
categoristics. Cities by categories are summarized by the figure below, and further
described below by each urban type. Several cities did not readily fit within the typology
and were resultantly not included in the analysis below. Within these categories, cities are
listed and summarized based upon their key categoristics as follows:

Unsustainable Underdogs (1):
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a
relatively low median income. They tend to have smaller amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have
relatively small number of environmental nonprofits.

Struggling Startups (2):
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a
relatively low median income. They tend to have higher amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a
relatively high number of environmental nonprofits

Green Boutiques (3):
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a
relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of sustainability
80
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a
relatively high number of environmental nonprofits

Lagging Leviathans (4):
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a
relatively low median income. They tend to have lower amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a
relatively low number of environmental nonprofits.

Green Giants (5):
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a
relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a
relatively high number of environmental nonprofits.

81

Figure 19:
Cities By Urban Type

Type 1 Cities: Unsustainable Underdogs
Unsustainable underdogs were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 933,368. These cities are thus not
loca ted in a “ me g - re g ion ” or ma ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vities. In addition, these cities are
located within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of
39,484.29.
Finally these cities have smaller amounts of sustainability programming according to
Ke nt P or tne y ’s ( 2011) m e a sure m e n t index. This is further corroborated by a lack of
82
indicated sustainability leaders or engagement in measures specific to the green economy,
a s mea sure d b y sust a inl a ne .c om empiric a l a ssess ment of c it y ’s sustain a bil it y . The na tu re of this urban type may be unpalatable to a robust environmental stakeholder movement.
Unsustainable underdogs also tend to have relatively small number of environmental
nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, have an average of .39
environmental nonprofits per capita. This may be somewhat expected and explained by a
general lack of resources as reflected by their smaller population size and lower median
income level. This may also be correlated with a low sustainability profile.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 7,015.29 and a per capita green jobs rate
of .008. Comparatively, this is a low number of green jobs. Therefore, cities that are
characterized as falling under this urban type are not likely areas of opportunity in the
green economy based upon this assessment of institutional characteristics.

Type 2 Cities: Struggling Startups
Struggling Startups were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 122557. These cities are thus not located
in a “ me g - r e g ion” or mas sive e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a dd ition, these cities are located
within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of
$37,788.83.
Despite these limitations, these cities tend to have a very different institutional
structure around environmental preservation. Unlike Type 1 cities, these cities have
83
im pr e ssi ve a mount s of sustaina bil it y p ro g ra mm in g a c c or din g to K e nt P or tne y ’ s (2011) measurement index. This is further corroborated by strong engagement in measures
specific to the green economy, as measured by sustainlane.com empirical assessment of
c it y ’s sustaina bil it y . Giv e n the sustaina bil it y pro file o f the se c it ies, it is un surpr isi ng that
such places are characterized by a relatively robust environmental stakeholder movement.
Type 2 cities also tend to have relatively high number of environmental nonprofits.
Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, have an average of .51 environmental
nonprofits per capita.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 12,302.5 and a per capita green jobs rate
of .010. Comparatively, this is a low number of green jobs. Therefore, cities that are
characterized as falling under this urban type are not likely areas of opportunity in the
green economy based upon this assessment of institutional characteristics. It appears that
there is strong effort around green jobs, by no immediate impact, perhaps somewhat
attributable to lack of resources within these cities. Future research should help to further
investigate the nexus between these factors, and what is essentially resulting in an
inefficient production of green employment if measured at an environmental nonprofit
and sustainability program per job level.

84
Type 3 Cities: Green Boutiques
Green Boutique cities were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 1563343. These cities are thus not
loca ted in a “ me g - re g ion ” or ma ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he s e c it ies a r e located within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively high median income of
$39277.09.
These cities have a strong institutional structure around environmental preservation.
Like type 1 cities, these cities have impressive amounts of sustainability programming
a c c or din g to K e nt P or tne y ’ s (2011 ) me a su re ment index . This i s fur ther c or robor a ted b y strong engagement in measures specific to the green economy, as measured by
sust a inl a ne .c om empiric a l asse ssm e nt of c it y ’ s sus taina bil it y . Give n the su stainability
profile of these cities, it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively
robust environmental stakeholder movement. Type 3 cities also tend to have relatively
high number of environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of
city, have an average of .593 environmental nonprofits per capita.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 17763.36 and a per capita green jobs
rate of .021. Comparatively, this is a notably high number of green jobs. It appears that
there is strong effort around green jobs, perhaps somewhat attributable to a prevalence of
resources within these cities. Therefore, cities that are characterized as falling under this
urban type are likely areas of opportunity in the green economy based upon this
assessment of institutional characteristics.
85

Type 4 Cities: Lagging Leviathans
Lagging Leviathans were selected to be located in relatively highly populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 4791298. These cities are thus located in
a “ me g - re g ion” or m a ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he se c it ies a r e loca ted w it hin
metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of $42075.56.
These cities have a weakly developed institutional structure around environmental
preservation. These cities have small amounts of sustainability programming according to
Ke nt P or tne y ’s ( 2011) m e a sure m e nt i nde x . Give n the sustaina bil it y profile of these cities,
it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively weak environmental
stakeholder movement. Type 4 cities also tend to have relatively low number of
environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, have an
average of .4069 environmental nonprofits per capita. A lack of commitment to
environmental issues may be correlated with lower income. The large population may
fuel difficulty, including jurisdictional challenges, in organizing sustainability
programming.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 45529.89 and a per capita green jobs
rate of .010. Comparatively, this is a relatively low number of green jobs. The rate is
comparable to type 2 cities, and relatively comparable to type 1 cities. All three city types
have low median incomes, thus indicating that low median income might be an indicator
of poor opportunities relative to the green economy. Therefore, cities that are
86
characterized as falling under this urban type are likely not areas of significant
opportunity in the green economy based upon this assessment of institutional
characteristics.

Type 5 Cities: Green Giants
Green Giants were selected to be located in relatively highly populated metropolitan
a re a with an a ve ra ge pop ulation of 3578734. The se c it ies a r e thus loca ted i n a “ me g -
re g ion” or massive e c ono mi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he se c it ies a r e loca ted withi n
metropolitan statistical areas that have a high median income of $53740.538.
These cities have impressive amounts of sustainability programming according to
Ke nt P or tne y ’s ( 2011) m e a sure m e nt i nde x . This i s f ur ther c o rr obor a ted b y s trong engagement in measures specific to the green economy, as measured by sustainlane.com
e mpi ric a l asse ssm e nt of c it y ’s sustaina bil it y . Giv e n the sustaina bil it y pro file o f the se cities, it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively robust
environmental stakeholder movement. Type 5 cities also tend to have relatively high
number of environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city,
have an average of .684 environmental nonprofits per capita.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 46919.94 and a per capita green jobs
rate of .041. Comparatively, this is a notably high number of green jobs. It appears that
there is strong effort around green jobs, perhaps somewhat attributable to a prevalence of
resources within these cities. Therefore, cities that are characterized as falling under this
87
urban type are likely areas of opportunity in the green economy based upon this
assessment of institutional characteristics.

Table 1:
City Characteristics by Urban Typology
City Name
Sustainabilit
y Ranking by
sustainelane.
com
Number of
Green Jobs in
MSA by
Brookings
Institution
Population
in MSA*
Median
Income in
MSA*
Number
of
environ
mental
organiza
tions in
MSA*
Amount of
environmental
contributions
in MSA*
Environment
al
Organization
s /10,000*
Green
employ
ment/ca
pita in
MSA*
Leadi
ng or
Advan
ced
Green
Busin
ess**
Sustai
nabilit
y
Leade
r***

UNSUSTAINBLE UNDERDOGS
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have smaller amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have relatively small number of environmental nonprofits.
Wichita 7 3913 545220 42651 24 13376448 0.44
0.007
177
Oklahoma 18 6854
108334
6 36797 43 5543436 0.4
0.006
327
Tulsa 18 7130 803235 38261 36 8139442 0.45
0.008
877
Omaha 19 7406 716998 44981 30 28387359 0.42
0.010
329
Memphis 20 11515
113561
4 40201 41
22457334
6 0.36
0.010
14
Virginia
Beach 17 9594
156954
1 42448 61 52302856 0.39
0.006
113
El Paso 23 2695 679622 31051 18 3345503 0.26
0.003
965
Average 17.43 7015.29 933368
39484.
29 36.14
47952627.
14 0.39 0.008

STRUGGLING STARTUPS
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have higher amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits
Albuquerq
ue 32 9912
71273
8 39088 52 12447695 0.73
0.013
907 Yes
Tucson 29 5327
84374
6 36758 65 29074918 0.77
0.006
314 Yes
San
Antonio 26 10634
15923
83 39140 62 17822280 0.39
0.006
678 Yes
Louisville 25 14447
10255
98 40821 42 13227929 0.41
0.014
086
Fresno 26 9301
92251
6 34960 40 19512362 0.43
0.010
082
Miami 26 24194
22533
62 35966 67 26075333 0.30
0.010
737
Average 27.33 12302.5
12250
57.17
37788.
83 54.67
19693419.
5 0.51 0.010

88
Table 1, Continued
GREEN BOUTIQUES
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits
Sacramento 31 37319
162819
7 46602 139 66551595 0.85
0.022
92
San Jose 30 18868
168258
5 74335 65 35062726 0.39
0.011
214
Columbus 31 15498
154015
7 44782 100 41232373 0.65
0.010
063 Yes
Austin 29 14554
124976
3 48950 112 28024592 0.90
0.011
645 Yes
Charlotte 29 15485
149929
3 46119 63 22983348 0.42
0.010
328
Nashville 29 17913
123131
1 44223 61 16033816 0.50
0.014
548
Minneapolis 31 37750
296880
6 54304 171 85780184 0.58
0.126
336 Yes Yes
Raleigh 26 1677
118794
1 48845 96 43642172 0.81
0.001
412
Indianapolis 27 15183
160748
6 45548 68 17140158 0.42
0.009
445
Jacksonville 23 7679
110049
1 42439 58 12736204 0.53
0.006
978
Milwaukee 24 13471
150074
1 45901 70 31038437 0.47
0.008
976
Average 28.18 17763.36
156334
2.82
49277.
09 91.18
36384145.
91 0.593 0.021

LAGGING LEVIATHANS:
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have higher amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively low number of environmental nonprofits.
St Louis 19 17553
260360
7 44437 126 92683639 0.48
0.006
742
Santa Ana 16 89592
951933
8 42189 338
12622545
7 0.36
0.009
412
Tampa 20 15347
239599
7 37406 108 24481873 0.45
0.006
405
Mesa 22 22904
325187
6 44752 130 77006301 0.40
0.007
043
Cleveland 24 24664
225087
1 42089 107 34001240 0.48
0.010
958 Yes
Los Angeles 28 89592
951933
8 42189 338
12622545
7 0.36
0.009
412
Long Beach 22 89592
951933
8 42189 338
12622545
7 0.36
0.009
412
Pittsburg 16 21963
235869
5 37467 118 76347726 0.50
0.009
312
Fortworth 24 38562
170262
5 45962 46
27277129
1 0.27
0.022
649
Houston 22 39986
417764
6 44655 149

80080287 0.36

0.009
571
Detroit 17 20323
444155
1 49175 112

56811973 0.25

0.004
576
Average 21.22 45529.89
479129
8.33
42075.
56
183.2
2
10621871
5.7 0.4067 0.010

89
Table 1, Continued
GREEN GIANTS
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits.
Boston 28 41825
340683
5 55183 429
36474614
2 1.26
0.012
277 Yes Yes
Seattle 35 31340
241461
6 52804 201 94883551 0.83
0.012
979 Yes Yes
Denver 33 27929
210928
2 51191 161
16608489
7 0.76
0.013
241 Yes
Portland 35 27489
191800
9 47077 193
22814047
6 1.01
0.014
332 Yes Yes
Washingto
n 29 70828
492315
3 62216 531
12975061
59 1.08
0.014
387 Yes
New York 30 152034
931423
5 63450 295
78050145
2 0.32
0.016
323 Yes Yes
San
Francisco 35 51811
173118
3 63297 197
33139430
7 1.14
0.029
928 Yes Yes
Oakland 32 51811
239255
7 63297 197
33139430
7 1.14
0.029
928 Yes Yes
Philadelph
ia 31 54325
510093
1 47536 240
15712027
2 0.47
0.010
65 Yes Yes
San Diego 30 22862
281383
3 63204 160
10077487
9 0.57
0.008
125 Yes
Baltimore 25 22619
255299
4 49938 133 90736555 0.52
0.008
86 Yes Yes
Chicago 31 79388
827276
8 51680 270
18403398
3 0.33
0.009
596 Yes Yes
Atlanta 23 43060
411219
8 51948 162 79323868 0.39
0.010
471
Las Vega 26 9797
156328
2 42468 52 10428319 0.33
0.006
267
Dallas 27 38562
351917
6 48364 146 34556829 0.41
0.010
958
Kansas
City 28 25039
177606
2 46193 68 14042305 0.38
0.014
098
Average 29.89 46919.94
357873
3.75
53740.
38
214.6
9
26660426
8.8 0.684
0.013
9

OTHER
Phoenix 31 22904
32518
76 44752 130 77006301 0.40
0.007
043
Colorado 15 1934
51629
2 46844 32 11504218 0.52
0.003
746
Honolulu 22 9269
87615
6 51914 51 14909197 0.58
0.010
579
Arlington 20 70828
29231
53 62216 531
13975061
59 1.08
0.024
23
average 18.5 5601.5
69622
4 49379 41.5
13206707.
5 0.55
0.007
2
* Data indicated at the MSA level by NCCS.
* * Y e s c o l u mn s a r e d e f i n e d b y su st a i n e l a n e ’ s i n d i c a t i o n t h a t c i t y g r e e n b u s i n e ss p o l i c i e s a r e r a n k e d e i t h e r “ l e a d i n g ” o r “ad v an ced .”
*** Yes columns are defined as the top 10 ranked cities related to sustainability according to sustainelane.com

90
Figure 20:
Green Jobs Per Capita by Urban Type

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
1 2 3 4 5
0.008
0.01
0.021
0.01
0.013
Green Jobs Per Capita
91
Figure 21:
Green Jobs By City Type

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1 2 3 4 5
7015.2857
12302.5
17763.3636
42734.3636
46919.9375
Green Jobs
92
Figure 22: Green Jobs by City

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
wichita
Tulsa
Memphis
El Paso
Tucson
Louisville
Miami
San Jose
Austin
Nashville
Raleigh
Jacksonville
St Louis
Tampa
Cleveland
Long Beach
Fortworth
Detroit
Seattle
Portland
New York
Oakland
San Diego
Chicago
Las Vegas
Kansas City
Green Employment by City Type
93

2. Interest and Investment in Green Jobs by Urban Type
How are these different types of cities employing green jobs-related policies?
What is the breath of ways in which the green economy is being envisioned, discussed, or
bolstered through policies and programs within cities? In order to gather and analyze
information on this front, I examined the different cities indicated above at the municipal
level and gathered information relating to municipal policies, programs, and plans
relative to the green economy.
A simplistic content analysis methodology was utilized in order to gather
information on the breath of green jobs related programs, and additionally to further
understand the degree and nature of the integration of green economy aims into the
institutional rhetoric within cities. In order to gather information, I searched city websites
for the te rms “ gr e e n jobs . ” I nf or mation b y muni c i pa li t y wa s then a rr a n g e d ba se d upon the
typology developed above.
The content analysis that follows builds on the methodology of early studies of
sustainability policies conducted by Berke and Conroy (2000), where they utilized
content analysis of comprehensive planning documents to understand the range and
degree of usage of the terminology and concept sustainability within the city government
context. This approach, then, enables me to understand, in a rudimentary manner, the
ways in which green jobs and the green economy may be utilized as an organizing
principal.
Of course, a multitude of limitations stem from this approach. This methodology
is limited, similarly to the study conducted by Berke and Conroy (2000), in that it does
94
not account for the differential between stated goals and implemented results. Likewise, it
also provides only a uni-dimensional measure of such references; such an approach does
not account for differences between a simple mention of green jobs and a comprehensive
program devoted to bolstering green employment within the city. As noted by Berke and
C onro y ( 2000 ) “ , ..the e x pli c it inclusi on of the c onc e pt has no e ff e c t on how well plans
a c tuall y promote sustaina bil it y prin c ipals.” D e spit e the lim it a ti ons, howe ve r, it doe s
provide some indication of the level at which the concept of green jobs is being
integrated at the city level when comparing cities with substantially different numbers of
aggregate references.
The r a n ge a nd t y pe of in c idenc e s wh e r e “ g r e e n jo bs” w a s r e fe re nc e d on c it y website, thus serving as a proxy instrument measuring the extent to which green jobs was
utilized as an organizing principal, varied considerably. There was a considerable range
of disparate programs and policies associated with these terms throughout the largest 55
cities. First, some cities did not reference the terms at all on their website, potentially
indicating that the terminology was absent from the discourse and that the city therefore
had not pursued any green economy goals within their jurisdiction.
2
Second, some cities
referred to the terms “ g r e e n jobs ” or “ gr e e n e c ono m y ” withi n their w e bsit e c ontent.
However, these cities do not have specific and deliberate programs related to green jobs
or the green economy and references to these goals are only done in the context of

2
The content analysis is limited to city websites. Therefore, if programs or policies were not included
on the website, they will not be identified in through this method. This may also exclude those
pr og r a ms
tha t
w e r e
n ot
dir e c tl y
l in k e d
t o
c ity’ s
w e b s i te ,
b ut
tha t
a r e
hou s e d
i n
o ther websites online
that have no link to the official municipal site. Future research could look towards a wider array of
websites to get a more comprehensive picture of the prevalence of the term and related policies and
planning mechanisms.
95
another program. Third, several cities have programs and policies specifically and
deliberatively utilizing green jobs or the green economy as an organizing principle. Some
of these municipalities specifically develop green economy plans and policies, and
operate websites to activities within their jurisdiction. The uneven integration of green
jobs into the process may be indicative of the relative novelty of it as a planning and
policy goal —sim il a rl y to B e rk e a nd Co nr o y ’s (20 00) e a rlie r f indi n g s ar oun d
sust a inabili t y th a t “be c a use this study focuses on initial attempts by local jurisdictions at
int e g r a ti ng the c onc e pt i nto pl a ns, t he f indi ng s sho uld not be surpr isi ng .”
How does the nature of green jobs programs and references vary by urban type,
thereby considering variation in ter ms of a c it y ’s a nd metr opoli tan a re a ’s in sti tut ional
context? Differences exist in the frequency of discourse around green jobs. First, the
relationship can be represented quantitatively through looking at the frequency of the use
of the te rm “ g r e e n jo bs” withi n c it ies, b y urba n t y pe . The mea n numb e r of g r e e n jobs programs by urban type is summarized by the descriptives table below and is graphically
represented in the figure below. The mean number of green jobs programs by urban type.
Type 1 cities have a mean number of references of 1.3, type 2 cities have a mean number
of references of 42.4, type 3 cities have a mean number references of 39.2, type 4 cities
have a mean number of references of 6.6, and type 5 cities have a mean number of
references of 247.8125. I can further test whether or not these differences are statistically
significantly different through the use of a Welch statistic for equality of means; the test
yields an F statistic of 2.939 (p=.031). I consequently reject the null hypotheses that the
mean number of references within municipal websites are equal across urban type.
96
Therefore, the discourse is quantitatively different for different types of cities and the
typology developed above appears to provide some structure through which these
differences can be effectively categorized. Different types of cities may therefore be
discussing green jobs and corollary program development in substantively different ways.

Figure 23:
Green Jobs References by Urban Type

0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5
1.2857
42.4
39.1818
6.6
247.8125
Green Jobs References by City
Type
97
Figure 24:
Green Jobs References Discriptives by Urban Type

Descriptives
Green Jobs References as Quantified on City Websites

N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimu
m
Maximu
m
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 7 1.2857 3.40168 1.28571 -
1.8603
4.4317 .00 9.00
2 5 42.4000 42.03332 18.7978
7
-
9.7913
94.5913 .00 94.00
3 1
1
39.1818 62.73248 18.9145
5
-
2.9624
81.3261 .00 208.00
4 1
0
6.6000 11.33529 3.58453 -
1.5088
14.7088 .00 35.00
5 1
6
247.812
5
369.9704
9
92.4926
2
50.669
1
444.955
9
.00 1290.00
Tota
l
4
9
95.5714 235.5029
2
33.6432
7
27.927
1
163.215
8
.00 1290.00

Providing further context, the sections below summarize key programs and
poli c ies w he re th e ter m “ g r e e n jobs ” w a s re fe r e nc e d;; ser vin g a s a p rox y f or e sti mating the discourse around green economic development within urban areas. The search term
was imputed in each city municipal website. The number of references was totaled for
each city and listed by city name in parentheses in the left-hand column in the included
tables. Additionally, some brief information on the nature of the reference (the particular
program employed, or goal stated) was ascertained and listed with relevant links to the
particular reference in the included tables below in the right-hand column. Each section
98
briefly discusses a broad content analysis of the way in which green jobs are discussed
and green jobs programs are referenced within cities. This aims to identify general trends
in green jobs at the city level by municipal type. This also provides a more exhaustive list
of the types of city programs that are being implemented around green jobs goals.

Type 1: Unsustainable Underdogs

Table 2:
Unsustainable Underdogs

UNSUSTAINBLE UNDERDOGS
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have smaller amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have relatively small number of environmental nonprofits.
Wichita None
Oklahoma
City
None
Tulsa None
Omaha (9) M a y o r ’ s Of f i c e :
Part of Economic Development Plan: http://www.ci.omaha.ne.us/mayor/component/wordpress/issues
Manufacturing Initiative (ARRA funded):
http://www.co.douglas.ne.us/omaha/mayor/images/stories/CDC%20Enterprises%20Announcement.pdf

Memphis None
Virginia
Beach
None
El Paso None

Unsustainable underdogs were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 933,368. These cities are thus not
loca ted in a “ me g - re g ion ” or ma ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he s e c it ies a r e located within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of
39,484.29.
These cities have smaller amounts of sustainability programming according to Kent
P or tne y ’s (2011 ) me a sur e ment index . This i s fur t he r c or robor a t e d b y a la c k of indicated
sustainability leaders or engagement in measures specific to the green economy, as
99
mea sure d b y sust a inl a n e . c om empiric a l asse ssm e n t of c it y ’s sustaina bil it y . The na ture o f
this urban type may be unpalatable to a robust environmental stakeholder movement.
Unsustainable underdogs also tend to have relatively small number of environmental
nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, have an average of .39
environmental nonprofits per capita. This may be somewhat expected and explained by a
general lack of resources as reflected by their smaller population size and lower median
income level. This may also be correlated with a low sustainability profile.
Type I cities tend to have a limited focus on green jobs. As reflected by the table,
most cities do not reference green jobs within their city website and thus likely do not
focus on green jobs as a component of their policy platforms. The lack of focus on green
jobs may be attributable to the limitations inherent within these types of cities. Within
these cities, there is an overall lack of resources and a lack of pressure from
environmental organizations.
Although the success appears to be very limited, Omaha is clearly the leader in this
regard, and offers a strategy that might be palatable to similar metropolises. The strategy
in Omaha is largely couched as a part of the economic development goals of the city,
ra ther than a s a pa rt of th e c it y ’ s env ironme ntal po li c ies a nd mea sur e s. Gr e e n jobs a re specifically referenced as a part of the economic development plan. Additionally, the city
has made some attempt to integrate the concept of green jobs into their manufacturing
ba se d e c onomi c d e ve lop ment g oa ls. A c c or din g to the Ci t y ’s r e l a ted pr e ss r e lea se “ , The partnership brings an e nv ironme ntall y pro gr e ssi ve c ompan y to Omaha . ‘ W e a re takin g a major step forward in growing the Omaha economy and creating new and sustainable
100
jobs i n our c omm unit y , ’ sa id Ma y o r J im S ut tl e . ‘T his i s jus t t he f irst st e p i n m y plan to
bring 1,000 new jobs to the Eastern part of our city and I am proud these jobs are part of
the c lea n e ne r g y e c onom y . ’ ” The c it y w a s able to leve ra ge ARR A f undin g in orde r to
facilitate the development of the HVAC-related manufacturing facility; 200 individuals
will be employed and trained in the plant. Through this effort, the green economy
strategy in Omaha focuses on the need for employment and is thus, first and foremost, a
jobs-driven strategy. Framing around jobs goals may provide the most politically-feasible
approach towards integrating green economy goals into municipal policy and planning
programs.
For these cities, with the exception of Omaha, the green economy and green jobs
discussion is not permeating the discourse within the city and there is limited interest and
progress in terms of developing green employment opportunities. The dearth of green
economy strategies is consistent with the institutional characteristics of these types of
cities. Most notably, there may be a lack of financial resources needed in order to enact
the types of environmentally-centric policies that may create the impetus for green
employment opportunities. These data suggest that a focus around green jobs is likely not
a strong possibility within these types of metropolitan areas.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban
type? These cities have a total number of green jobs of 7,015.29 and a per capita green
jobs rate of .008. Comparatively, this is a low number of green jobs. Therefore, cities that
are characterized as falling under this urban type are not likely areas of opportunity in the
101
green economy based upon this assessment of institutional characteristics. There is
limited activity, institutional support, and green employment within this urban type.

Type 2: Struggling Startups

Table 3:
Struggling Startups

STRUGGLING STARTUPS
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have higher amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits
Albuquerque None
Tucson (12) Green economy website: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/ocsd/jobs/
San Antonio
(94)
Considerable and Direct Focus of Office of Environmental Policy
Green Jobs Program:
http://www.sanantonio.gov/oep/SustainabilityPlan/Appendices/Initiative%203/Attachment%201%20-
%20SA%20Green%20Jobs%20Program%20Report%20.pdf
Green Technology Development: http://www.sanantonio.gov/oep/SustainabilityPlan.asp?res=1280&ver=true
http://www.sanantonio.gov/oep/SustainabilityPlan/Summaries/Clean%20and%20Green.pdf
Louisville
(26)
Green Jobs Incentives: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/economicdevelopment/businessdevelopment/GreenIncentives.htm
Related to ARRA: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BA96DA70-729A-45AF-ADF5-
DD8F10982B9F/0/AnnualReport22410.pdf
Fresno
(80)
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DB41F259-98AF-4D40-9E15-
064BCAE2E189/9864/10June2008EOGreenTechnology.pdf
Training grants: http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7B941935-B179-47A3-A634-
9FD86A23D0B9/0/Reso201112techcorr.pdf
Workforce investment, city council agendas: http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A9873F5E-B3A0-4A81-A8B3-
26C47F3E0517/0/JUNE2509.pdf
Miami
(N/A)
Green jobs Corps:
https://docs.google.com/a/usc.edu/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-
9z8BNWwwcEJ:daystar2.cabq.gov:81/Attachments/7322.doc+%22green+economy%22+site:cabq.gov&hl=en&gl=us
&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiSsNurlpnBxSzuGClkYoQ9vJie-TFC_K66e-
8I5xJUMgMhU68WlhcKcTVetnF_3OgnwbkI9gf3ZV7nBJvllltTR0lAw3dc9PrJztiKosVx-jAJ-
KW2txqJlOLscCvfFZ4wMC6H&sig=AHIEtbR_81bP0wdYM_jSJ2R0VO61oHjlzw

Struggling Startups were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 122557. These cities are thus not located
in a “ me g - r e g ion” or mas sive e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he se c it ies a re loca ted
within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of
$37,788.83.
Despite these limitations, these cities tend to have a very different institutional
structure around environmental preservation. Unlike Type 1 cities, these cities have
impressive amounts of sustain a bil it y p ro g ra mm in g a c c or din g to K e nt P or tne y ’ s (2011)
102
measurement index. This is further corroborated by strong engagement in measures
specific to the green economy, as measured by sustainlane.com empirical assessment of
c it y ’s sustaina bil it y . Giv e n the s ustainability profile of these cities, it is unsurprising that
such places are characterized by a relatively robust environmental stakeholder movement.
Type 2 cities also tend to have relatively high numbers of environmental nonprofits.
Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, has an average of .51 environmental
nonprofits per capita.
How does this city type engage in policies around the green economy? Type 2
cities, with the exception of Albuquerque, are somewhat focused on green jobs as a part
of their municipal vernacular and policy strategies. In fact, these cities tend to specifically
focus on green jobs as a stated policy focus. Rather than just integrated as a secondary
and unspecific goal within broader environmental plans, these cities tend to devote
programs specifically aimed at bolstering green jobs. They focus on green jobs, despite
their diminutive size and relatively smaller income levels in a very deliberate manner.
Several cities stand out in their stated efforts around the green economy. The City
of Tucson operates a website specifically oriented around building a local green
economy. There, at least in terms of stated goals, appears to be a particularly strong
commitment to fostering opportunities that aim to incorporate diverse goals. For
example, their green jobs website is framed around the statement that:
A sustainable economy makes effective use of unique and valuable local
resources, such as the beauty of the Sonoran desert and large quantities of
sunshine, while respecting the limitations imposed by scarce or vulnerable
resources such as water. A sustainable economy is one where money spent
in the local economy circulates within the community and expenditures
that leave the community are minimized. Embracing a strong local
103
economy means promoting small, locally owned, resource efficient, and
environmentally sensitive businesses. A sustainable economy enhances the
intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of the community
and promotes human development in an equitable manner. In a sustainable
economy, both jobs and potential for career growth are accessible to all
residents; opportunities exist for the elderly and disabled, and for our
youth to stay and build rewarding careers within the community.

At the very least, creating economic opportunities and environmental preservation
through green job is a central goal of the city. Given the overabundance of references to
g r e e n jobs withi n the c it y ’s w e bsit e , som e de gr e e of discussi on is oc c ur rin g indi c a t ing
green jobs broadly as a policy aim. As an obvious corollary next step, resources are
actively directed at bolstering opportunities in this regard.
Specifically, these cities tend to programmatically focus on workforce
development. This may be attributable to the workforce needs. Cities of this type do face
a lower median income level, and thus must be responsive to the diversity of their
constituency in terms of income levels. These cities might be more motivated, given
these needs and potential corollary political pressure, to create opportunities for those
constituents at the lower end of the skills spectrum. Such an approach often brings new
institutional partners into the discussion through the development of training curriculum,
often at the community college level, and the need for local workforce investment boards
to come to the table in the provision of job placement services and the coordination of
resources. In order to best utilize resources, multiple cities have directly engaged in the
devel opment of “ gr e e n jo bs co rps” in orde r to pr o vide nic he tra ini n g oppor tuni ti e s in t he green economy. Such approaches often utilize partnerships with nonprofit groups. Many
104
cities, moreover, have actively pursued training-related stimulus funding in the creation
of these and like efforts.
There are also some particularly innovative programs relative to the clean
technology vision of the green economy that are prevalently included in this city type.
San Antonio, for example, has developed a plan around the green economy that includes
a focus on clean technology. The City of Louisville is engaging in the green jobs
discussion through a particularly robust set of financing incentives. Their website notes
that: “ The world is changing, and so are the products that the Economic Development
Department offers. Small businesses can now take advantage of four incentive programs
a im e d a t i nc re a sin g e ne r g y e ff icie n c y a nd c re a ti ng “ gr e e n ” jobs. ” A $2 m il li on re volvi ng loan fund called POWER LOAD (Providing Opportunities with Emissions Reductions)
provides retrofitting for off-road diesel equipment. The Go Green Revolving Loan Fund
is a revolving loan fund aimed at companies creating novel green products or jobs. The
Non-Profit Energy Improvements Program provides $1.3 million in grants for non-profit
organizations seeking to implement energy savings in their facilities. Taken together,
such programs may bolster opportunities for a niche market of companies —potentially
leading to the bolstering of opportunities broadly constructed around environmentally
preservative products and services.
Overall, it appears that these cities may provide ample testing ground for policy
and planning measures aimed at the green economy. Despite their smaller size and
smaller relative income levels, such cities do have a commitment to sustainability as
reflected in the number of environmental organizations and sustainability measures. Such
105
a commitment appears to provide strong motivation for results. Broadly, such cities
demonstrate the potential to formulate policy and planning goals around the green
economy at a smaller scale and with the employment of relatively fewer resources in
general. They also may provide space for stronger integration of equity considerations
into the green jobs creation process through a heavy concentration on training and
workforce development more broadly. Unlike type 3 cities, as discussed directly below,
they may not cater more directly to higher-road, technologically advanced economic
niches. Opportunities oriented around green collared jobs may be an effective approach
towards green jobs development within these types of metropolises.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 12,302.5 and a per capita green jobs rate
of .010. Comparatively, this is a low number of green jobs. Therefore, cities that are
characterized as falling under this urban type are not likely areas of opportunity in the
green economy based upon this assessment of institutional characteristics. It appears that
there is strong effort around green jobs, but no immediate impact, perhaps somewhat
attributable to lack of resources within these cities. Future research should help to further
investigate the nexus between these factors, and what is essentially resulting in an
inefficient production of green employment if measured at an environmental nonprofit
and sustainability program per job level.

106

Type 3: Green Boutiques

Table 4:
Green Boutiques
GREEN BOUTIQUES
These cities are located in relatively smaller populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of
sustainability programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits
Sacramento
(2)
Briefly mentioned in climate action plan: http://www.sacgp.org/documents/Phase-1-CAP_2-11-10.pdf
San Jose
(208)
C o mp r e h e n si v e “ g r e e n v i si o n , ” i n c l u d i n g a f o c u s o n c l e a n t e c h : http://www.sanjoseca.gov/Mayor/goals/environment/GVgoals.asp
Cleantech Strategy: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/goals/environment/PDF/2011CleanTechAgenda.pdf
Columbus None
Austin
(77)
Strong focus on cleantech: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sustainability/homegrown.htm
Charlotte
(5)
Some resources for businesses on practices, no official programs:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/FocusAreas/Environment/Pages/BusinessResources.aspx
Nashville
(23)
Green jobs council: http://www.nashville.gov/mc/resolutions/term_2007_2011/rs2009_866.htm
Minneapolis
(72)
Green Jobs Site: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/green-jobs.asp
Green Manufacturing Initiative: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/news/20080422GreenEconomy.asp
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/mayor/news/20100622newsmayor_mayorslaunchthincgreen.asp
Worker Training (RENEW): http://www.minneapolismn.gov/news/20110727RENEWProgram.asp
Raleigh
(9)
Major focus of economic development and Office of Sustainability:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanEconDev/Articles/RaleighEconomicDevelopmentPartnership.html
Green building training: http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/PubAffairs/Articles/GreenBuildingTraining.html
Indianapolis None
Jacksonville None
Milwaukee
(35)
Office of sustainability: several plans relating to green jobs:
http://city.milwaukee.gov/sustainability

Green Boutique cities were selected to be located in relatively smaller populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 1563343. These cities are thus not
loca ted in a “ me g - re g ion ” of ma ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he s e c it ies a r e located within metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively high median income of
$39277.09.
These cities have a strong institutional structure around environmental preservation.
Like type 1 cities, these cities have impressive amounts of sustainability programming
according t o K e nt P or tne y ’ s (2011 ) me a su re ment index . This i s fur ther c or robor a ted b y strong engagement in measures specific to the green economy, as measured by
sust a inl a ne .c om empiric a l asse ssm e nt of c it y ’ s sus taina bil it y . Give n the sus taina bil it y profile of these cities, it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively
107
robust environmental stakeholder movement. Type 3 cities also tend to have relatively
high number of environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of
city, has an average of .00000593 environmental nonprofits per capita.
Green job programs for Green Boutique cities are relatively prevalent, albeit
inconsistent. The smaller size may account for an inability to foster comprehensive green
jobs or green economy programs at any large magnitude. Such strategies are multifaceted
and specifically focused on green jobs as an organizing principal, rather than just as a
secondary outcome of some other environmental policy or planning strategy.
Within this type of city, Minneapolis stands out as having a particularly
comprehensive approach towards green jobs. The city has a relatively long discourse
around the green economy. In 2008, the city council passed a motion around the green
economy outlining a framework for exploring the green economy. Specifically, they state
that:
Whereas the City is already pursuing several strategies to build the green
economy in Minneapolis, including, but not limited to:
• Adopting a L e a de rship in Ene r g y a nd Environm e ntal De si g n ( L EED ) Pol i cy that
requires municipal facilities to be built or rehabbed to LEED Silver standards;
• Establis hing the T e a m Te e n W or ks Gr e e n Te a m sum mer gre e n job co rps
program;
• Upda ti ng the Minne a po li s C ompre he nsive Pl a n – now named The Minneapolis
Plan for Sustainable Growth – to ra ti f y th e C it y ’s c omm it ment to bui ldi ng a sustainable city;
• Dir e c ti n g staf f to r e vise the Ci t y ’s En vironmenta ll y P re f e rr e d P roc ur e men t
Policy to include wherever possible green purchasing that supports local
suppliers;
• P a rtne rin g with the City of Saint Paul and the Department of Energy on the
Solar America Initiative to increase solar installation and production capacity in
the City;
• R e visi ng C it y z oning a nd re g ulator y poli c ies to make it e a sier for prop e rt y owners to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency;
• Adopting the I ndust ri a l L a nd Use P oli c y , whic h sa fe g ua rds I ndust ria l
108
Employment Districts, to protect them for the creation of good paying jobs;
• I nstall in g sol a r p a ne ls a nd g r e e n roo fs on municipa l bui ldi ng s, inc luding plans
for installation of a 600 kw solar array – the largest in the Upper Midwest – on the
Minneapolis Convention Center this fall.
Now, therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minneapolis
that the City endorse the Minneapolis Good Jobs Green Jobs Initiative to
integrate strategies t h r o u gh ou t t h e City ’s w or k to c ap ture t h e b e n e f its of t h e emerging green economy for Minneapolis; and Be it further resolved that the
C it y thanks th e pa rticipa nts i n the Ma y or s ’ G re e n Man uf a c turin g Initiative for
their work in creating the Making It Green report; and Be it further resolved that
the City participate in Phase II of the Green Manufacturing Initiative in
partnership with the Blue Green Alliance and the City of Saint Paul, to include
further work on a developing a marketing plan, researching economic growth
potential in additional green industries, identifying future workforce needs and
training pathways, and research options for formalizing the partnership with all
stakeholders; and Be it further resolved that CPED staff be directed to
incorporate a focus on capturing the benefits of the emerging green economy in
its work, including but not limited to:
• Establis hing a mar k e ti ng f ra mew o rk tha t promot e s the Ci t y f or gr e e n e c o nomi c
development and green collar jobs;
• R e view ing busi ne ss fina nc e a nd de ve lopm e nt t o ols for oppor tuni ti e s to p romote
green business development;
• C onve ning a re a busi ne s se s to b uil d a g r e e n busi n e ss networ kin g g roup to
expand and support growth into the green economy;
• Connecting with existing workforce development partners to position
curriculum, job placement, and business need for potential career opportunities in
the green economy for low-income Minneapolis residents and to seek
opportunities to build green economy experiences for youth 14-21 years old
through the Minneapolis Employment and Tr a ini ng P ro g r a m’s S TEP -UP
program;
• C onti nue d re fine ment a nd im pleme ntation of pla nning poli c ies a nd re g ula ti ons
that fur ther the Ci t y ’s sus taina bil it y g oa ls and sup po rt the emerging green
economy.. (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-
meetings/20080711/docs/Making-It-Green-Resl-revised.pdf)

Subsequently, the city has specifically developed an indicator for the green economy as a
part of their sustainability plan. The City also provides an array of public resources, and
spec ifica ll y r e a c h e s out to bus inesse s ar ound e n e r g y e ff icie n c y . Thr ou g h th e ir “ c le a n
en e r g y r e sourc e tea ms” we bsit e , the y prov ide a p a rticula rl y c ompr e he nsiv e a rr a y of
information to businesses (http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/community-
109
projects ) Their approach is also incorporative of workforce training and the integration
of a green manufacturing initiative.
Overall, many of these cities tend to focus on clean tech initiatives. San Jose and
Austin both provide particularly well developed examples of such approaches oriented
around innovative, high-technology employment opportunities. The focus on clean-tech
makes sense given the higher income, higher skilled populations of these places; such
cities may in fact boast a competitive advantage in these strategies as they may be best
positioned to economically benefit from economic opportunities around environmental
pr e se rv a ti on a nd re m e dia ti on. The y a re most li ke ly to hav e “ c l e a n tec h ” in dust r y to be g in
with, and to see economic benefits and opportunities from the bolstering of green
economic activities.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 17763.36 and a per capita green jobs
rate of .021. Comparatively, this is a notably high number of green jobs. It appears that
there is strong effort around green jobs, perhaps somewhat attributable to a prevalence of
resources within these cities. Therefore, cities that are characterized as falling under this
urban type are likely areas of opportunity in the green economy based upon this
assessment of institutional characteristics.
Green job programs for Green Boutique cities are relatively prevalent, albeit
inconsistent. The smaller size may account for an inability to foster comprehensive green
jobs or green economy programs at any large magnitude. Such strategies are multifaceted
110
and specifically focused on green jobs as an organizing principal, rather than just as a
secondary outcome of some other environmental policy or planning strategy.
Overall, many of these cities tend to focus on clean tech initiatives. San Jose and Austin
both provide particularly well developed examples of such approaches oriented around
innovative, high-technology employment opportunities. The focus on clean-tech makes
sense given the higher income, higher skilled populations of these places; they may in
fact boast a competitive advantage in these strategies as they may be best positioned to
economically benefit from economic opportunities around environmental preservation
a nd re media ti on. Th e y a r e most li ke l y to have “ c le a n tec h” indus tr y to be g i n with, an d to
see economic benefit and opportunities from the bolstering of green economic activities.

Type 4: Lagging Leviathans

Table 5:
Lagging Leviathans
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTERPRENEURS
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively low median income. They tend to have loer amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively low number of environmental nonprofits.
Mesa
(0)
Economic Development/Solar Park:
http://www.mesaaz.gov/economic/pdf/ArchivedNewsltrs/EconomicReporterJuly2009.pdf
Cleveland
(5)
Green jobs as part of sustainability plan:
www.city.cleveland.oh.us/clnd_images/PDF/Mayor/Briefinf_Paper.pdf
Los Angeles None
Long Beach
(35)
Green Jobs Center: http://www.longbeach.gov/cd/workforce/greenjobs/

Pittsburg
(2)
GHG inventory: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3168
Santa Ana None
St Louis
(17)
Green Jobs Report:
http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/slate/documents/st-louis-green-jobs-report.cfm
Tampa None
Fort Worth None
Detroit N/A
Houston
(7)
S u st a i n a b i l i t y p l a n s a n d m a y o r ’ s o f f i c e me n t i o n : http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/index.html

Lagging Leviathans were selected to be located in relatively highly populated
metropolitan area with an average population of 4791298. These cities are thus located in
111
a “ me g - re g ion” or m a ssi ve e c onomi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he se c it ies a r e loca ted w it hin
metropolitan statistical areas that have a relatively low median income of $42075.56.
These cities have a weakly developed institutional structure around environmental
preservation. These cities have small amounts of sustainability programming according to
Ke nt P or tne y ’s ( 2011) m e a sure m e nt i nde x . Give n the sustaina bil it y prof il e of these c it ies,
it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively weak environmental
stakeholder movement. Type 4 cities also tend to have relatively low number of
environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of city, have an
average of .000004069 environmental nonprofits per capita. A lack of commitment to
environmental issues may be correlated with lower income. The large population may
fuel difficulties, including jurisdictional challenges, in organizing sustainability
programming.
Type 4 cities, large environmentally progressive organizations with lower median
income, tend to have a limited focus on green jobs as an organizing principal of public
policy. Diversity and inconsistencies exist in green economy efforts for these cities.
Man y o f the c it ies indi c a t e no mention of the ter m s “gr e e n jobs ” or “ gr e e n e c onom y ” on
their city website--indicating that these terms have not pervaded the municipal discourse.
St. Louis was the exception and has developed a green jobs plan —indicating an unusual
commitment to the concept.
Of the efforts that do exist, many of the government actions are aimed at
developing the workforce, and tend to be focused more heavily on opportunities in the
“ gr e e n c oll a r e d” jobs. Th is m a y be a ssocia ted w it h the ne e d to s e rv e lowe r i nc ome
112
populations within these metropolitan areas. Additionally, some references to green jobs
and green economy aims are couched within project specific focuses. For example, Mesa
has developed a solar energy park in order to develop opportunities around the green
economy. Long Beach, moreover, has pursued green economy opportunities in
connection with goods movement activities; they seek to capitalize specifically around
opportunities related to the port complex in their jurisdiction and the neighboring Port of
Los Angeles complex.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban type?
These cities have a total number of green jobs of 45529.89 and a per capita green jobs
rate of .010. Comparatively, this is a relatively low number of green jobs. The rate is
comparable to type 2 cities, and relatively comparable to type 1 cities. All three city types
have low median incomes, thus indicating that low median income might be an indicator
of poor opportunities relative to the green economy. Therefore, cities that are
characterized as falling under this urban type are likely not areas of significant
opportunity in the green economy based upon this assessment of institutional
characteristics.

113
Type 5: Green Giants

Table 6:
Green Giants
GREEN GIANTS
These cities are located in relatively large populated metropolitan areas. They have a relatively high median income. They tend to have higher amounts of sustainability
programming, including those specific to the green economy. They also tend to have a relatively high number of environmental nonprofits.
Boston
(180)
Green Jobs Programs: http://www.cityofboston.gov/environmentalandenergy/greenjobs/
See case study.
Seattle
(550)
Economic Development Website, green jobs from clean energy:
http://www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/climatePrograms.htm
Community Power Works: Home Retrofits Program: http://www.communitypowerworks.org/energy-efficiency-jobs/
Job Training and Workforce Development:
http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/Green_Jobs_Overview.pdf
“ G r e e n Jo b s St r a t e g y ” : http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2010/regional20100720_3a.pdf
“ g r e e n ” c o mm e r c i a l b u i l d i n g p r o j e c t ;; c r e a t i v e u se o f f i n a n c i al incentives: http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/city-invests-
in-innovative-bullitt-center/
Federal Funding, green jobs through retrofits and weatherization:
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10679&dept=48
Denver
(77)
Greener Denver: Including clean tech, and energy jobs
http://www.denvergov.org/oed/DenverOfficeofEconomicDevelopment/Newsroom/tabid/435773/newsid488087/3726/
Mayor-Hickenlooper-Launches-Greener-Denver-Climate-Prosperity-Program/Default.aspx
Greenprint Denver: http//www.greenprintdenver.org
Green and Healthy Homes Initiative:
http://www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofStrategicPartnerships/Partnerships/NeighborhoodEnergyActionPartnership/
tabid/436573/Default.aspx
ARRA: economic development plan:
http://www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofEconomicDevelopment/Newsroom/Announcements/tabid/435866/newsid4
88106/4494/New-Study-Analyzes-Return-On-Investment-of-Citys-Workforce-Development-Stimulus-
Funding/Default.aspx
Portland
(933)
Green Collared Jobs Initiative: http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=51350&a=276841
Green Building Jobs: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=220986&c=44851
Washington
(1290)
Green Collared Jobs Initiative: http://green.dc.gov/green/cwp/view,a,1231,q,461044.asp
New York
(497)
Green Economy Plan: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr465-09_plan.pdf
Workforce Development Training: http://www.nyc.gov/html/sbs/wib/downloads/pdf/wib_initiatives.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/sbs/wib/downloads/pdf/green_workforce_framework.pdf
Million Trees (jobs in urban forestry): http://www.nyc.gov/html/ceo/html/opportunities/milliontrees.shtml
Green Jobs Brownfields: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oer/html/community/partnership.shtml
Waterfront Redevelopment:
http://www.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_
press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2009b%2Fpr3
35-09.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1
Solar Empowerment Zones:
http://home.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_
press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2010a%2Fpr2
62-10.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

San Francisco
(92)
See case study
Oakland
(253)
See case study
Philadelphia
(101)
Green jobs site: http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/economy_GreenJobs.html
San Diego
(85)
Workforce Investment/ARRA http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/sustainable/pdf/greenforecast.pdf
C l e a n t e c h S t r a t e g y ( M a y o r ’ s Of f i c e ) : https://docs.google.com/a/usc.edu/viewer?a=v&q=cache:AuzFFbyRyN0J:www.sandiego.gov/environmental-
services/sustainable/pdf/cleantech.pdf+%22green+economy%22+site:sandiego.gov&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=A
DGEEShhKYaSXv6Ay8l_lEYi-
0ZirVQqIuRZnNUVMHairLenL3UDChv1XLHM0J3qdkh1xp9Jd6kdNQoxWOpMryqU40gLdGbTPzg0QY3C4N61Z
4IFnn7gi34o881JCGU3Q-sC5jJgNYcx&sig=AHIEtbQd8p_4rdPGJlA-BRYdgD0JsKdYGA
Baltimore
(19)
Workforce Training and Youthcorps:
http://www.oedworks.com/resources/Two%20Plan%20Mod%20PY%202009.pdf
Weatherization and Training: http://www.baltimorehousing.org/wgo_detail.aspx?id=345
114

Table 6, Continued
Chicago
(42)
Green Jobs Training: Greencorps Chicago:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doe/provdrs/nat_res/svcs/greencorps_chicago.html
Green Jobs for All training program:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/progs/recovery_and_reinvestment/NewsPDFs/Jul22Housing.pdf
Retraining formally incarcerated (ARRA funded):
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2010/march_2010/0311_ex_offenders.ht
ml
Mayoral Plan around agriculture:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2011/july_2011/mayor_emanuel_annou
ncesplantocreatejobsspureconomicdevelopmentan.html
Chicago Center Green Technology:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doe/provdrs/ccgt.html
Atlanta
(42)
Sustainability Plan: http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/nr_suswk_102510.aspx
Las Vegas
(3)
Green Jobs Initiative from ARRA: http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/information/19033.htm
Dallas None
Kansas City
(8)
M a y o r ’ s i n i t i a t i v e : http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/CityOfficials/MayorsOffice/MayorsInitiatives/index.htm

Green Giants were selected to be located in relatively highly populated metropolitan
a re a s with an a ve ra g e po pulation of 3578734. The se c it ies a re thus loc a ted in a “ me g -
re g ion” or massive e c ono mi c a c ti vit ies. I n a ddit ion, t he se cities are located within
metropolitan statistical areas that have a high median income of $53740.538.
These cities have impressive amounts of sustainability programming according to
Ke nt P or tne y ’s ( 2011) m e a sure m e nt i nde x . This i s f ur ther c o rr obor a ted b y strong
engagement in measures specific to the green economy, as measured by
sust a inl a ne .c om’s e mpi ri c a l asse ssm e nt of c it y ’s s ustaina bil it y . Give n the s ustaina bil it y profile of these cities, it is unsurprising that such places are characterized by a relatively
robust environmental stakeholder movement. Type 5 cities also tend to have relatively
high number of environmental nonprofits. Measured on a per capita basis, this type of
city, have an average of .684 environmental nonprofits per capita.
Type 5 cities tend to have large resources and relatively high levels of income,
and thus can accommodate a range of green economy programs. For many of these cities,
115
“ gr e e n jobs ” is compar a ti ve l y h e a vil y mentioned withi n the c it y ’s municip a l we bsit e .
However, not all cities choose to directly incorporate green jobs as a municipal focus.
Likewise, there is relatively high diversity in terms of the types of green jobs initiatives
that are pursued.
Among those that do have a green jobs focus, cities have a particularly wide
breath of green jobs programs. This may be attributable to their relatively higher levels of
resources available to the city due to its size. They may have a relatively robust array of
industries and wealth to harness opportunities. They may also have the aggregate size
needed in order to build city departments to particularly perform certain functions such as
economic and workforce development. Such cities also have the infrastructure to devote
websites to green jobs and to devote staff to such efforts.
Several cities have a focus on green jobs as a high-road economic development
strategy particular to the green economy. For example, Chicago has a relatively robust
commitment to green jobs. The city operates a clean technology job center. Moreover, the
city has also engaged in a relatively diverse array of programming including jobs related
to urban agriculture. Denver, likewise, is particularly focused on clean technology under
the auspices of their economic development program. New York operates a green
technology and manufacturing initiative as a part of their waterfront initiative and also
has developed a program around solar empowerment zones. Such approaches are largely
couched as part of innovative economic development initiatives.
In addition to clean tech strategies, many of these cities are also developing
workforce development strategies. These workforce development initiatives may reflect
116
the diversity of incomes germane to these large metropolitan areas. Chicago, for example,
has workforce development programs specifically aimed at formerly incarcerated
individuals.
Taken together, such cities tend to offer concerted approaches to green economic
in disproportionately large measure. Large, relatively wealthier cities, with histories of
preexisting sustainability policies and commitment, may provide fertile testing ground for
policy and planning mechanisms oriented around green jobs provision. Specifically, they
may have the interests and resources to become a testing ground for particularly
innovative and niche policies and programs around green jobs.
How does this related to the observed number of green jobs within this urban
type? These cities have a total number of green jobs of 46919.94 and a per capita green
jobs rate of .00000014. Comparatively, this is a notably high number of green jobs. It
appears that there is strong effort around green jobs, perhaps somewhat attributable to a
prevalence of resources within these cities. Therefore, cities that are characterized as
falling under this urban type are likely areas of opportunity in the green economy based
upon this assessment of institutional characteristics.

117
Figure 25:
Green Jobs References by City

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
wichita
Omaha
El Paso
San Antonio
Sacramento
Austin
Raleigh
Milwaukee
Tampa
Los Angeles
Fortworth
Seattle
Washington
Oakland
Baltimore
Las Vegas
Green Jobs References by City Type
118
Conclusion to Chapter 1
The above analysis sought to identify key factors closely linked to the provision
of green jobs within metropolitan areas. Both the metropolitan statistical area and the city
level were utilized, as appropriate, as the unit of analysis. Through this analysis of 55
large cities and corollary metropolitan statistical areas, it is evident that institutional
factors should be considered in understanding differences in interest and opportunities
around green jobs.
Data suggests a statistically significant nexus between several key factors, and the
prevalence of green jobs at the metropolitan level. First, median income is positively
related to the prevalence of green jobs at the metropolitan level. Higher median incomes
may provide more abundant opportunities in terms of green employment. Second,
evidence is mixed relative to the nexus between sustainability programs at the city level
and green jobs, as measured at the metropolitan statistical area level. Higher levels of
sustainability programs and plans may have some positive relationship with the
prevalence of green jobs. Third and finally, the relationship between environmental
organizations and the prevalence of green jobs was also considered in the above analysis.
Relative to other examined variables, a strong linear relationship is indicated between the
prevalence of green jobs and environmental interest groups within metropolitan areas.
Such variation in institutional factors can be jointly understood in the context of
the urban typology developed and presented above. Taken together, different
constellations of institutional factors may explain differences in the relative prevalence of
g r e e n e mpl o y ment. Ov e r a ll , “ Gr e e n B outi que s ” a nd “ Gr e e n Gia nts” a ppe a r to ha ve a
119
relative abundance of green employment, when examined at the per capita basis. Such
urban types are broadly characterized as having higher median incomes, and having an
a bunda nc e or sustaina bil it y pro g r a ms. C onve rse l y , “ Unsustaina ble U nd e rdo g s” demonstrate little opportunities in the green economy and are characterized by low
median income, and a lack of sustainability programming.
Collectively, such institutional factors appear to be driving differences in
opportunities in the green economy. Differences were examined in this first section
through correlation analysis. Again, the dependent variable here was green employment,
measured at a per capita basis in order to account for size differences. And, such
impactful institutional differences can be extended to interest in the green economy as
gauged by references to green employment on city websites.
How might institutional factors relate to one another in the complex construction
of an explanation linked in the emergence of green economy? Correlations between
critical institutional factors are displayed in the included table. Moving from left to right
in the table below, variables include: number of environmental nonprofits, location
quotient of green employment (as will be defined below), environmental organizations
per capita, the number of sustainability programs, the total number of green jobs, the
poverty rate, and the number of individuals in poverty. Just as such factors relate to green
employment as a dependent variable as measured at a total and per capita basis, they are
also related to one another. Understanding both the distribution of green jobs and the
distribution of green jobs programs, as well as the relationship between each other,
requires a complex understanding of the interrelationship between the disparate factors.
120
Towards this end, the typology above aimed to being to connect these factors in the
context of urban types.

Figure 26:
Correlations Across Institutional Variables:
Correlations
enviro
norg
lq orgp
ercap
Mediani
ncome
Sustaine11
SSustain
Gree
njob
greenp
ercap
pov
rate
pov
ertyr
Spear
man's
rho
environ
org
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
1.000
.2
44
.200 .575
**
.461
**

.910
*
*

.421
**

-
.16
7
.582
**

Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.
.0
73
.143 .000 .000 .000 .001
.22
8
.000
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55
lq
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.244
1.
00
0
.452
**
.289
*
.545
**
.316
*
.774
**

-
.24
4
-
.161
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.073 . .001 .033 .000 .019 .000
.07
6
.242
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55
orgperc
ap
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.200
.4
52
**

1.000 .349
**
.422
**
-.054 .349
**

-
.33
7
*

-
.335
*

Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.143
.0
01
. .009 .001 .697 .009
.01
3
.012
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55

121
Figure 26, Continued

Mediani
ncome
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.575
**

.2
89
*

.349
**
1.000 .476
**

.475
*
*

.462
**

-
.64
5
**

-
.016
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.000
.0
33
.009 . .000 .000 .000
.00
0
.910
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55
Sustain
ability
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.461
**

.5
45
**

.422
**
.476
**
1.000
.418
*
*

.625
**

-
.20
9
-
.031
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.000
.0
00
.001 .000 . .002 .000
.13
0
.821
N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Greenjo
b
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.910
**

.3
16
*

-.054 .475
**
.418
**

1.00
0
.562
**

-
.10
5
.633
**

Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.000
.0
19
.697 .000 .002 . .000
.45
1
.000
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55
greenpe
rcap
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.421
**

.7
74
**

.349
**
.462
**
.625
**

.562
*
*

1.000
-
.30
8
*

-
.075
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.001
.0
00
.009 .000 .000 .000 .
.02
4
.587
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55

122
Table 26, continued

povrate
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
-.167
-
.2
44
-.337
*
-.645
**
-.209 -.105 -.308
*

1.0
00
.443
**

Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.228
.0
76
.013 .000 .130 .451 .024 . .001
N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
povertyr
Correl
ation
Coeffi
cient
.582
**

-
.1
61
-.335
*
-.016 -.031
.633
*
*

-.075
.44
3
**

1.00
0
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
.000
.2
42
.012 .910 .821 .000 .587
.00
1
.
N 55 55 55 55 54 55 55 54 55
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Environmental nonprofit groups, overall, appear to provide a guiding influence
relative to other institutional factors. At a per capita basis, environmental organizations
are correlated with green employment, as described above. Similarly, such an analysis is
corroborated by the development of the urban typology described above. Here, cities
were grouped into urban types according to population, median income, and
sustainability programming. When looking at averages of per capita environmental
organizations across urban types, the results appear to mirror the number of green jobs on
a per capita basis, as demonstrat e d b y the g ra phs b e low. Thus, “ g r e e n g iant s” a nd “ g r e e n
bouti que s” ha ve hi g he r n umber s of e nvironmen t a l orga niz a ti ons a t a pe r c a pit a ba sis , a nd
123
a relatively higher number of green employment per capita (displayed below as per
10,000).
Figure 27:
Environmental Organizations by Urban Type

Figure 28:
Environmental Organizations per 10,000 by Urban Type

0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5
Environmental Organizations
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5
Enviornmental Org per 10,000
124
Figure 29: Environmental Organizations by City

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
wichita
Tulsa
Memphis
El Paso
Tucson
Louisville
Miami
San Jose
Austin
Nashville
Raleigh
Jacksonville
St Louis
Tampa
Cleveland
Long Beach
Fortworth
Detroit
Seattle
Portland
New York
Oakland
San Diego
Chicago
Las Vegas
Kansas City
Environmental Organizations by City
Type
125
Correlations and linkages between institutional factors and green employment can
be further analyzed in order to understand potential areas of comparative advantage in the
green economy. Where are there areas of comparative advantage in the green economy,
and how can institutional factors indicate where such areas may occur? Thus, institutional
factors can become indicators of comparative advantage in the green economy when
attempting to find areas of opportunity at the sub-national scale.
Taking the analysis one step farther, I can also utilize regression analysis to begin
to think about predicting or indicating the abundance of green jobs within a certain
geographical scope based upon the key institutional characteristics summarized below.
This current analysis is very limited in scope, and future research should more fully
investigate the quantitative relationship between green employment and examined
institutional factors, as well as other potential indicators of activities and interest in the
green economy at the sub-national scale. Several OLS regression lines below offer
potential predictive equations based upon population, median income, poverty rate,
number of environmental organizations, and/or whether or not the MSA contains cities
that are leading in terms of sustainability programs.
The regression lines summarized in the table below examine the relationship
between institutional factors and the per capita green jobs rate. Regression 1 and
regression 2 were previously covered. As above, environmental organizations at a per
capita basis appear to be linearly related to green jobs per capita. Wealth was examined in
regression 2 and 3. Adding povertyrate (calculated as the number of individuals in
poverty over the total population) marginally improves the fit of the model. Thus, wealth
126
may nominally account for differences in green employment at a per capita basis. As
modeled in regression 3, median income does not reveal a statistically significant
correlation coefficient. Thus, regression analysis suggests that environmental
organizations account for much of the variation in green employment at the sub-national
scale. Such impact far exceeds the impact of wealth on the distribution of green
employment within metropolitan statistical areas. Finally, government-driven
institutional factors were examined in regression 4 and 5. In regression 4, the number of
g r e e n jobs r e fe r e nc e s (id e nti fie d he r e unde r the n a me “ g re e njobs pr o g ra ms” ) is include d
with the regression line, and does not reveal a statistically significant correlation
coefficient. Similarly, when the number of sustainability programs is added to the
regression line, the indicated correlation coefficient is not statistically significant.

127
Table 7:
Regression Equations for Green Jobs Per Capita
Independent Variable:
Greenjobspercapita:
Measured as the total green jobs over the total population at the
MSA level.
Independent
Variables:
1

2

3

4

5

Constant -.003 -.003 .001 -.003 -.006
Orgpercapita 208.361**
.000
175.300**
.000
209.610**
.000
182.31**
.000
169.425**
.000
Medianincome .000
.584

povrate .088**
.002
.031**
.037
.042**
.001
Sustainability .000
.346
GreenJobs
Programs
.000
.604

Observations 48 48 48 48 53
F test 289.049** 245.243** 196.616** 211.969**
Rsquared .910 .926 .914 .929 .927
Adjusted
Rsquare
.908 .923 .911 .924 .924

Regression 2 may provide the best fitting model to predict opportunities in the
green economy. In addition to generating the number of green jobs, areas of comparative
advantage can also be examined through per capita measures as previously utilized, or
though the construction of a green economy location quotient accounting for differences
in employment from one metropolitan statistical area to another. I utilized a rough
measure of green jobs based upon location quotient analysis, rather than analyzing
differences in green employment at a per capita, or total basis. This not only accounts for
128
size differentials, but differences in the relative economies of places. Here, I calculated
the total number of green jobs within each MSA and divided them by total employment
as reported by 2009 County Business Data. I then divided this by total number of green
jobs in the sample, per the total employment in the sample. Those MSAs with a location
quotient ration higher than 1, have comparatively higher concentrations of green
employment, and thus might be areas of comparative advantage within the green
economy.
The table below compares the actual location quotients for green jobs utilizing
data from the Brookings Institution and employment data (total number of employment)
for each associated metropolitan statistical areas as calculated by County Business Data,
and the projected location quotients based upon the per capita green employment rate
generated by regression #2. The regression line appears to relatively accurately predict
the concentration of green employment. In most cases, similar cites are indicated as
having location quotients of more or less and than 1, and thus potentially indicating areas
of comparative advantage. Several cities are not well identified by the regression line
including, most notably: El Paso, Louisville, Tucson, Raleigh, Sacramento, New York
and Boston. Generally speaking, data is grouped by urban typology developed above.

129
Table 8:
Predicted versus Actual Green Jobs Location Quotients
City
Name
Green Employment
Location Quotient
Predicted Green
Employment LQ
Difference Between
Predicted and Actual LQ
Unsustainable Underdogs(Brown Cities)
Omaha 0.938 0.636 0.301
Wichita 0.748 0.798 0.050
Tulsa 0.919 0.894 0.025
Memphi
s 1.111 0.940 0.172
Virginia
Beach 0.797 0.940 0.143
Oklaho
ma 0.739 0.990 0.251
El Paso 0.658 1.667 1.008
Average 0.844 0.981 0.136
Struggling Startups (Red Cities)
Miami 0.654 0.514 0.140
Louisvil
le 1.379 0.761 0.618
San
Antonio 0.738 0.989 0.251
Albuque
rque 1.722 1.792 0.070
Tucson 0.864 2.178 1.315
Fresno 2.000 2.481 0.481
Average 1.226 1.453 0.227

130
Table 8, Continued
Green Boutiques (Yellow Cities)
San Jose 1.098 0.599 0.498
Charlotte 1.014 0.725 0.289
Indianapolis 0.999 0.755 0.244
Nashville 1.342 0.826 0.517
Milwaukee 0.894 0.862 0.032
Jacksonville 0.757 1.057 0.301
Minneapolis 1.164 1.121 0.043
Columbus 1.020 1.180 0.160
Austin 1.129 1.584 0.455
Sacramento 2.904 2.034 0.870
Raleigh 0.200 2.048 1.848
Average 1.138 1.163 0.025
Lagging Leviathans (Blue Cities)
FW 0.759 0.551 0.208
Detroit 0.651 0.707 0.057
Houston 0.898 0.750 0.148
Phoenix 0.767 0.874 0.107

131
Table 8, Continued
Santa Ana 0.891 0.894 0.002
Long Beach 0.891 0.894 0.002
St Louis 0.730 0.945 0.215
Pittsburg 1.056 1.056 0.000
Tampa 0.809 1.086 0.277
Cleveland 1.379 1.120 0.259
Mesa 0.767 0.107 0.660
Average 0.897 0.925 0.028
Green Giants (Green Cities)
New York 1.031 0.143 0.888
Dallas 0.759 0.551 0.208
Kansas City 1.406 0.639 0.767
Chicago 1.016 0.654 0.362
Las Vega 0.644 0.669 0.025
Atlanta 1.041 0.692 0.350
Los Angeles 0.891 0.894 0.002
Philadelphia 1.098 0.917 0.181
Seattle 1.060 1.062 0.002
Baltimore 1.055 1.108 0.052
Denver 1.318 1.289 0.029
San Diego 1.024 1.395 0.371
San Francisco 1.436 1.524 0.088
Oakland 1.436 1.524 0.088
Boston 0.932 1.651 0.719
Washington 1.481 1.875 0.394
Portland 1.567 1.937 0.370
Average 1.129 1.090 0.040
Unclassified
Colorado 0.438 0.774 0.337
Honolulu 1.372 0.026 1.347
Arlington 0.759 0.318 0.441

132
Figure 30:
Graph of Actual Versus Predicted Location Quotients

Another way of looking at differences in comparative advantage in the green
economy, moving away from measures of green employment, is the level of interest in
the green economy. Given the incipient and rapidly changing nature of the green
133
economy, green employment rates may not accurately reflect the opportunities in the
green economy moving forward. If we believe that institutional focus on the green
economy may be linked to future job growth, then understanding those institutional
factors that may be linked with such interests, may offer some limited guidance in terms
of opportunities in the green sector. Regressions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 examine the dependent
variables greenjobsprograms-- the quantification of references developed in the typology
section of the dissertation above. Higher number of references may be indicative of
greater institutional investment in the green economy--which may then lead to
opportunities in the green economy or be indicative of areas of comparative advantage.

134
Table 9:
Regression Equations for Green Jobs References
Independent Variable:
GreenJobsPrograms:
M e a s ured a s Q ua ntif ica t io n o f t er m “ g re en j o bs ” o n c it y w ebs it es.
Independent
Variables:
6 7 8 9 10
Constant 192.617 -13.616 -313.257 -84.906 -58.812
Orgpercapita 2275101.43**
*****
.001
1865401.1**
*
.013

EnvironOrgs 1.4000**
.000
1.938**
.000
Population .000
.035**
Povrate
2061.387**
.001
-1771.276**
.006

Sutaina
bility
7.614
.205
16.066**
.012

Observations 48 48 44 44 44
F test 6.977** 5.269** 6.966**

29.521** 18.405**
Rsquared .253 .260 .139 .407 .467
Adjusted
Rsquare
.199 .211 .119 .393 .442

What institutional factors may be indicators of interest in the green economy,
according to this very cursory regression analysis? First, regression 6 is similar to
regression 2 in terms of examined institutional factors. Environmental organizations
reveal a similarly significant indicator of green jobs commitments at the sub-national
scale. Regressions 6, and 7, examine the relationship between environmental
135
organizations at a per capita basis, and green jobs references/interest. Here, I find a
statistically significant correlation coefficient, and an R squared value of .253. In
re g re ssi on 7, sust a inabili ty pr o gr a ms (a s m e a sur e d b y K e nt P or tne y ’s inde x ) is a dde d to
the model. When sustainability is examined alone, its correlation coefficient is marginally
statistically significant. Regression 9 examines the relationship between green jobs
program and the total number of environmental organizations. Population provides much
less of a threat here as the number of green jobs references is only mildly positively
correlated with population (R=.349). Regression 10 includes population as an
independent variable. Population is nominally statistically significant and marginally
increases the adjusted R squared value from .393 to .442. In sum, knowing the number of
environmental organizations may help indicate, or perhaps even predict, the institutional
interest in the green economy.
In sum, institutional factors, then, appear to provide critical information in terms
of predicting the number of green jobs within metropolitan statistical areas. Both
government approaches and advocacy coalitions likely matter. Utilizing the quantitative
and qualitative analysis above, there are potential applications of this analysis. As
mentioned at the outset, the construction of this relationship is potentially important
given the lack of data on the number of green jobs at the sub-national level. Green
employment is not quantified within particular NAICS or SOCs codes (as will be
discussed in Chapter 3) and is thus not easily identifiable for policy makers. As a
potential example, the regression line #2, for example, can therefore be utilized as an
initial step in identifying green jobs through interpolation within desired geographical
136
scopes including at the county and city level without necessitating large sample surveys.
Information at the city-based and county-based level for environmental organizations and
the poverty rate can be ascertained and applied in order to generate a quick estimate of
the green economy. Such a quantitative analysis is relatively cursory and further research
is needed in order to provide a more robust regression line around the relationship of such
institutional factors, and estimates around green employment than the one utilized here.

137
Chapter 2: Case Study Analysis
A) Introduction to Case Study Analysis
As a relatively new movement at the sub-national level, concerted efforts around
the green economy are relatively new and underdeveloped. The interest is clearly
burgeoning; the corollary methodology and concrete steps and issue framing to get there
are lacking. The dependent variable of green jobs is the aim of such a movement and this
dissertation aims to provide a methodology through which quantification of green jobs at
the sub-national level can be accomplished, as well as an examination of the range of
institutional factors that serve as independent variables that may account for the
proliferation of green economic opportunities in particular cities and metropolitan
regions. Although the analysis above detailed some critical factors that can be considered
including characteristics such as income, studying the green economy at the metropolitan
level necessitates further breadth and detailed analysis in order to better understand and
analyze relationships and activities germane to the green economy.
In order to provide further detailed and in-depth analysis of the institutional
elements pertinent to green economic development at the sub-national level, this section
will utilize multiple case studies in order to further examine factors that define
opportunities at the sub-national scale. Specifically, the following section outlines the
methodology utilized in the case study analysis of selected metropolitan statistical areas,
in addition to analysis done at smaller geographical scopes within the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA). First, the case study methodology is discussed; Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area, San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
138
Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical
Area are selected through this process. Second, an economic development analysis is
described through industry-based and occupational methods. This aims to develop a
methodology through which practitioners and scholars can identify opportunities,
including relevant sectoral strategies building on identification of points of comparative
advantage, in the identification of green employment at the metropolitan level. Third and
finally, a more detailed institutional analysis of policy mechanisms and interest group
activities is described and analyzed within the selected case studies. This analysis seeks
to bridge the policies pursued, and potential policies that could be pursued, with the
identification of economic activities through the institutional and occupational analysis
described above.
In the end, I hope to provide a generalizable methodology through which green
economic opportunities could be identified, along with an understanding of the
institutional environment through which such opportunities can be fostered. I also hope to
provide a menu of potential policy tools that could be appropriate in shifting institutional
contexts. Given the diversity in places, no universal strategy around green jobs is likely
and I instead aim to provide options and insights in terms of which options might work
given these institutional dimensions. Different strategies will yield different results given
the governance context of cities and regions.

139
B) Methodology Overview
The following section describes in detail the methodology used in order to
conduct case study analysis of several metropolitan statistical areas. The methodology, as
discussed above, specifically falls into three areas. First, I discuss the process of case
selection. Second, economic development analysis particular to green jobs is developed.
Third, the institutional environment including government agencies and the nonprofit
environment is ascertained for different cases. Detailed information is garnered for each
case and the process is described in detail in the methodological section that follows.
Through this approach, both research questions defined at the outset are somewhat
addressed.

1. Case Study Selection Based on Dependent Variables
One of the largest methodological challenges is the proper selection of cases in
order to investigate the research questions outlined at the outset. Case studies are selected
in accordance with the dependent variable: the presence of green jobs. This builds on the
analysis above in two critical ways. First, it allows me to provide such detailed analysis
in the context of places where large proportions of green jobs already exist. The prior
section aimed to identify which institutional factors may be correlated with higher levels
of green jobs across all cities. Alternatively, this section focuses only on those places
where green jobs are present in relatively high number, and seeks to understand the
specifics of these opportunities. Second, this provides a more detailed analysis of those
metropolitan statistical areas going beyond the relatively broad and simplistic framework
140
developed above and begins to analyze what may account for, or be highly correlated
with, that fact. Case study selection, as defined below, will identify and provide the
suitable array of places that are forerunners in green economic development.
The definition of green jobs utilized for the purpose of case study selection differs
from the definition utilized in the section above. Rather than relying on one definition of
green jobs put forth by Brookings Institution, this asserts that we have selected cities with
some legacy of green jobs, isolated for recent significant changes in overall economic
factors, and also provides a more comprehensive measure of green jobs by integrating
two different approaches towards quantification, as summarized below. Therefore, for the
purpose of case study selection, green jobs are measured at the metropolitan area through
two primary sources:

a) US Council of Mayors Green Jobs Study: Although the definition is relatively
narrowly defined and can be broadened during the case analysis process to incorporate a
wider spectrum of potential employment opportunities, for the purpose of bracketing my
universe for case selection based upon the dependent variable, the presence of green jobs
c a n be a ssesse d throu g h t he use o f the US C ounc il of Ma y or ’s St ud y (2006) on green jobs
at the municipal/regional level. Here, green jobs a re de fin e d a s: “a n y a c ti vi t y that
generates electricity using renewable or nuclear fuels, agriculture jobs supplying corn or
soy for transportation fuel, manufacturing jobs producing goods used in renewable power
generation, equipment dealers and wholesalers specializing in renewable energy or
energy-efficient products, construction and installation of energy and pollution
141
management systems, government administration of environmental programs, and
supporting jobs in the engineering, legal, research a nd c onsul ti ng f i e lds.” Base d upon thi s
metric, a universe of potential cities are drawn. Table 10 summarizes the metropolitan
statistical areas with the greatest aggregate amount of green employment.

Table 10:
Green Jobs by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2006
New York 25,021
Washington D.C. 24,287
Houston 21, 250
Los Angeles 20,136
Boston 19,799
Chicago 16.120
Philadelphia 14,379
San Francisco 13,848
San Diego 11,663
Pittsburgh 9,627
Source: US Council of Mayors, 2006

b) Ranking of “Cle an te c h ”: Potential job growth and entrepreneurialism can further
define the dependent variable through an indication of green job activity. The most
c ompre he nsive m e a sur e ment of such a c ti vit y is C lea ne d g e ’s ra nkin g of t he “ c le a n tec h
se c tor” a c ross me t ropolitan areas. Although the definition of green jobs does vary, there
is a large level of overlap between these two groups making comparison possible.
Through this assessment, metropolitan areas in the United States are ranked according to
an amalgamation of a variety of metrics including: Job postings including historical data
from a variety of job boards and recruiters, investment activity provided by Bloomberg
New Energy Finance including early stand investments, state-level job presence within re
142
view of published documents, and clean energy patent information garnered from the
Clean Energy Patent Growth Index published by Heslin, Rothenberg, Farley, & Mesiti
P.C. As summarized by the list in the table below, a variety of metropolitan areas are
identified as having a high level of clean-tech job activity and thus score highly on a
metric of provision of green jobs. The leading 15 metropolitan areas, as ranked by this
study, are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11:
Clean-Tech Jobs Ranked by Metropolitan Statistical Areas
1 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA
3 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
4 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ
5 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
6 Washington-Arlington-Baltimore, DC-VA-MD
7 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
8 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
9 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
10 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
11 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
12 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
13 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
14 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
15 Sacramento –Arden-Arcade –Roseville, CA
Source: CleanEdge

The magnitude of green jobs within metropolitan areas is ascertained through
consideration of both of these two measures. Table 15 indicates those metropolitan
statistical areas which fall within the “top ten ” both in terms of clean tech ratings and by
the numbe r of g r e e n jobs a s indi c a ted b y the U S c ounc il of Ma y or s’ stud y of gre e n jobs .
Metropolitan areas that were not within the top ten on both table 10 and table 11 were
eliminated from the sample. Identified metropolitan areas thus provide a good sample of
143
metropolitan statistical areas that represent a high prevalence of the dependent variable
(the mechanism by which case studies will be chosen by, as explained above) of green
jobs by both measurements.

Table 12:
Selected Metropolitan Statistical Area

Clean
Tech
Ratings
Green Jobs
Total By
US Council
of Mayors
Green Jobs
Ranking By
US Council
of Mayors
San Francisco-Oakland 1 13,848 8
Los Angeles-Long-Beach-Riverside 2 20136 4
Boston-Cambridge, Quincy, MA 3 19,799 5
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island-NY-NJ 4 25,021 1
Washington-Arlington-Baltimore 6 24287 2
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 7 11,663 9
Houston-Sugarland-Baytown Texas 8 21,250 3
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville IL-IN-WI 9 16,120 6

Within this bounded universe, case studies are additionally selected based upon
the manner in which they epitomize particularly relevant policy and planning
mechanisms designed around the attainment of green jobs growth at the sub-national
level. In order to fulfill this intent, particular case studies will then be further bounded
and analyzed based upon their representativeness of planned or achieved pursuit of these
(and potentially other related) disparate policy and planning aims. Within this framework,
case studies are secondarily selected based upon their ability to either demonstrate a
cutting-edge approach to achieving green jobs policy and planning objectives, a novel
144
and/or successful nexus of social movement groups in the pursuit of these goals, and a
particularly widespread approach to facilitating goals across economic, environmental,
and equity-driven values.
Through this collective approach to case study selection, I aim to bolster research
qua li t y throu g h a n e nha n c e ment of the finding s’ i nter na l validi t y , e x ter na l validi t y , a nd
reliability (Yin, 1994) in an explanatory and exploratory understanding of the green jobs
movement and its theoretically logical and politically feasible policy and planning
outputs. In the end, case study selection in this manner is likely a particularly effective
and objective way to select cities that are engaging in green jobs development. Selecting
first primarily by policy, for example, may result in a sample of cities with a particular
institutional structure and would thus potentially bias my understanding of the full
spectrum of relevant groups as well as the full range of potential policies and planning
mechanisms that may be both relevant and beneficial in green jobs provision. Moreover,
by then choosing case studies that demonstrate the way in which they epitomize
particular policy or planning approaches germane to the sub-national level, this approach
will ensure that resultant case studies will enable me to effectively and comprehensively
address institutional links between green jobs proliferation and actions taken by groups
and agencies. For example, it may be the case that certain metropolitan areas are home to
a higher proportion of green jobs due to happenstance such as some particular economic
condition or opportunity germane to the area. Thus, I am not necessarily testing the claim
that institutional behavior is a necessary precondition to the emergence of green jobs.
145
Instead, I want to understand how it could be, and the way in which it facilitates, changes
in the governance structure inside and outside of government agencies.
Specifically, data is available indicating the presence of sustainability programs at
the metropolitan level. Table 13 summarizes the incidences of such ratings for the
selected cases by both Kent Portney (2003) and Sustainalane.com.

Table 13:
Commitment to Sustainability/Incidence of Sustainability Programs

Portney Ranking
Listed as:
Rank (Program)
Sustainlane
Sustainability
Ranking
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont 15(25) 2
Los Angeles-Long-Beach-
Riverside 5(28) 28
Boston-Cambridge, Quincy, MA 31 (15) 6
New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island-NY-NJ 17(23) 5
Washington-Arlington-Baltimore 22 (18) 15
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 11(26) 26
Houston-Sugarland-Baytown
Texas NA 36
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville IL-In-
WI 8(27) 4
Sources: www.sustainlane.com, Portney 2003

In addition to information as to the institutional infrastructure around
sustainability, information relative to all of these metropolitan areas is also available and
is detailed in the tables below. Information is gathered from online searches of incidences
of nonprofit involvement. First, blue-green alliances broadly consist of those alliances of
nonprofit actors incorporative of labor and environmental interests. Several national
nonprofit organizations can fall under this criterion. Apollo Alliance, Green For All, and
146
the Emerald Cities Collaborative chapters are summarized among the selected
metropolitan areas in table 14 below.

Table 14:
Main Green Collared Jobs Alliance Membership Within Cities/Metropolitan Areas

Apollo
Alliance
Local or
State
Alliance
Green for All
Recognized
City
Emerald Cities
Collaborative
Membership
San Francisco-
Oakland-San Jose
Oakland and
State
Ella Baker
Center, related
organization
Oakland and San
Francisco
Los Angeles-Long-
Beach-Riverside
Los Angeles
City
Program in
cooperation with
the Green Urban
Manufacturing
Initiative
(GUMI), CDtech
(nonprofit
economic
development
group)
Boston-Cambridge,
Quincy, MA Mass State Boston
New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long
Island-NY-NJ
New York
City and
State Brooklyn
Washington-
Arlington-Baltimore
San Diego-Carlsbad-
San Marcos San Diego
Houston-Sugarland-
Baytown Texas Texas (state)
Chicago-Joliet-
Naperville IL-In-WI
Indiana
(state)

147
Second, another important component of the interest-group, nongovernmental
activity around green jobs is the incidence of green business alliances. Such alliances are
composed of both environmentalists and business interests. Several national
organizations exist that serve as networks of these organizations. Through initial internet
searches, I identify a variety of such groups including: Business Alliance for Local
Living Economies (BALLE), Natural Resourced Defense Council ’s (NRDC)
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) and the United States Green Building Council
(USGBC) specifically focused on the green building industry. Table 15 identifies the
incidence of such groups within the selected cases. Incidences of such groups at the
metropolitan level may provide an indication of informal institutional governance
structure around green economy activity. All of the selected cases demonstrated some of
these groups, and future research should identify other pertinent green business alliances
within the selected metropolitan area.

148
Table 15:
Business and Environmental Associations

BALLE
Membership
NRDC
E2 Membership
USGBC Local
Chapter
San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose
East Bay
Sustainable
Business
Alliance
Northern
California
Chapter Northern California
Chapter
Los Angeles-Long-Beach-
Riverside
Green
Business
Networking
LA County
Southern
California-Los
Angeles
Los Angeles Chapter
Boston-Cambridge,
Quincy, MA
Sustainable
Business
Network of
Greater
Boston
New England
Chapter
Massachusetts
Chapter
New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island-NY-NJ None
New York
Chapter
New York Chapter,
Urban Green Chapter
Washington-Arlington-
Baltimore
Think Local
First D.C.
None National Capital
Regional Chapter,
Baltimore Chapter
San Diego-Carlsbad-San
Marcos None
Southern
California-San
Diego San Diego Chapter
Houston-Sugarland-
Baytown Texas None
None Texas Gulf Coast
Chapter
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville
IL-In-WI
Local First
Chicago

None
Illinois Chapter,
Chicago

As evidenced by the data detailed above, the metropolitan statistical areas
described through the initial stage of the case study selection tend to be somewhat
engaged in the green economy movement. In fact, in terms of the secondary criteria, most
of these areas likewise demonstrate some level of commitment to sustainability policies
generally. With the potential exception of Houston, which may provide an interesting
149
counterbalance, these metropolitan statistical areas offer opportunities for an instructive
analysis of the linkages between policy, significant actors, and the broader institutional
and governance structure around the creation of the green economy. There is empirical
evidence of varying levels of institutional involvement in the green economy; efforts span
fr om t he pre v a lenc e of “ g r e e n c oll a re d jobs a ll ian c e s” to so mew h a t of a pr e se nc e o f
sustainability programs at a relatively high level for cities included within the identified
metropolitan statistical areas.
Potential case study metropolitan statistical areas from this universe of 10
metropolitan statistical areas must be representative of all of the characteristics suggested
above. First, they must demonstrate some commitment to sustainability. In order to
capture this, they should rank in the top ten cities by either the metrics put forth by Kent
Portney (2011) or by Sustainelane.com (2008). Second, they should have at least two out
of the three widespread green collared jobs coalitions. Third, they should have at least
two of the three of the widespread green business associations. The table below, drawing
from the empirical information summarizes such requirements.

150

Table 16:
Case Study Selection Table
Sustainability Green Business
Associations
Green Collared
Jobs Alliances
Meet all
Categories
San Francisco-
Oakland-San
Jose
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Los Angeles-
Long-Beach-
Riverside
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boston-
Cambridge,
Quincy, MA
Yes Yes Yes Yes
New York-
Northern New
Jersey-Long
Island-NY-NJ
Yes No Yes No
Washington-
Arlington-
Baltimore
Yes No Yes No
San Diego-
Carlsbad-San
Marcos
No No Yes No
Houston-
Sugarland-
Baytown Texas
Yes No Yes No

Three municipal areas, San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical
Area, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area and Boston-
Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area, are selected through this process and
examined in detailed case study analysis, in order to address the research questions
above. They can be understood in context, and bolster an understanding of, the green
economy discussions sketched in the prior section. Together, through this multiple case
151
study approach, I sketch a holistic framework for both understanding and implementing
green jobs policies for local and regional governments.

152
C. Case Study Evaluation Methodology: Economic Development and Institutional
Analysis
What accounts for the diversity in green jobs numbers within particular urban
areas? What institutional factors impact or account for this diversity? How can
opportunities, current or future, within metropolitan areas be identified? What policies
and planning mechanisms are and should be pursued in order to foster such
opportunities? Drawing on a multiple case studies methodology, I identify how these
particular municipal areas boasting evidence of relatively prevalent green employment
may have developed a particular institutional or governance structure around
sustainability that is inclusive of green jobs goals with varying degrees of effectiveness
and deliberativeness. As suggested by the analysis of the previous section, such an
institutional structure may matter significantly. I aim to explore how and if this influence
is constructed. Such components of the governance structure, and related policy
mechanisms, consequently compose the relevant independent variables under
investigation here.
Specifically, the first and second interlinked research questions described at the
outset are addressed and potential independent variables related to the resultant
magnitude of the dependent variable are explored through this institutional analysis
focused on the governance of green jobs. Therefore, the foregoing analysis focuses on
three primary and closely related areas, both serving as the key independent, explanatory
variables. First, I develop an economic development analysis focused on occupational
and industrial data pertinent to the green economy. Building on this analysis, I then
broadly examine the formal and information institutional structure. Specifically, second, I
153
then gather information on the particular packages and policies that are being employed.
Third, I examine the nonprofit governance structure and gather information around the
development of new alliances of nonprofit actors and government agencies. Given the
process of case selection utilized, the metropolitan areas s e lec ted will li ke l y be “ fir st -
mover s” of po li c y a nd pl a nning approaches around green jobs that broadly accomplish
some combination of equity, economic, and environmental goals within the sustainable
development framework. Within these three primary containers, the remainder of this
section details the specific methodological steps that will be utilized within the multi-case
studies selected in the prior process
In the end, my dissertation aims to develop a range of potential institutional
factors that can contribute to higher levels of green jobs attainment within municipal
areas. Such an approach aims to illuminate connections and to provide a generalizable
methodology through which opportunities in the green economy can be understood and
identified. This process builds on the institutional analysis and urban typology developed
in the previous section. It aims to provide the depth needed to understand the complex
dynamics of green economic development.

154
1. Understanding Green Jobs Distribution: Economic Development Analysis
As noted above, the p re s e nc e of “ g r e e n jobs ” with in m e tropoli tan a re a s is t he primary dependent variable analyzed in this study. In practice and in theory, green jobs
are an increasing focus as a means of job creation in an environmentally preservative
manner. Employment in industries and occupations that are broadly considered linked
with the green economy, particularly in terms of their relationship to reconciling conflicts
between economy and environment, are increasingly being measured at both the state-
wide and municipal/regional scale.
It is important to note that, developing a definition of green jobs is a complex and
fluid matter, and there has not been a standardized agreement of what falls under this
de finiti on a nd how ide nti fic a ti on of wha t “ c ounts ” a s “ g re e n” is pe rf or med. Following an
initial literature review, it is evident that there is currently no standardized definition
across municipalities, states, and other institutional elements of green jobs. However,
despite the limitations, there are increasingly sophisticated methodologies for defining
and estimating green jobs within the current industrial and occupational taxonomies that
will be further developed within the dissertation. Over the past 3 years, for example, a
multitude of states have developed definitions of the green economy based upon the
extant workforce information data system. California, Oregon, Hawaii, and others have
engaged in large-scale state-wide surveys seeking to define and quantify green activity
within their state. However, progress in this regard has been limited and largely focused
on the state level in terms of the direct survey and quantification of economic activity
germane to the green economy.
155
This dissertation aims to build upon these efforts and to develop a generalizable
framework for identifying opportunities through the use of available data. As
understanding the green economy is the key aim of the study, I must first develop a more
comprehensive methodology through which to identify and measure the green economy
at the sub-national level. The distribution of green jobs within the selected case studies
was first identified through the case study selection by utilizing data from both the US
Council of Mayors, and from CleanEdge. Within the selected case study, in addition to
the economic development analysis discussed above in order to provide a baseline picture
of the economy, specific analysis is provided around the notion of the green economy.
This more rigorous approach towards green economic analysis aims to provide a
scholarly approach towards understanding and measuring the green economy necessary
to draw the discussion beyond the rhetorical.
As an initial precursor to such an analysis, one of the key methodological
questions in measuring the green economy is the scale at which the analysis should occur.
Based on an initial review of the literature and potential approaches aiming to bolster the
green economy, analysis indicates that green jobs analysis can occur at several different
levels: the green economy, the green industry, the green firm and the green job or
occupation. As summarized by the component parts and corresponding figure 30 below, I
can drill down through these different layers of analysis in order to understand
opportunities and obstacles around green jobs development and proliferation.

156
Figure 31:
Understanding the Green Economy

1) First, the green economy is the overall framework in which economic activity can
occur. A recent University of California Berkeley Study (2009) notes “ at its most
basic level, the green economy consists of economic activity that reduces energy
use a nd/or im pr ove s env i ronme ntal qua li t y …Th e g r e e n e c onom y is no t j ust about
the ability to produce clean energy, but also the growing market for products that
consume less energy, from fluorescent light bulbs to organic and locally produced
food. It also encompasses economic sectors that improve the environment, for
inst a nc e , throu g h re m e diation of tox ic sig ns or de sig n more c ompac t citi e s. ” Although not all econ om ic a c ti vit y will be be n e fic ial in t he “ ne w g r e e n
e c onom y ,” the ov e rr idi n g ide a is t ha t t he re will b e a ne t i nc r e a s e in ec ono mi c opportunities that are not generally harmful to the environment. And, it is the
Green
Economy
Green
Industry
Green Frim
Green Job or
Occupation
157
overriding commitment to the ideas of sustainability and sustainable economic
development as indicated above.
2) Second, the green economy consists of green industries and firms. These are the
busi ne sses that make up t he “ g re e n e c onom y . ” Ac c or ding to t he g ov e rnme nt si te
ON ET’ s Greening the World of Work report (2009): “ A g re e n fir m i s an
organization that provides products and/or services that are aimed at utilizing
resources more efficiently providing renewable sources of energy, lowering
greenhouse gas emissions, or otherwise minimizing environmental impact. Green
firms with similar activities, production value chains and/or products can form a
g r e e n indus tr y , sub se c tor or sec tor. ” The s e f irms run the ga mut in t e rms of products and services used and consumed. Examples include broad classifications
suc h a s: “R enewable energy, energy generation, system installation and storage ”;
“Green building and energy efficiency ”; “Bio-fuels production and farming ”;
“Transportation and alternative fuels ”; “Water, wastewater, and waste
management ”; “Environmental compliance and sustainability planning ”.
“Green firms ” c a n be “ g r e e n” a t a va ri e t y o f dif fe r e nt l e ve ls. F irst, firms
can be identified as green because of their end product or service. These are the
firms that are most clearly identified as green producers because their products or
services are directly aimed at some aspect of environmental remediation or
pr omot ion. S e c ond a nd in a r e late d v e in, firms c a n be “ g re e n” in t e rms of the
lifecycle of their product. Although the particular product or service is not directly
being utilized for environmental remediation or promotion, it may be sustainable
158
over the lifetime of the good and therefore may be a green product. The firm is
green by this definition, then, because it is a producer of sustainable products that
indirectly benefits the environment throughout their lifecycle. Third, a firm can be
“ gr e e n ” a c c or din g to t he e nvironmen tal e f fe c ts of it s suppl y c ha in. Thi s pro vides
a more holistic examination of the production process of the good and services
that are pr odu c e d b y the fir m. Thi s ma y tak e int o e ff e c t t he f irm’s suppli e r s and ope ra ti ons a t var ious l e v e ls and sta g e s of the fir m ’s e nti re suppl y c ha in. F o rth a nd
fina ll y , a fir m ca n b e “ gr e e n” a c c o rding to i ts ev e r y da y gr e e n b usiness pra c ti c e s
including its use of green practices, services and products. (i.e. the use of
alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficiency/conservation, sustainable farming,
recycled products or recycling, water conservation, or pollution reduction) These
green practices can be implemented across most industry categories, and likewise
spans a multitude of potential occupational categories.
3) Third, green firms are made of up green jobs or green occupations. Moreover,
according to ONET, a green job is an application that 1) directly works with
policies, information, materials, and/or technologies that contribute to minimizing
environmental impact, and 2) requires specialized knowledge, skills, training and
experience. They thus provide an individual-level analysis of green economic
opportunities.
i

159
How can this modeling be applied to the identification of green economic activity
within the metropolitan area? Further developing a useable and rigorous methodology is
critical. In terms of quantifying the green economy at the sub-national level within the
selected case studies as defined above, I can return to the analysis of institutional factors
presented in the previous section. Green jobs are fundamentally about job creation, albeit
job creation which is cast in the paradigm of sustainability and thus which ideally
incorporates environmental and equity values.
Differences within places matter at both the city and metropolitan level. As such,
there may be differences in green jobs strategies based upon different economic realities
and opportunities including potential areas of comparative/competitive advantage. Broad
information is gathered, particularly on the distribution of industries and occupations, in
order to better understand how green employment within selected metropolitan area case
studies is couched within the broader economic landscape. Economic baseline
information, gathered and analyzed at the metropolitan statistical level, is gathered as
follows: Distributions of industry and occupations within selected MSAs is gathered from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census data is analyzed at both the industry (NAICS) and
occupational level (SOC) for these areas. I then identify relevant industry clusters in
order to better understand the contextual economic background for each metropolitan
area selected. I calculate location quotients for all industries and occupations at the
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level. Therefore, contextual information is also
collected on the selected case study metropolitan areas on the overall economic picture,
as well as economic development approaches within the area as a corollary independent
160
variable. Green jobs development will occur within a broad array of industries, and such
variation may be highly linked with the particular economic conditions germane to the
metropolitan area under study.
Building on this contextual analysis, a green economy specific framework is
developed. First, aggregate levels of green employment can be calculated at the city level
within the selected metropolitan statistical areas based upon the predictive OLS
regression equation developed in the section above. Second, a methodology for analysis
is constructed particular to the green economy, utilizing the existing workforce
information data at both the industry and occupational level. Specific NAICS and SOC
codes defined below are broadly relevant to the green economy. Through this approach, I
aim to move beyond the aggregate quantification described above to define particular
industry and occupations that may compose distinctive green economies within urban
areas. Not all green economies are the same in terms of its industry and occupational
complexion and this analysis aims to provide a starting point or framework through
which these differences could be captured.

a. Industry-Based Analysis
Industry-based analysis is the first step in developing an economic development
analysis around the green economy at the local level (as measured by MSA). Traditional
economic development analysis often looks to the identification and analysis of
industries, including agglomerations or industry clusters, as indicators of competitive
advantage and as the starting point for the development and implementation of economic
161
development strategies aimed at job growth. Such an analysis is often done through the
calculation of location quotients. As de fine d b y B l a ke l y ( 2010) e t al. “ the lo c a ti on
quotient is a technique used to identify the concentration of an industry sector in a local
economy relative to the larger reference economy. Stated sim pl y , a n indus try ’ s sh a re o f
the local economy is compared with the same share that industry has in the reference
e c onom y .” ( p g . 167 ) L oc a ti on quoti e nts valua ted a t m or e than 1 indica te a surplus of
local employment in an occupation.
Given the existing industrial taxonomy and an understanding of location
quotients, how can green economy opportunities be identified at the sub-national scale?
Understanding the green economy is different, as somewhat indicated above, in that it is
not cordoned into one or two industry sectors. It is representative of a vast array of
potential sectors, and researchers are increasingly looking to develop an operationalized
definition within the existing industrial taxonomy of NAICS coding. The development of
such a green industry taxonomy is critically important in terms of quantifying impact and
opportunities around the green economy at a local level, and at additional geographic
scopes and scales.
In order to define and analyze the green economy within the selected case
metropolitan areas, it is thus essential to first identify a methodology through the
identification of potential NAICS codes, and then quantifying the prevalence of
establishments within these NAICS codes, within the particular geographic scope. The
following table utilizes a multi-sectoral approach to providing a structure of green
economy related NAICS codes that can be adapted for our purposes.
162
Table 17:
Green Economy as Defined by Industry Codes
Green Economy
area/sector
Industry Sector
(2-digit NAICS)
NAICS Description [notes]
Green Building
and Energy
Efficiency
22 – Utilities 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission & Distribution [Energy
conservation planning & consulting.]
2212 Natural Gas Distribution
23 –
Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except Operative Builders)
236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except Operative Builders)
236117 New Housing Operative Builders
236118 Residential Remodelers
236210 Industrial Building Construction
236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors (incl. Electrical Contractors)
238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors
238220 Pluming, Heating and Air-Conditioning Contractors
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
238990 Roofing Contractors
31-33 –
Manufacturing
3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing
333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing
335110 Electric Lamp Bulb/Parts Mnf
335121 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Mnf
335122 Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Lighting Fixture Mnf
335129 Other Lighting Equipment Mnf
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing
42 – Wholesalers 423720 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers
53 – Real Estate
and Rental and
Leasing
531311 Residential Property Managers
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
54 – Bus. Prof. 541310 Architectural Services
541320 Landscape Architectural Services
541330 Engineering Services
541340 Drafting Services
541350 Building Inspection Services
541420 Industrial Design Services
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
92 – Public
Administration
921 Cities and Counties
924 Administration of Environmental Programs

163

Table 17, Continued
Transportation/
Alternative Fuel
22 – Utilities 221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
31-33 –
Manufacturing
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential,
Commercial, and Appliance Use
335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
44 – Retail 441100 Automobile dealers [Service departments.]
447190 Other Gasoline Stations1
48-49 –
Transportation
and
warehousing
4841 General Freight Trucking
4842 Specialized Freight Trucking
4851 Urban Transit Systems [Includes commuter rail systems.]
4852 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
488310 Port and Harbor Operations
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering Services
541370 Survey and Mapping Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services
[Relates to logistics.]
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
81 – Other
Services
811110 Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
811190 Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
92 – Public
Administration
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural
Development

164
Table 17, Continued
Water,
Wastewater &
Waste
Management
22 – Utilities 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
23 –
Construction
237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction
237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction [Relates to channel
construction.]
31-33 –
Manufacturing
333312 Commercial Laundry, Drycleaning, and Pressing Machine
Manufacturing
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Mfg. for Residential, Commercial,
& Appliance Use
335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
56 –
Administrative &
waste services
562111 Solid Waste Collection
562112 Hazardous Waste Collection
562119 Other Waste Collection
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212 Solid Waste Landfill
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910 Remediation Services
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities
562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
92 – Public
Administration
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste
Management Programs
Environmental
Compliance and
Sustainability
Planning
54 – Bus. Prof. 541370 Survey and Mapping Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
81 – Other
Services
813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations
92 – Public
Administration
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste
Management Programs
924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural
Development
926120 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs
926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and
Other Utilities
Adapted from Centers for Excellence: http://www.coeccc.net/green/

Utilizing these particular NAICS codes as a characterization of the green
economy at the industry level of analysis, I then survey census data in order to determine
165
the specific green industries within each of the selected case studies. I will utilize data
from the Labor Department in accordance with the industry codes above, for the relevant
metropolitan statistical areas. I will look at the number of establishments and also
calculate location quotients in order to understand potential opportunity areas around
green employment within the selected cases. The distribution of industries will likely
vary among the selected case studies, and identifying clusters of industries with higher
location quotients may build upon existing economic development approaches through a
specific application to the green economy.

b. Occupational Analysis
In addition to looking at the potential industries, I also examine the local green
economy from the standpoint of occupations as an equally important scope through
which to define and study the green economy. Understanding the green economy from
the occupational level is important in terms of identifying the nature of green economy
opportunities at the individual level, and grounds such an analysis in the daily activity of
the worker. Moreover, through an identification of occupations we can obtain valuable
infor mation about the na t ur e a nd “ qu a li t y ” of the e m ployment activity. This is important
from an equity standpoint, and from a workforce development standpoint through the
identification of needed skill sets.
Several studies have sought to define the range of occupations that could likely
fall within the green economy. Based upon a literature review and analysis of these
efforts, he relevant occupations based on relevant SOC codes, are defined by the table
166
below. Considerable research has been conducted by Bureau of Labor Statistics in terms
of defining relevant occupations pertinent to the green economy and ONET has
developed a relatively comprehensive list of relevant occupations, as well as contextual
details in regards to the nature of these occupations. I utilize this work within my
dissertation in order to examine the range of occupations at the metropolitan areas, and
for providing a baseline picture of the occupations that could fall within the green
economy.

Table 18:
Occupations Related to the Green Economy:
Category Code Occupation Sectors
11-0000 Management Operations
Green New &
Emerging
11-
1011.03
Chief Sustainability Officers Governmental and
Regulatory Administration
Green Enhanced
Skills
11-
1021.00
General and Operations
Managers
Agriculture and Forestry;
Energy Efficiency
Green New &
Emerging
11-
2011.01
Green Marketers Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green Enhanced
Skills
11-
2021.00
Marketing Managers Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green Increased
Demand
11-
3051.00
Industrial Production Managers Manufacturing
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3051.02
Geothermal Production
Managers
Renewable Energy
Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3051.03
Biofuels Production Managers Renewable Energy
Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3051.04
Biomass Power Plant Managers Renewable Energy
Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3051.05
Methane/Landfill Gas Collection
System Operators
Renewable Energy
Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3051.06
Hydroelectric Production
Managers
Renewable Energy
Generation
Green Enhanced
Skills
11-
3071.01
Transportation Managers Transportation

167
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
11-
3071.02
Storage and Distribution
Managers
Renewable Energy Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
3071.03
Logistics Managers Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
11-
9013.02
Farm and Ranch Managers Agriculture and Forestry
Green
Enhanced
Skills
11-
9021.00
Construction Managers Environment Protection; Green
Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
11-
9041.00
Architectural and Engineering
Managers
Environment Protection;
Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9041.01
Biofuels/Biodiesel Technology
and Product Development
Managers
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
11-
9121.00
Natural Sciences Managers Environment Protection
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9121.02
Water Resource Specialists Environment Protection
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.01
Regulatory Affairs Managers Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.02
Compliance Managers Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.04
Supply Chain Managers Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.09
Wind Energy Operations
Managers
Renewable Energy Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.10
Wind Energy Project Managers Renewable Energy Generation
Green New &
Emerging
11-
9199.11
Brownfield Redevelopment
Specialists and Site Managers
Environment Protection
13-000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
13-
1021.00
Buyers and Purchasing Agents,
Farm Products
Agriculture and Forestry
Green
Enhanced
Skills
13-
1022.00
Wholesale and Retail Buyers,
Except Farm Products
Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
13-
1041.07
Regulatory Affairs Specialists Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
168
Table 18, Continued
Green New
& Emerging
13-
1081.01
Logistics Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services; Transportation
Green New
& Emerging
13-
1081.02
Logistics Analysts Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
13-
1151.00
Training and
Development
Specialists
Energy Efficiency; Green Construction;
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
13-
1199.01
Energy Auditors Energy Efficiency; Governmental and
Regulatory Administration
Green New
& Emerging
13-
1199.05
Sustainability
Specialists
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
Green
Enhanced
Skills
13-
2051.00
Financial Analysts Energy Efficiency; Governmental and
Regulatory Administration; Green
Construction; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
13-
2052.00
Personal Financial
Advisors
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
13-
2099.01
Financial Quantitative
Analysts
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
13-
2099.02
Risk Management
Specialists
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
13-
2099.03
Investment
Underwriters
Energy Trading; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
15-
1133.00
Software Developers,
Systems Software
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
15-
1199.04
Geospatial Information
Scientists and
Technologists
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
15-
1199.05
Geographic
Information Systems
Technicians
Research, Design, and Consulting Services
17-000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
1011.00
Architects, Except
Landscape and Naval
Green Construction; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
1012.00
Landscape Architects Agriculture and Forestry; Environment
Protection; Green Construction

169
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2011.00
Aerospace Engineers Research, Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
17-
2041.00
Chemical Engineers Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2051.00
Civil Engineers Green Construction; Renewable Energy
Generation; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2051.01
Transportation
Engineers
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2071.00
Electrical Engineers Energy Efficiency; Green Construction;
Renewable Energy Generation; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2072.00
Electronics Engineers,
Except Computer
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2081.00
Environmental
Engineers
Environment Protection; Governmental
and Regulatory Administration
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2081.01
Water/Wastewater
Engineers
Environment Protection
Green
Increased
Demand
17-
2111.01
Industrial Safety and
Health Engineers
Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green
Increased
Demand
17-
2112.00
Industrial Engineers Research, Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2141.00
Mechanical Engineers Energy Efficiency; Green Construction;
Renewable Energy Generation; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services;
Transportation
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2141.01
Fuel Cell Engineers Research, Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2141.02
Automotive Engineers Research, Design, and Consulting
Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
2161.00
Nuclear Engineers Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2199.01
Biochemical Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
17-
2199.02
Validation Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services

170
Table 18, Continued
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.03
Energy Engineers Energy Efficiency; Green
Construction; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.04
Manufacturing Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.05
Mechatronics Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.06
Microsystems Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.07
Photonics Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.08
Robotics Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.09
Nanosystems Engineers Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.10
Wind Energy Engineers Renewable Energy Generation
Green New &
Emerging
17-
2199.11
Solar Energy Systems
Engineers
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
17-
3011.01
Architectural Drafters Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
17-
3023.01
Electronics Engineering
Technicians
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
3023.03
Electrical Engineering
Technicians
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
3024.00
Electro-Mechanical
Technicians
Manufacturing
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3024.01
Robotics Technicians Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
3025.00
Environmental
Engineering Technicians
Environment Protection
Green
Enhanced
Skills
17-
3026.00
Industrial Engineering
Technicians
Manufacturing
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3027.01
Automotive Engineering
Technicians
Transportation
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.02
Electrical Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.03
Electromechanical
Engineering Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
171
Table 18, Continued
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.04
Electronics Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.05
Industrial Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.06
Manufacturing Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.07
Mechanical Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.08
Photonics Technicians Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.09
Manufacturing Production
Technicians
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.10
Fuel Cell Technicians Transportation
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.11
Nanotechnology Engineering
Technologists
Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
17-
3029.12
Nanotechnology Engineering
Technicians
Manufacturing
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Services Occupations
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
1013.00
Soil and Plant Scientists Environment Protection
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
1023.00
Zoologists and Wildlife
Biologists
Environment Protection
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
1031.01
Soil and Water
Conservationists
Environment Protection;
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
2021.00
Atmospheric and Space
Scientists
Environment Protection;
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
2031.00
Chemists Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
2032.00
Materials Scientists Manufacturing; Research, Design,
and Consulting Services
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
2041.00
Environmental Scientists and
Specialists, Including Health
Environment Protection
Green New &
Emerging
19-
2041.01
Climate Change Analysts Environment Protection
Green New &
Emerging
19-
2041.02
Environmental Restoration
Planners
Environment Protection
Green New &
Emerging
19-
2041.03
Industrial Ecologists Environment Protection
172
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
2042.00
Geoscientists, Except
Hydrologists and
Geographers
Environment Protection; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
2043.00
Hydrologists Environment Protection; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
19-
2099.01
Remote Sensing Scientists
and Technologists
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services
Green New
& Emerging
19-
3011.01
Environmental Economists Environment Protection
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
3051.00
Urban and Regional
Planners
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Green Construction;
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services
Green New
& Emerging
19-
3099.01
Transportation Planners Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services; Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
4011.01
Agricultural Technicians Agriculture and Forestry
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
4031.00
Chemical Technicians Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
4041.01
Geophysical Data
Technicians
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
4041.02
Geological Sample Test
Technicians
Renewable Energy Generation;
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
4051.01
Nuclear Equipment
Operation Technicians
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
19-
4091.00
Environmental Science and
Protection Technicians,
Including Health
Environment Protection
Green
Increased
Demand
19-
4093.00
Forest and Conservation
Technicians
Environment Protection
Green New
& Emerging
19-
4099.02
Precision Agriculture
Technicians
Agriculture and Forestry; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
19-
4099.03
Remote Sensing
Technicians
Research, Design, and Consulting
Services

173
Table 18, Continued
23-0000 Legal Operations
Green
Enhanced
Skills
23-
1022.00
Arbitrators, Mediators, and
Conciliators
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
25-
9021.00
Farm and Home Management
Advisors
Environment Protection
Green
Increased
Demand
27-
1021.00
Commercial and Industrial
Designers
Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
27-
3022.00
Reporters and Correspondents Environment Protection;
Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
27-
3031.00
Public Relations Specialists Environment Protection;
Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
29-
9011.00
Occupational Health and Safety
Specialists
Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
29-
9012.00
Occupational Health and Safety
Technicians
Manufacturing
33-0000 Protective Services Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
33-
3031.00
Fish and Game Wardens Environment Protection
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
Green New
& Emerging
41-
3031.03
Securities and Commodities
Traders
Energy Trading; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
41-
3099.01
Energy Brokers Energy Trading
Green
Enhanced
Skills
41-
4011.00
Sales Representatives, Wholesale
and Manufacturing, Technical
and Scientific Products
Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services
Green New
& Emerging
41-
4011.07
Solar Sales Representatives and
Assessors
Renewable Energy Generation

174
Table 18, Continued
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
43-
4051.00
Customer Service
Representatives
Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green New &
Emerging
43-
5011.01
Freight Forwarders Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
43-
5032.00
Dispatchers, Except Police,
Fire, and Ambulance
Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
43-
5061.00
Production, Planning, and
Expediting Clerks
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
43-
5071.00
Shipping, Receiving, and
Traffic Clerks
Manufacturing; Research,
Design, and Consulting Services;
Transportation
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
45-
1011.05
First-Line Supervisors of
Logging Workers
Environment Protection
Green
Increased
Demand
45-
1011.07
First-Line Supervisors of
Agricultural Crop and
Horticultural Workers
Agriculture and Forestry
Green
Increased
Demand
45-
2011.00
Agricultural Inspectors Agriculture and Forestry;
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration
Green
Increased
Demand
45-
4011.00
Forest and Conservation
Workers
Environment Protection
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
Green New &
Emerging
47-
1011.03
Solar Energy Installation
Managers
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2011.00
Boilermakers Energy Efficiency; Green
Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2031.01
Construction Carpenters Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2031.02
Rough Carpenters Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2051.00
Cement Masons and Concrete
Finishers
Green Construction

175
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
2061.00
Construction Laborers Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2073.00
Operating Engineers and
Other Construction Equipment
Operators
Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2111.00
Electricians Green Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2131.00
Insulation Workers, Floor,
Ceiling, and Wall
Energy Efficiency; Green
Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
2152.01
Pipe Fitters and Steamfitters Green Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
2152.02
Plumbers Green Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
2181.00
Roofers Green Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
2211.00
Sheet Metal Workers Green Construction;
Manufacturing; Renewable
Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
2221.00
Structural Iron and Steel
Workers
Green Construction;
Manufacturing
Green New &
Emerging
47-
2231.00
Solar Photovoltaic Installers Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
3012.00
Helpers —Carpenters Green Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
4011.00
Construction and Building
Inspectors
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Green
Construction
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
4041.00
Hazardous Materials Removal
Workers
Environment Protection; Green
Construction; Recycling and
Waste Reduction
Green
Increased
Demand
47-
4061.00
Rail-Track Laying and
Maintenance Equipment
Operators
Transportation
Green New &
Emerging
47-
4099.02
Solar Thermal Installers and
Technicians
Renewable Energy Generation
Green New &
Emerging
47-
4099.03
Weatherization Installers and
Technicians
Energy Efficiency

176
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
5013.00
Service Unit Operators, Oil,
Gas, and Mining
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
47-
5041.00
Continuous Mining
Machine Operators
Renewable Energy Generation
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
1011.00
First-Line Supervisors of
Mechanics, Installers, and
Repairers
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
2094.00
Electrical and Electronics
Repairers, Commercial and
Industrial Equipment
Manufacturing; Research, Design, and
Consulting Services
Green
Enhanced
Skills
49-
3023.02
Automotive Specialty
Technicians
Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
49-
3031.00
Bus and Truck Mechanics
and Diesel Engine
Specialists
Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
49-
9021.01
Heating and Air
Conditioning Mechanics
and Installers
Energy Efficiency; Green
Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
9021.02
Refrigeration Mechanics
and Installers
Energy Efficiency; Green
Construction
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
9041.00
Industrial Machinery
Mechanics
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
9044.00
Millwrights Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
9051.00
Electrical Power-Line
Installers and Repairers
Energy Efficiency
Green
Enhanced
Skills
49-
9071.00
Maintenance and Repair
Workers, General
Energy Efficiency; Environment
Protection; Green Construction;
Manufacturing; Renewable Energy
Generation
Green New
& Emerging
49-
9081.00
Wind Turbine Service
Technicians
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
49-
9098.00
Helpers —Installation,
Maintenance, and Repair
Workers
Green Construction
Green New
& Emerging
49-
9099.01
Geothermal Technicians Renewable Energy Generation

177
Table 18, Continued
51-0000 Production Occupations
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
1011.00
First-Line Supervisors of Production
and Operating Workers
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
2011.00
Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging,
and Systems Assemblers
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
2022.00
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Assemblers
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
2031.00
Engine and Other Machine
Assemblers
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
2041.00
Structural Metal Fabricators and
Fitters
Green Construction;
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
2092.00
Team Assemblers Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
4011.00
Computer-Controlled Machine Tool
Operators, Metal and Plastic
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
4031.00
Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
4032.00
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool
Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
4041.00
Machinists Manufacturing;
Renewable Energy
Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
4121.06
Welders, Cutters, and Welder Fitters Green Construction;
Manufacturing
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
4121.07
Solderers and Brazers Green Construction;
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
8011.00
Nuclear Power Reactor Operators Renewable Energy
Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
8012.00
Power Distributors and Dispatchers Renewable Energy
Generation

178
Table 18, Continued
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
8013.00
Power Plant Operators Energy and Carbon Capture and
Storage; Green Construction;
Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
8021.00
Stationary Engineers and Boiler
Operators
Energy Efficiency
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
8091.00
Chemical Plant and System
Operators
Manufacturing
Green New
& Emerging
51-
8099.01
Biofuels Processing Technicians Renewable Energy Generation
Green New
& Emerging
51-
8099.02
Methane/Landfill Gas Generation
System Technicians
Renewable Energy Generation
Green New
& Emerging
51-
8099.03
Biomass Plant Technicians Renewable Energy Generation
Green New
& Emerging
51-
8099.04
Hydroelectric Plant Technicians Renewable Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
9011.00
Chemical Equipment Operators
and Tenders
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
9012.00
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying,
Precipitating, and Still Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Manufacturing; Renewable
Energy Generation
Green
Increased
Demand
51-
9023.00
Mixing and Blending Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
51-
9061.00
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters,
Samplers, and Weighers
Governmental and Regulatory
Administration; Manufacturing
Green New
& Emerging
51-
9199.01
Recycling and Reclamation
Workers
Recycling and Waste Reduction
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Green New
& Emerging
53-
1021.01
Recycling Coordinators Recycling and Waste Reduction
Green
Increased
Demand
53-
3021.00
Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
53-
3032.00
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck
Drivers
Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
53-
4011.00
Locomotive Engineers Transportation

179
Table 18, Continued
Green
Increased
Demand
53-
4031.00
Railroad Conductors and
Yardmasters
Transportation
Green
Enhanced
Skills
53-
6051.07
Transportation Vehicle,
Equipment and Systems
Inspectors, Except Aviation
Energy Efficiency; Governmental
and Regulatory Administration;
Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
53-
7051.00
Industrial Truck and Tractor
Operators
Green Construction;
Transportation
Green
Increased
Demand
53-
7062.00
Laborers and Freight, Stock,
and Material Movers, Hand
Green Construction;
Manufacturing
Green
Enhanced
Skills
53-
7081.00
Refuse and Recyclable Material
Collectors
Recycling and Waste Reduction
Adapted from Center of Excellence, BLS green studies group, and from ONet: http://www.onetcenter.org/green.html

C. Industry/Occupational Crosswalks: the Metropolitan Green Economy

In conclusion, the developed methodology examines the way in which grouping
and clusters of both occupations and industries emerge within the developed framework
of the green economy. I argue that such an approach much look within the existing
industry and occupational taxonomy to identify opportunities. Such an understanding
should be forged at both the occupational and industry based level. Therefore, I seek to
specifically seek to link occupations and industry analysis together, to the extent possible.
A similar effort through the Centers of Excellence utilized a smaller net of applicable
occupations, and which does not integrate NAICS coding. I build upon this analysis
through the development of this, as plausible, within the selected case studies. The
developed nexus between green industries and green occupations is identified in the
tables below grouped by common green economy areas.

180
Table 19: Green Economy Clusters
Green Building and Construction
NAICS
Code
Description of Industry
2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission & Distribution [Energy conservation planning & consulting.]
2212 Natural Gas Distribution
236 Construction of Buildings
236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except Operative Builders)
236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except Operative Builders)
236117 New Housing Operative Builders
236118 Residential Remodelers
236210 Industrial Building Construction
236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors (incl. Electrical Contractors)
238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors
238220 Pluming, Heating and Air-Conditioning Contractors
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
238990 Roofing Contractors
3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing
333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing
335110 Electric Lamp Bulb/Parts Manufacturing
335121 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing
335122 Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Lighting Fixture Manufacturing
335129 Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing
423720 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers
531311 Residential Property Managers
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
541310 Architectural Services
541320 Landscape Architectural Services
541330 Engineering Services
541340 Drafting Services
541350 Building Inspection Services
541420 Industrial Design Services
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
921 Cities and Counties
924 Administration of Environmental Programs
SOC Code Description of Occupation
17-1011.00 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
17-3011.01 Architectural Drafters
47-2011.00 Boilermakers
47-2051.00 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers
181
Table 19, Continued

17-2051.00 Civil Engineers
47-4011.00 Construction and Building Inspectors
47-2031.01 Construction Carpenters
47-2061.00 Construction Laborers
11-9021.00 Construction Managers
17-2071.00 Electrical Engineers
47-2111.00 Electricians
17-2199.03 Energy Engineers
13-2051.00 Financial Analysts
47-4041.00 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers
49-9021.01 Heating and Air Conditioning Mechanics and Installers
47-3012.00 Helpers--Carpenters
49-9098.00 Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers
53-7051.00 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators
47-2131.00 Insulation Workers, Floor, Ceiling, and Wall
53-7062.00 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
17-1012.00 Landscape Architects
49-9071.00 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
17-2141.00 Mechanical Engineers
47-2073.00 Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators
47-2152.01 Pipe Fitters and Steamfitters
47-2152.02 Plumbers
51-8013.00 Power Plant Operators
49-9021.02 Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers
47-2181.00 Roofers
47-2031.02 Rough Carpenters
47-2211.00 Sheet Metal Workers
51-4121.07 Solderers and Brazers
47-2221.00 Structural Iron and Steel Workers
51-2041.00 Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters
13-1151.00 Training and Development Specialists
19-3051.00 Urban and Regional Planners
51-4121.06 Welders, Cutters, and Welder Fitters
182
Table 19, Continued
Biofuels/Farming/Agriculture

NAICS
CODE
Description of Industry
111998 All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming
112519 Other Aquaculture
113110 Timber Tract Operations
113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products
11511 Support Activities for Crop Production
115310 Support Activities for Forestry
311223 Other Oilseed Processing
311225 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending
311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
325221 Cellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing
3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
333298 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
541330 Engineering Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology
924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
SOC code Description of Occupation
45-2011.00 Agricultural Inspectors
19-4011.01 Agricultural Technicians
13-1021.00 Buyers and Purchasing Agents, Farm Products
11-9013.02 Farm and Ranch Managers
45-1011.07 First-Line Supervisors of Agricultural Crop and Horticultural Workers
11-1021.00 General and Operations Managers
17-1012.00 Landscape Architects
19-4099.02 Precision Agriculture Technicians

183
Table 19, Continued

Transportation and Alternative Fuel Vehicles
NAICS Code Description of Industry
221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use
335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
441100 Automobile dealers [Service departments.]
447190 Other Gasoline Stations1
4841 General Freight Trucking
4842 Specialized Freight Trucking
4851 Urban Transit Systems [Includes commuter rail systems.]
4852 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
488310 Port and Harbor Operations
541330 Engineering Services
541370 Survey and Mapping Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services [Relates to logistics.]
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
811110 Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
811190 Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
SOC Code Description of Occupation
17-2011.00 Aerospace Engineers
17-3027.01 Automotive Engineering Technicians
17-2141.02 Automotive Engineers
49-3023.02 Automotive Specialty Technicians
49-3031.00 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists
53-3021.00 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity
43-5032.00 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance
17-2072.00 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer
43-5011.01 Freight Forwarders
17-2141.01 Fuel Cell Engineers
17-3029.10 Fuel Cell Technicians
53-3032.00 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
184
Table 19, Continued
53-7051.00 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators
53-4011.00 Locomotive Engineers
13-1081.02 Logistics Analysts
13-1081.01 Logistics Engineers
11-3071.03 Logistics Managers
17-2141.00 Mechanical Engineers
47-4061.00 Rail-Track Laying and Maintenance Equipment Operators
53-4031.00 Railroad Conductors and Yardmasters
43-5071.00 Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks
11-9199.04 Supply Chain Managers
17-2051.01 Transportation Engineers
11-3071.01 Transportation Managers
19-3099.01 Transportation Planners
53-6051.07 Transportation Vehicle, Equipment and Systems Inspectors, Except Aviation

Waste, Waste Management, and Recycling
NAICS Code Description of Industry
221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction
237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction [Relates to channel construction.]
333312 Commercial Laundry, Drycleaning, and Pressing Machine Manufacturing
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Mfg. for Residential, Commercial, & Appliance Use
335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing
541330 Engineering Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
562111 Solid Waste Collection
562112 Hazardous Waste Collection
562119 Other Waste Collection
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212 Solid Waste Landfill
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910 Remediation Services

185
Table 19, Continued
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities
562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs
SOC Code Description of Occupation
47-4041.00 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers
51-9199.01 Recycling and Reclamation Workers
53-1021.01 Recycling Coordinators
53-7081.00 Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors

Environmental Compliance, Sustainability Planning, Pollution Prevention

NAICS Code Description of Occupation
541370 Survey and Mapping Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs
924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
926120 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs
926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities
SOC Code Description of Occupation
11-9021.00 Construction Managers
11-1011.03 Chief Sustainability Officers
11-2011.01 Green Marketers
11-2021.00 Marketing Managers
11-3071.03 Logistics Managers
11-9041.00 Architectural and Engineering Managers
11-9041.00 Architectural and Engineering Managers
11-9121.00 Natural Sciences Managers
11-9121.02 Water Resource Specialists
11-9199.01 Regulatory Affairs Managers
11-9199.02 Compliance Managers
11-9199.04 Supply Chain Managers
11-9199.11 Brownfield Redevelopment Specialists and Site Managers
186
Table 19, Continued
13-1022.00 Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except Farm Products
13-1041.07 Regulatory Affairs Specialists
13-1081.01 Logistics Engineers
13-1081.02 Logistics Analysts
13-1151.00 Training and Development Specialists
13-1199.01 Energy Auditors
13-1199.05 Sustainability Specialists
13-2051.00 Financial Analysts
13-2052.00 Personal Financial Advisors
13-2099.01 Financial Quantitative Analysts
13-2099.02 Risk Management Specialists
13-2099.03 Investment Underwriters
15-1133.00 Software Developers, Systems Software
15-1199.04 Geospatial Information Scientists and Technologists
15-1199.05 Geographic Information Systems Technicians
17-1011.00 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
17-1012.00 Landscape Architects
17-2011.00 Aerospace Engineers
17-2041.00 Chemical Engineers
17-2051.00 Civil Engineers
17-2051.01 Transportation Engineers
17-2071.00 Electrical Engineers
17-2072.00 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer
17-2081.00 Environmental Engineers
17-2081.01 Water/Wastewater Engineers
17-2111.01 Industrial Safety and Health Engineers
17-2112.00 Industrial Engineers
17-2141.00 Mechanical Engineers
17-2141.01 Fuel Cell Engineers
17-2141.02 Automotive Engineers
17-2161.00 Nuclear Engineers
17-2199.01 Biochemical Engineers
17-2199.02 Validation Engineers
17-2199.03 Energy Engineers
17-2199.04 Manufacturing Engineers
17-2199.05 Mechatronics Engineers
17-2199.07 Photonics Engineers
187
Table 19, Continued
17-2199.08 Robotics Engineers
17-2199.09 Nanosystems Engineers
17-3024.01 Robotics Technicians
17-3025.00 Environmental Engineering Technicians
17-3029.02 Electrical Engineering Technologists
17-3029.04 Electronics Engineering Technologists
17-3029.05 Industrial Engineering Technologists
17-3029.06 Manufacturing Engineering Technologists
17-3029.07 Mechanical Engineering Technologists
17-3029.08 Photonics Technicians
17-3029.09 Manufacturing Production Technicians
17-3029.11 Nanotechnology Engineering Technologists
19-1013.00 Soil and Plant Scientists
19-1023.00 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists
19-1031.01 Soil and Water Conservationists
19-2021.00 Atmospheric and Space Scientists
19-2031.00 Chemists
19-2032.00 Materials Scientists
19-2041.00 Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health
19-2041.01 Climate Change Analysts
19-2041.02 Environmental Restoration Planners
19-2041.03 Industrial Ecologists
19-2042.00 Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers
19-2042.00 Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers
19-2043.00 Hydrologists
19-2099.01 Remote Sensing Scientists and Technologists
19-3011.01 Environmental Economists
19-3051.00 Urban and Regional Planners
19-3099.01 Transportation Planners
19-4041.01 Geophysical Data Technicians
19-4041.02 Geological Sample Test Technicians
19-4091.00 Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health
19-4093.00 Forest and Conservation Technicians
19-4099.02 Precision Agriculture Technicians
19-4099.03 Remote Sensing Technicians
23-1022.00 Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators
23-1022.00 Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators
188
Table 19, Continued
25-9021.00 Farm and Home Management Advisors
27-1021.00 Commercial and Industrial Designers
27-3022.00 Reporters and Correspondents
27-3031.00 Public Relations Specialists
29-9011.00 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
33-3031.00 Fish and Game Wardens
41-3031.03 Securities and Commodities Traders
41-4011.00 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products
43-4051.00 Customer Service Representatives
43-5071.00 Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks
45-1011.05 First-Line Supervisors of Logging Workers
45-2011.00 Agricultural Inspectors
45-4011.00 Forest and Conservation Workers
47-4011.00 Construction and Building Inspectors
47-4041.00 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers
49-2094.00 Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and Industrial Equipment
49-9071.00 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
51-9061.00 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
53-6051.07 Transportation Vehicle, Equipment and Systems Inspectors, Except Aviation

Energy Generation, Renewable Energy, Energy Storage
NAICS Code Description of Industry
2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission & Distribution [Energy conservation planning & consulting.]
2212 Natural Gas Distribution
221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing
335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
541330 Engineering Services
541380 Testing Laboratories
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology
926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities

189
Table 19, Continued
SOC Code Description of Occupation
11-3051.02 Geothermal Production Managers
11-3051.03 Biofuels Production Managers
11-3051.04 Biomass Power Plant Managers
11-3051.05 Methane/Landfill Gas Collection System Operators
11-3051.06 Hydroelectric Production Managers
11-3071.02 Storage and Distribution Managers
11-3099.01 Energy Brokers
11-9041.01 Biofuels/Biodiesel Technology and Product Development Managers
11-9199.09 Wind Energy Operations Managers
11-9199.10 Wind Energy Project Managers
13-2099.03 Investment Underwriters
17-2051.00 Civil Engineers
17-2071.00 Electrical Engineers
17-2141.00 Mechanical Engineers
17-2199.10 Wind Energy Engineers
17-2199.11 Solar Energy Systems Engineers
19-4041.02 Geological Sample Test Technicians
19-4051.01 Nuclear Equipment Operation Technicians
41-3031.03 Securities and Commodity Traders
41-4011.07 Solar Sales Representatives and Assessors
47-1011.03 Solar Energy Installation Managers
47-2211.00 Sheet Metal Workers
47-2231.00 Solar Photovoltaic Installers
47-4099.02 Solar Thermal Installers and Technicians
47-5013.00 Service Unit Operators, Oil, Gas, and Mining
47-5041.00 Continuous Mining Machine Operators
49-9071.00 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
49-9081.00 Wind Turbine Service Technicians
49-9099.01 Geothermal Technicians
51-4041.00 Machinists

190
Table 19, Continued
51-8011.00 Nuclear Power Reactor Operators
51-8012.00 Power Distributors and Dispatchers
51-8013.00 Power Plant Operators
51-8099.01 Biofuels Processing Technicians
51-8099.02 Methane/Landfill Gas Generation System Technicians
51-8099.03 Biomass Plant Technicians
51-8099.04 Hydroelectric Plant Technicians
51-9012.00 Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

In sum, through the economic development methodology developed above, I seek
to develop a useable methodology for the study of the green economy at the sub-national
scale. As noted above, there has been considerable difficulty in terms of defining the
green economy, and utilizing it as an operationlized economic development context.
Thus, through this effort, I seek to develop a usable methodology for studying the green
economy that can likewise be used as a mechanism to gauge potential areas of
opportunities at a preliminary, baseline level. Although such a quantification does not in
any way guarantee that all establishments or jobs are green, it identifies the potential
areas where green employment could occur and thus provides a starting point for further
analyses within these categories. Traditional economic development analysis, through the
calculation of location quotients etc, can then be layered onto this approach as a means to
define local comparative advantages and to develop economic development strategies
around the green economy.

191
3. Independent Variables: Institutional Linkages to the Green Metropolitan Economy
Independent variables are gathered within the metropolitan areas specified above.
Data collected and further details are organized below in two areas: (1) Baseline data, and
then (2) Green economy specific analysis. I look at the institutional structure around the
green economy measured as the dependent variable and described above.

a. Baseline Data on Selected Municipal Areas
First, a variety of information is assessed within the each selected metropolitan
area in order to create a contextual picture of green jobs development and the institutional
process behind sustainable development within the metropolitan area. This provides
information on the package of independent variables, which will together define the
institutional governance structure around green jobs development and sustainability more
broadly. In accordance with theories of governance as described within the proposal, both
actors from within and outside of governments are particularly relevant in constructing a
rich understanding of the way in which sustainability is governed within the selected
metropolitan areas.
As noted above, metropolitan statistical areas were identified above in terms of
higher prevalence of green jobs. Economic development analysis can be conducted, both
at the baseline level as well as specifically related to green jobs, at the MSA level.
However, in terms of understanding the governance of green jobs and the examination of
policies, the MSA level does not correspond to spheres of governance. I therefore further
192
define the relevant cities within these selected MSAs as a sub-unit of analysis, with a
focus on those cities within the MSA with higher populations or which are most
indicative of green jobs or sustainability efforts as indicated by Portney and sustainelane
ratings of the 55 most populous cities (See below). I also look at other levels of
governance including the county and state level, as appropriate.
Baseline and contextual information as to governance structure around the green
economy is developed. Although economic development analysis is to be conducted at
the metropolitan statistical area, this analysis must be conducted in terms of a layered
approach with takes into account different layers of control over the governance of
relevant policies and plans. The collection and analysis of data is as follows:

Measures of Overall Sustainability through Government Policies and Programs
Selected metropolitan statistical areas, and the range of policy tools that they
employ, are evaluated within the broader context of sustainable governance through an
examination of their overall sustainability governance metrics within the metropolitan
area. This is measured, largely through the city level given spheres of influence, through
content review and analysis of relevant city, county, and regional sustainability measures
through the process described above. I provide information on the relevant policies, as
publically available. I specify these programs at the city level, as well as at the county
level as relevant, and in particular when city level programs do not exist. Difficulties may
exist in terms of gauging multiple levels and layers of authority, or lack there of, in
implementing environmental plans and policies.
193

Measures of Overall Sustainable Governance through Nongovernmental Actors
Important actors from the nonprofit sector are also examined within the selected
case studies. This research seeks to understand how different significant actors are
impacting sustainable governance within the city, as indicated as important throughout
the literature review.
Broad based information related to the nature of nonprofit relations within the
selected cities is developed, building on the analysis done in the prior section. This is
primarily ascertained through data on nonprofits at the municipal level available from
datasets at the National Center for Charitable Statistics. The Center provides data on all
501 (c) 3 organizations including public charities and private foundations, as well as
detailed information. With information broken down by relevant types of nonprofits
including by labor unions and by environmental organizations, some cursory background
information is obtained relative to interest group activity around sustainable governance,
that may be relevant to green jobs. This, therefore, serves as a basic contextual
background indicator of nonprofit activity related to the green jobs movement within
selected case study cities.

194
D) Green Economy Institutional Analysis:
Policy, Planning, and Stakeholder Analysis of the Green Economy

Approaches and actors specific to green jobs are then analyzed and evaluated
within this proposed study, as the relevant range of independent variables most
importantly linked to green jobs attainment within municipal areas. This study, moreover,
is particularly interested in terms of the specific green jobs policies undertaken within
these metropolitan areas, characterized by a particular range of green occupations and
industries discussed above.
Preliminary content analysis was conducted on the range of policies and planning
mechanisms, as well as the range of significant actors involved in the green jobs
“ moveme nt.” F or mi ng i mporta nt i nde pe nde nt va ria bles, thi s pre li mi na r y a na l y sis sou g ht
to ascertain: what particular policy mechanisms and planning strategies have been used to
foster green jobs? What policies and planning mechanisms are, or ideally could be,
relevant to the development of green employment at the sub-national level? Through this
analysis, a range of policies and programs have been identified as critically related to the
green jobs movement. Although not limited to the following, I broadly examine several
specific green job related policy and planning approaches within cities identified as
having a prominent number of green jobs: government procurement and related demand-
generation efforts, business incubation strategies and other innovation-driven approaches
such as incentives, human capital focused workforce development strategies, and land
use strategies focused on green jobs growth such as eco-industrial parks.
In doing so, I will address the second research question: From a policy and
planning driven standpoint, what types of economic and environmental measures (or
195
“ gree n jobs st rategies”) are o r cou ld i de all y be th e ac hiev abl e de li v e rabl e s of t his new
formal and informal institutional governance structure? What is the output of these
efforts that broadly seek to overcome the three development conflicts as outlined by
Campbell; or, what are the success and failures of these burgeoning policy and planning
efforts at the sub-national level? Examination of actors is gauged in the context of the
policy and planning methods that they employ as the outcome of organizational or
agency goals, and of alliance outputs. In doing so I address the closely linked first
research question: What institutional and governance structure is emerging in order to
facilitate the adoption of green jobs strategies and polices? What are the critical
components of the institutionally driven, governance structure of the green jobs
movement? What are the critical players, and how has this manifested within formal and
informal institutions at the sub-national scale? In the end, connections are examined
between the particular constellation of green occupations and institutions defined and
described in the prior section, and the institutional structure endemic to the case studies.

1. Formal Government Approaches to Green Jobs/Sustainable Governance
Linking Policies and Programs to Green Jobs: Identifying Relevant Policy and
Program Areas
In order to understand the linkage between the green economy as quantified above
and particular policies, I examine the potential nexus between policy and employment
opportunities in the green economy. Recently, the Political Economy Research Institute
(PERI) at University of Massachusetts (2008) developed a typology seeking to link green
employment to pertinent policies. Given the initial content analysis around green
196
economy policies presented above, as well as the initial content analysis performed in the
pr ior se c ti on a round th e incide nc e o f “ g r e e n jobs ” a s a te rm w it hin m unicipa l we bsit e , I build on this approach to better understand this nexus. I adapt the approach, as necessary
to the particular metropolitan cities as necessary, in order to ensure that I have not missed
any essential elements of the green economy.

Table 20:
Policy Areas Linked to Broad Policy Areas
Policy Area Sample Green Employment Opportunities
Green Building Policies:
Green Building Retrofits
Weatherization Programs
Electricians, Heating, Air Condition Installers, Carpenters,
Construction Equipment Operators, Insulation Workers,
Carpenter Helpers, Construction Managers, Building
Inspectors
Mass Transit Projects:
Procurement of Transit
Stock
Construction of
Infrastructure including
High Speed Rail
Civil Engineers, Rail Track Layers, Electricians, Welders,
Metal Fabricators, Engine Assemblers, Production Helpers,
Bus Drivers, First-Line Transportation Supervisors,
Dispatchers
Energy
Efficient/Alternative Fuel
Standards and Incentives
Policies
Computer Software Engineers, Electrical Engineers,
Engineering Technicians, Welders, Transportation
Equipment Painters, Metal Fabricators, Computer-Controlled
Machine Operators, Large Assemblers, Production Helpers,
Operations Managers
Energy Generation,
Renewable Portfolio
Standards: Wind Power
Environmental Engineers, Iron and Steel Workers,
Millwrights, Sheet Metal Workers, Machinists, Electrical
Equipment Assemblers, Construction Equipment Operators,
Industrial Truck Drivers, Industrial Production Managers,
First-Line Production Supervisors.
Energy Generation,
Renewable Portfolio
Standards: Solar Power
Electrical Engineers, Electricians, Industrial Machinery
Mechanics, Welders, Metal Fabricators, Electrical
Equipment Assemblers, Construction Equipment Operators,
Installation Helpers, Laborers, Construction Managers
Energy Generation,
Renewable Portfolio
Standards: Biofuels
Chemical Engineers, Chemists, Chemical Equipment
Operators, Chemical Technicians, Mixing and Blending
Machine Operators, Agricultural and Forestry Supervisors,
Agricultural Inspectors
Adapted from (http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/Green_Jobs_PERI.pdf).
197

Such an analysis is further defined within the examined case studies. I likewise
look at corollary policies at the county and state level, as appropriate. Information is
generally publically available online. Identifying and further understanding such policies
at broader scopes of government may be particularly interesting, again, at the state level
for California where multiple cities are represented high on the list of green jobs.

Other Analyses of Green Policies and Programs
New institutional structures are emerging within government agencies in order to
facilitate green job development. In terms of green jobs development, selected municipal
c a se c it ies w il l be a na l y z e d in t e rms of their “ e ff e c ti ve ne ss” in im pleme nti ng these policies, plans, and programs linked to green jobs generation, and in fulfilling the broader
goals of sustainability. In doing so, cases will be analyzed and evaluated in terms of
a ddre ssi n g one of C a mpbell’s c onflic ts and thus ef fe c ti ve l y we a vin g togeth e r
e nvironmen tal, e c onomi c , a nd/or e quit y g o a ls i n som e c onst e ll a ti on. The se “ thre e Es ” of
sustainability can be disarticulated, and case studies will aim to evaluate different aspects
of these development conflicts and the pursuit of different combinations of these goals.
Particular interest lies in identifying how green jobs may be potentially used to solve
C a mpbell’s c onflic ts ar o und these thre e v a lues in nove l wa y s, ex pa nding b oth t he discour se or “ iss ue fr a mi ng ” a round thi s pursuit a nd the r e sult a nt i nsti tutional structures
that ma y b e inst it uted in or de r to me e t v a rious c on stellati ons of Ca mpbell’s de ve lopm e nt
conflicts.
198
Many of these programs aimed at green jobs are both novel and in their incipient
stage. Given this, case study analysis will particularly examine the institutional fit of
these approaches drawing on the contextual range of sustainability factors, and in
particular provide an assessment of their ingenuity in terms of institutional development
in comparison to other sustainability approaches, as well as other economic development
strategies (both in terms of government institutions, and the integration of social
movement players such as interest groups and local activists). Similarly, critical and
patterned relationships between key existing actors and institutions will be identified, as
well as evidence of new and emerging actors and institutions. Key barriers, particularly in
terms of generalizable characteristics, will be identified in the adoption and
implementation of green jobs strategies within the sustainable governance structure. In
addition to the content analysis of relevant public documents is valuable in providing
further analysis of the way in which the green jobs strategy is manifested with the sub-
national institutional structure.

2. Nongovernment/Nonprofit Organizations and Alliances
Second, this study will particularly focus on the wider governance structure
around sustainability that may account for the emergence of these green jobs programs
and policies. Keeping with the vision of governance and building upon the contextual
understanding of the nonprofit sector in the section above, nongovernmental actors
related to green jobs will be examined within the selected metropolitan areas along with
their interplay with formal institutions in the enactment of policies and programs related
199
to green employment. Such actors will be identified in the context of their involvement
with particular green jobs policies and planning efforts, and will be likewise understood
within the context of the broader interest group environmental within the metropolitan
area as defined in the background sketch. The geographic range of such groups will be
identified in order to keep the geographical scope and unit of analysis in mind (city-
based, MSA, regional, state etc.).

Identifying Relevant Green Economy Alliances
As noted in literature, of particular interest is the creation of new linkages
between key actors around green jobs and sustainability within a particular place —in this
case being the metropolitan region or city. Alliances, defined by Pastor et. al (2010) as
“ two or more o r g a niz a ti ons c omi ng to g e the r to buil d powe r to a f fe c t bro a de r c ha n g e a nd
transform system of power within such alliances, member organizations maintain their
own independent identify and internal decision-making processes. This is not a merger
but a c omi ng to g e th e r” w il l be spe c ifica ll y identifi e d through a c ontent re vi e w of poli c y and planning mechanisms being implemented around green jobs at the municipal level.
Understanding social organizations, in addition to alliances, is important in understanding
the governance and institutional structure around green jobs. Alliances may be linked,
eventually to social change, as potentially indicated by the pursuit of sustainable
deve lopm e nt at the c e nte r of C a mpbell’s planne r’ s triang le. Ac c o rding to t he model put
forth by Pastor et. al, (2010) social change can engender from organizations leading into
alliances, bridging into social movements, and then potentially leading into social change.
200
As noted b y P a stor e t. al, ( 2010) “ a ll ian c e s a re the struc ture s that conn e c t or g a niz a ti ons
and individual power bases —whether their power is drawn from an ability to mobilize
people, a particular expertise, a set of relationships, or financial resources —to a broader
socia l m ove ment a nd lar g e r stru gg les…Thr ou g h a ll ianc e s, the vic torie s a n d e ff or ts l e a d
by individual organizations stream together to form the river of social movement that
band towards large- s c a le, long ter m ch a n g e . ” Thus , throug h the q ualitative methods
above, I aim to examine green jobs activities within this context of organizations,
alliances, and perhaps even an emergent social movement likely grounded in
sustainability goals and interests.
Within each metro area, I identify relevant green economy alliances. Such
alliances typically fall in two main categories: blue-green alliances and green business
associations. Some preliminary data in regards to these specific cities were identified in
the case study selection section above. Information on groups is identified in the
following section as follows:
First, green collared jobs alliances broadly consist of those alliances of nonprofit
actors incorporative of labor and environmental interests. Several national nonprofit
organizations can fall under this criterion. Apollo Alliance, Green For All, and the
Emerald Cities Collaborative chapters are summarized among the selected metropolitan
areas in the table identified within the case study selection above.
Second, another important component of the interest-group, nongovernmental
activity around green jobs is the incidence of green business alliances. Such alliances are
composed of both environmentalists and business interests. Several national
201
organizations exist that serve as networks of these organizations. Through initial internet
searches, I identified as variety of such groups including: Business Alliance for Local
L ivi n g Ec onomi e s ( B A LL E) , NRDC’s Environm e ntal Entre pr e ne ur s (E 2) a nd the U nit e d
States Green Building Council (USGBC) specifically focused on the green building
industry. Table 5, in the case study selection, identified the incidence of such groups
within the selected cases. Incidences of such groups at the metropolitan level may
provide an indication of informal institutional governance structure around green
economy activity. All of the selected cases demonstrated some of these groups, and
future research should identify other pertinent green business alliances within the selected
metropolitan area. Therefore, alliances, as appropriate, will be identified in each
metropolitan area. I will utilize internet sources in order to identify any other relevant
groups.
After identifying key alliances as discussed above, I will review publically
available information in order to better understand the function and form of these
alliances, as they are linked to the development and implementation of green jobs
strategies. Specifically, I aim to better understand a variety of questions: What is the
structure of emerging alliances around green jobs? Is there diverse membership and how
is s uc h membe rship r e pr e se nti ng the disp a ra te g o a ls and c onflic ts g ove rning C a mpbell’s
planning triangle? I aim to specifically understand how these new alliances around green
jobs are or could be functionally important to achieving sustainability goals. In order to
do so, I provide an analysis of alliance membership enabling a better understanding of the
networks emerging around the green economy.
202
Of particular interest, is whether or not emergent alliances and organizations will
lead to large-scale social change in the realms of employment and sustainability more
generally. Drawing back to discussions around social movements and social movement
c ha n g e , the re a re qu e sti ons a s to t he tra jec tor y a n d “ sta y in g po we r ” of si gnific a nt ac tors
within green jobs movements. Through social movement development, in fact, there is
the potential for alterations of the organizations at the table, without changing the broader
goals. As noted by Pastor et. al. (2010), social mo v e ments “ buil d for a lon g -term
transformation in systems of power to create large- sc a le soc i a l cha n ge .” N e e dless to s a y ,
such an evaluation may not be operationalizable. However, this analysis can provide
some clues as to the processes emerging. As noted b y P a stor e t. a l. (201) “ a ll ianc e s
g ro wn a nd c h a n g e ov e r tim e .” Ke y sta ge s include: “ stra te g y de v e lopm e nt”, “ outre a c h
for mation”, “ op e ra ti ona l ” , a nd fina ll y the “ inst it uti ona li z a ti on of the a ll ianc e .” Thr ou g h
content analysis and review of publically available documents, the case study analysis
somewhat provides contextual information in regards to where along the trajectory the
current alliances around green jobs (as identified above) stand, as an attempt to
understand the nature and trajectory of the complex relationships engendering from the
green jobs movement.

203
E. Conclusion to Methodology
As summarized above, sustainable development through the integration of green
jobs can arguably be seen as a movement to integrate values of equity, economics, and
environment through approaches around sustainable governance at the municipal,
metropolitan, and/or regional level. I aim to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of the green jobs movement at the sub-national level through an
examination of municipalities with relatively large quantities of green jobs. The
governance structure may play a role in the ability to attract desired green jobs,
potentially representing a component of a sustainability strategy. A range of policy tools
from both the supply and demand side may be critically important in order to bolster the
development goals for green economy coalitions and government agencies seeking green
jobs strategies as a deliverable of sustainable development strategies and approaches.
These policy tools and the governance/institutional structure needed is likely varied and
complex within municipalities. This qualitative examination aims to define and develop a
holistic picture of the current, and perhaps potential, governance structure of the green
jobs movement at the metropolitan level throughout formal and informal institutions
Through this theoretical and methodological approach, and given the range of
limitations inherent to the analysis, I aim to incrementally build upon the literature
around sustainability/sustainable development through a rigorous empirical application of
institutionalism and governance theories to emergent green jobs strategies. This
resultantly provides a broad-based description and analysis of the green jobs policy,
planning, and social movement at the sub-national level.
204
In the end, this dissertation thus seeks to provide theoretical rigor to the study of
green jobs. Sustainability may provide a new paradigm for reconciling these conflicts,
and rigorous analysis is needed in order to understanding the rise of new players and
strategies in guiding equity considerations, employment and economic development
goals, and environmental preservation in this paradigm. As was described above,
resultant new spheres of influence, including the rise of new alliances including most
notably so- c a ll e d “ blu e - gr e e n” c oa li ti ons such a s t he Apollo All ianc e a nd Gr e e n F or All,
may reach mutually beneficial sustainable development strategies for communities in the
United States and beyond. This may be charting the way towards a critical paradigm shift
in understanding economic development, while also becoming a burgeoning research
area. Alternatively, it may be a novel and fleeting instance of issue framing, rather than a
true change in policy and planning approaches, or the formulation of relevant coalitions,
to environmental preservation and/or economic development. My research aims to
address this new constellation of interest groups, alliances, agency approaches, and public
policy measures. From an institutionally-driven, governance perspective, the green jobs
movement may provide opportunities for diverse, unconventional coalitions between
business, researches, environmentalists, and labor organizations in addressing
development conflicts including the property conflict, resource conflict, and development
concept.

205
F. Case Study Analysis: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA, Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana MSA, and San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA

The following section compares three metropolitan statistical areas, based upon
the methodology discussed above. First, I discuss the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Second, I examine the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Third, I turn to a detailed analysis of the Boston-
Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. Economic development analysis and
institutional analysis specific to green jobs, developed above, is applied below to examine
the nexus between green jobs and green jobs governance at the sub-national scale. As
such and building on the broader analysis undertaken in the section prior, the following
case studies provide needed depth to the investigation of the green economy at the sub-
national scale.

1. San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area
The San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area provides a
particularly illuminating view of green economic development activities. As indicated in
the case study selection above, it appears to be home to a relative prevalence of green
employment by a range of measures and projections. What might account for the high
prevalence of green employment within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area? The metropoli tan a re a a nd incor po ra ted c it ies’ ba sic
characteristics, as described in the first section, suggests that this area would in fact be
ripe for this sort of development. Often seen as a relatively progressive and wealthy
206
locale, the area could be seen as the t y pe o f “ pla c e ” we ll sui ted f or g r e e n e c onomi c growth.
How might green employment, in aggregate, be distributed through this
metropolitan statistical area? How might the prevalence of green economic activities and
opportunities vary within metropolitan statistical areas? Given a regional perspective,
how might areas of opportunities within the region be identified and examined. Data was
ascertained at a city level (as of 2009) through the database at the National Center for
Charitable Statistics (NCCS). The cities included are those that are identified as
“ pr incipa l citi e s” b a se d u pon the c e nsus bur e a u’ s de finiti ons of me tropoli tan statist ica l
areas. Based upon the institutional factors identified, I see differing levels of probable
green employment within these cities. Data is included and listed in table 21 below.

Table 21:
Green Economy Factors Across Cities in
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA
City
Total
Populatio
n
Median
Income
Level
Number of
Environmental
Organizations
S u st a i n e l a n e “ T o p ci t y ”
1=Yes
San
Francisco 776,733 55,221 97 1
Oakland 399,477 40,055 46 1
Fremont 203,413 76,579 6 0
Hayward 139,895 51,177 2 0
Berkley 102,743 44,485 253 0
San Mateo 92,372 64,757 106 0
San
Leandro 79,286 51,081 2 0
Redwood
City 75,447 66,748 0 0
Pleasanton 63,569 90,859 4 0
Walnut
Creek 64,583 63,238 10 0
South San
Francisco 60,727 61,764 0 0
San Rafael 56,132 60,994 13 0

207
1. Economic Development Analysis
a.Occupational Analysis for San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA
What green occupations are prevalent within the San Francisco-Oakland-
Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area? Occupational analysis of the San Francisco-
Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area can identify and indicate points of
comparative advantage and economic activity broadly around the green economy. Such
an approach enables a more detailed examination of areas of green economic
opportunities and areas of potential comparative advantage in the wide array of
occupations and corollary industries that could be a subset of the broad concept of a
green economy.
First, understating the distribution of occupations within the metropolitan
statistical area provides a contextual background through which to understand the green
economy. Table 22 shows those occupations that have a 1.5 or higher location quotient,
organized by 2- digit SOC codes with definitions of the sectors. Additionally, I only keep
those 2-digit categories with more than 4 categories as a start, enabling me to eliminate
areas where there is not a clear agglomeration of economic activity, and therefore not a
clear indication of potential competitive advantage within this spectrum of occupations.
The San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area, as indicated
below, has several agglomerations of groups or clustering of occupations. The San
Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area boasts a multitude of
opportunities in higher-skilled areas. In particular, many occupational categories within
the business and financial operations occupational group exhibited location quotients that
208
were greater than 1.5. Additionally, business and financial operations occupations,
computer and mathematical operations, architectural and engineering occupations, and
life, physical and social sciences occupations likewise exhibit high location quotients and
thus higher concentration of these particular occupations within the metropolitan
statistical area. A large number of management occupations are present in the San
Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan Statistical Area, indicating a range of
opportunities in higher-skilled employment.

209
Table 22:
Occupational Location Quotients by San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA
SOC Code Occupation Title Total Employment Location Quotient
Management Occupations
11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers 820 1.695
11-2021 Marketing Managers 6,040 2.455
11-2022 Sales Managers 8,760 1.834
11-2031 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers 1,520 1.899
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers 8,310 1.925
11-3031 Financial Managers 12,270 1.713
11-3121 Human Resources Managers 1,690 1.665
11-9031 Education Administrators, Preschool and Childcare Center/Program 1,270 1.680
11-9039 Education Administrators, All Other 670 1.583
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers 4,260 1.632
11-9051 Food Service Managers 4,440 1.591
11-9121 Natural Sciences Managers 2,110 3.081
11-9141 Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers 4,170 1.897
11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers 2,790 1.603
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 136,910 1.504
13-1022 Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except Farm Products 2,660 1.645
13-1111 Management Analysts 13,120 1.636
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners* 1,440 1.689
13-1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists 2,600 1.694
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists* 9,660 2.468
13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other* 26,160 1.760
13-2031 Budget Analysts 1,900 2.182
13-2051 Financial Analysts 6,910 2.093
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors 5,170 2.227
13-2061 Financial Examiners 990 2.386
13-2099 Financial Specialists, All Other 5,850 2.529
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 84,870 1.729
15-1111 Computer and Information Research Scientists 880 2.364

210
Table 22, Continued
15-1121 Computer Systems Analysts 11,290 1.523
15-1132 Software Developers, Applications 17,370 2.328
15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software 11,690 2.064
15-1142 Network and Computer Systems Administrators* 7,930 1.592
15-1179 Information Security Analysts, Web Developers, and Computer Network Architects 7,350 2.021
15-1799 Computer Occupations, All Other* 4,960 1.812
15-2031 Operations Research Analysts 1,580 1.700
15-2041 Statisticians 770 2.244
15-2099 Mathematical Science Occupations, All Other 40 1.878
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 2,870 2.190
17-1012 Landscape Architects 460 1.852
17-2031 Biomedical Engineers 770 3.369
17-2051 Civil Engineers 7,100 1.905
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers 2,420 2.416
17-2081 Environmental Engineers 1,140 1.534
17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters 2,470 1.840
17-3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians 430 1.790
Life, Physical and Social Science Occupations
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 31,680 1.990
19-1012 Food Scientists and Technologists 260 1.637
19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists 330 1.804
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists 1,800 5.274
19-1022 Microbiologists 1,530 5.595
19-1023 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists 440 1.705
19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Other 700 1.529
19-1041 Epidemiologists 140 1.996
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 5,340 3.816
19-2012 Physicists 550 2.194
19-2031 Chemists 2,760 2.305
19-2041 Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health 2,320 1.903
19-2099 Physical Scientists, All Other 680 1.848
19-3011 Economists 460 2.331
19-3031 Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychologists 2,380 1.583
19-3041 Sociologists 290 5.203
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners 2,170 3.731
19-4021 Biological Technicians 2,870 2.635
Community and Social Services Occupations
21-1013 Marriage and Family Therapists 1,060 2.142
21-1029 Social Workers, All Other 1,800 1.720

211
Table 22, Continued
21-1091 Health Educators 1,460 1.683
21-2021 Directors, Religious Activities and Education 380 1.510
Education, Training and Library Occupations
25-1071 Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary 5,030 2.326
25-1121 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers, Postsecondary 2,410 1.857
25-1199 Postsecondary Teachers, All Other 4,390 1.602
25-4012 Curators 280 1.796
25-4013 Museum Technicians and Conservators 360 2.336
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, Media
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 39,920 1.555
27-1011 Art Directors 1,390 3.128
27-1014 Multimedia Artists and Animators 1,990 5.000
27-1024 Graphic Designers 4,860 1.693
27-1025 Interior Designers 1,410 2.348
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers 390 3.258
27-1029 Designers, All Other 350 2.746
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts 4,480 1.627
27-2031 Dancers 320 1.895
27-2032 Choreographers 500 2.677
27-2041 Music Directors and Composers 570 1.841
27-2042 Musicians and Singers 1,090 1.683
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists 5,380 1.594
27-3041 Editors 2,330 1.571
27-3042 Technical Writers 1,030 1.563
27-4011 Audio and Video Equipment Technicians 1,350 1.905
27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians 690 2.932
27-4032 Film and Video Editors 610 2.047
27-4099 Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other 440 1.738
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
29-1022 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 120 1.527
29-1061 Anesthesiologists 890 1.716
29-1063 Internists, General 2,160 2.891
29-1064 Obstetricians and Gynecologists 720 2.423
29-1065 Pediatricians, General 1,210 2.681
29-1066 Psychiatrists 770 2.263
29-1071 Physician Assistants 1,910 1.572
29-9799 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other* 1,540 1.845
Personal Care and Services Occupations
39-2011 Animal Trainers 230 1.579
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers 2,620 1.634
39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists 2,550 3.286
212
Table 22, Continued
39-5094 Skincare Specialists 770 1.711
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops 1,270 1.892
39-7012 Travel Guides 190 3.478
39-9031 Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors 5,360 1.589
Sales and Related Occupations
41-3031 Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents 6,620 1.604
41-3099 Sales Representatives, Services, All Other 12,200 1.536
41-9031 Sales Engineers 3,140 3.184
41-9799 Sales and Related Workers, All Other* 3,430 1.517
Offices and Administrative Support Occupations
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents 2,610 2.147
43-5053 Postal Service Mail Sorters, Processors, and Processing Machine Operators 3,590 1.648
43-6011 Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants 29,300 1.731
43-9071 Office Machine Operators, Except Computer 1,890 1.901
Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2041 Carpet Installers 970 2.539
47-2043 Floor Sanders and Finishers 280 3.232
47-2072 Pile-Driver Operators 440 6.905
47-2081 Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers 1,850 1.505
47-2082 Tapers 560 2.127
47-2161 Plasterers and Stucco Masons 750 1.885
47-2181 Roofers 2,500 1.687
47-3014 Helpers--Painters, Paperhangers, Plasterers, and Stucco Masons 290 1.599
47-4021 Elevator Installers and Repairers 480 1.574
47-4041 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers 1,450 2.620
Production Occupations
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials 1,620 1.918
51-7021 Furniture Finishers 350 1.527
51-7099 Woodworkers, All Other 210 1.624
51-8093 Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers 1,840 2.868
51-9141 Semiconductor Processors 650 2.083
51-9151 Photographic Process Workers and Processing Machine Operators 1,310 1.520
51-9194 Etchers and Engravers 240 1.948
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-1011 Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors 160 1.753
53-3021 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity 5,410 2.012
53-6021 Parking Lot Attendants 3,400 1.825
53-6099 Transportation Workers, All Other 1,250 2.545

213
How does this occupational distribution specifically relate to activities within the
green economy? I now engage in green occupational research through the methodology
identifie d a bove in ord e r to deve lop a pic ture o f a “ gr e e n o c c up a ti ona l clust e r” f o r the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. Occupations identified
by 6-digit level SOC codes with high location quotients identified above, can be matched
to the potential green occupations that have been identified and included within the green
occupational framework developed in the prior section. Green occupations within the
MSA that can be identified through this method are further described by the training level
de fine d a s e it he r “ inc re a s e d de mand oc c upa ti ons” “ gr e e n e nha n c e d ski ll s” or “ Ne w a nd
Emer g ing” The distribution of potential green occ upa ti ons, or the identifie d “ gr e e n
oc c upa ti ona l clust e r” is l ist e d in Ta ble 23.
A multitude of potential green occupations are linked to large location quotients
exhibited within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. As
such, several areas of potential comparative advantage within the green occupational
cluster appear to exist within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area. First, given the array of occupations exhibited above, there may be
considerable opportunities in the higher-value end of the spectrum. A number of
management positions fall under the green-enhanced skills category. Given the nature of
such occupations, such opportunities may be particularly low hanging fruit in that that the
new green occupations constitute a greening of an existing occupational category.
Existing workers can be “ gr e e n e d” o r e nha n c e d th roug h the lea rnin g of gr e e n ski ll s.
Existing training programs can be specifically enhanced in order to prepare a ready
214
workforce for such economic opportunities. Given the relative ease and efficiency
involved, public policy may aim to develop this subset of the occupation through
encouraging certain niche markets or the adoption of environmentally-preservative
processes.
As will be discussed in further detail below, the new and emerging subsets are
likewise a particularly interesting point of potential growth within the metropolitan
statistical area. Such occupations may logically constitute areas of rapid growth. Such
occupations, moreover, may offer new opportunities and expanded employment
opportunities, rather than reclassify existing occupational categories, thus leading to true
growth in employment opportunities within the metropolitan statistical area. They may
also appear, at first blush to be responsive to the policies that have been adopted in the
San Francisco area. Many of these occupations are most highly linked to potential and
future policies; they may have been incentivized by environmental policies and are also
most likely areas of potential focus for future green jobs strategies.

215
Table 23: Green Occupation San Francisco MSA

SOC
Code Occupation Title
Increased Demand
Occupations Green Enhanced Skills
New and
Emerging
Management Occupations
11-
2011
Advertising and Promotions
Managers
11-2011.01
Green Marketers

11-
3021
Computer and Information Systems
Managers
11-2021.00
Marketing Managers

11-
9041
Architectural and Engineering
Managers
11-9041.11
Engineering Managers

11-
9121 Natural Sciences Managers
11-9121.00
Natural Sciences
Managers
11-9121.02
Water
Resource
Specialist
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-
1022
Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except
Farm Products
13-1022.01
Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except
Far Products

13-
1199
Business Operations Specialists, All
Other*
13-1199.01
Energy
Auditors
13-1199.05
Sustainability
Specialist
13-
2099 Financial Specialists, All Other
13-2099.01
Financial
Quantitative
Analysts

13-2099.03

Investment
Underwriters
13-2099.02
Risk
Management
Specialists
13-2099.03
Investment
Underwriters
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-
1011
Architects, Except Landscape and
Naval
17-1011.01
Architects, Except Landscape and
Naval
17-1011.00
Landscape Architects

17-
2051 Civil Engineers
17-2051.00
Civil Engineers
17-2051.01
Transportatio
n Engineers
17-2051.02
Water/Waste
water
Engineers
17-
2081 Environmental Engineers
17-2081.00
Environmental Engineers

17-
3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters
17-3011.01
Architectural Drafters

17-
3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians
17-3024
Electro-Mechanical Technicians
17-3024.01
Robotics s
216
Table 23, Continued:
Life, Physical and Social Science Occupations
19-
1013 Soil and Plant Scientists
19-1013.00
Soil and Plant Scientists

19-
1023 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists
19-1023.00
Zoo and Wildlife Biologists

19-
2031 Chemists
19-2031.00
Chemists

19-
2041
Environmental Scientists and Specialists,
Including Health
19-
2041.00
Environme
ntal
Scientists
and
Specialists,
including
health
19-
2041.01
Climate
Change
Analysts
19-
2041.02
Environme
ntal
Restoratio
n Planners
19-
2041.03
Industrial
Ecologists

19-
2099 Physical Scientists, All Other
19-
2099.01
Remote
Sensing
Scientists
and
Technologi
sts
19-
3011 Economists
19-
3011.01
Environme
ntal
Economist
s
19-
3051 Urban and Regional Planners
19-3051.00
Urban and Regional Planners

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, Media
27-
3031 Public Relations Specialists
27-3031.00
Public Relations Specialist

Sales and Related Occupations
41-
3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents
41.3031.0
3
Securities
and
Commodit
ies
Trainers
217
41-
3099 Sales Representatives, Services, All Other
41-
3099.01
Energy
Brokers
Offices and Administrative Support Occupations
43-
5011 Cargo and Freight Agents
43-
5011.01
Freight
Forwarder
s
Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-
2181 Roofers
41-2181.00
Roofers

47-
3014
Helpers--Painters, Paperhangers, Plasterers,
and Stucco Masons
27.3014
Rough Carpets

47-
4021 Elevator Installers and Repairers

47-
4041 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers
47-4041.00
Hazardous Materials
Removal Workers

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-
3021 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity
53-3021.00
Bus Drivers, Transit and
Inner-city

As indicated by the available occupational-based data, architectural and
engineering occupations may also provide an area of competitive advantage within the
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. Such occupations are
distributed across industry type; occupations were relatively diverse and incorporate a
ra n g e of “ g re e n ski ll s.” A s will be discusse d fur t he r be low, thes e oc c up a ti ons m a y b e particularly related to the range of policies and nonprofits active within the metropolitan
statistical area.
In conclusion, the above examination sought to provide an occupational analysis
of the San Francisco-Freemont-Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area. The analysis
broadly sought to identify opportunities in occupations that may be connected to the
green economy, and the broader desire to provide employment opportunities locally in
environmentally preservative occupations. In order to identify such opportunities, the
location quotient was utilized as an indication of areas of opportunity and then linked to
218
corollary 6-digit SOC codes specifically relevant to the green economy. First, the overall
occupational makeup of the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical
Area was identified. Second, a framework was employed in order to identify
opportunities particular to the green economy. The following section utilizes industry —
based analysis to further identify green economic activity within the metropolitan
statistical area.

b. Industry Analysis for San Francisco MSA
Building on the occupational analysis above, industry-based analysis provides
another critical point of analysis within a green economic framework. Industry analysis
utilizes County Business Patterns data to understand the distribution of employment in
the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. Through this
approach, I identify areas of potential comparative advantage through the identification of
clusters within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) taxonomy.
First, table 24 summarizes all industry categories by 2-digit NAICS codes. Table
28 provides both the total number of establishments, as well as the total annual payroll as
an indicator of magnitude of different types of industry sub-sectors. Second, Table 29
displays the location quotients for industries at the 2-digit NAICS level. Taken together,
this provides a brief snapshot of the industry makeup of the metropolitan statistical area.

219
Table 24:
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA County Business Patterns
2009 MSA Business Patterns
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Industr
y Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay
period including March 12
First-quarter
payroll ($1,000)
Annual
payroll
($1,000)
Total
establishme
nts
------ 'Total' 1809415 28998294 112088321 118485
11----
'Forestry, fishing, hunting,
and agriculture support' 206 1640 7665 62
21---- 'Mining' G D D 31
22---- 'Utilities' 9180 S 1065229 66
23---- 'Construction' 96251 1475705 5921961 9401
31---- 'Manufacturing' 127022 2557182 9299498 4075
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 93469 1858924 7009394 6742
44---- 'Retail trade' 192895 1383198 5719744 13619
48----
'Transportation &
warehousing' 65243 809673 3281815 2531
51---- 'Information' 93534 2520018 10056022 2965
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 114494 4402634 14463545 7753
53----
'Real estate & rental &
leasing' 41191 600305 2233714 6566
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 216600 4707744 18641232 18897
55----
'Management of companies &
enterprises' 55236 1663910 6319186 950
56----
'Admin, support, waste mgt,
remediation services' 111718 1178375 4760289 5961
61---- 'Educational services' 52176 441034 1811507 1994
62----
'Health care and social
assistance' 236284 3119371 13194930 13296
71----
'Arts, entertainment &
recreation' 36267 306526 1444369 1812
72----
'Accommodation & food
services' 182352 872268 3682797 11276
81----
'Other services (except public
administration)' 83736 719855 2935357 10098
99---- 'Unclassified establishments' 551 2491 11121 390

220
Table 25:
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA Location Quotients by Employment
Industry
Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay period
including March 12
Total Employment in the
United States
Location
Quotient
------ 'Total' 1809415 114509626
11----
'Forestry, fishing, hunting, and
agriculture support' 206 153829 0.084748655
21---- 'Mining' G 604653 N/A
22---- 'Utilities' 9180 641552 0.097360128
23---- 'Construction' 96251 5967128 0.523623314
31---- 'Manufacturing' 127022 11632956 1.379368892
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 93469 5827769 0.399602782
44---- 'Retail trade' 192895 14802767 2.934761366
48---- 'Transportation & warehousing' 65243 4159604 1.255716285
51---- 'Information' 93534 3288109 0.959181692
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 114494 6171240 3.557811473
53---- 'Real estate & rental & leasing' 41191 2036590 0.332500285
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 216600 7839965 4.803878285
55----
'Management of companies &
enterprises' 55236 2853450 0.385789607
56----
'Admin, support, waste mgt,
remediation services' 111718 9060987 2.209031653
61---- 'Educational services' 52176 3200553 0.188349462
62---- 'Health care and social assistance' 236284 17531142 7.438216695
71---- 'Arts, entertainment & recreation' 36267 2010339 0.200569284
72----
'Accommodation & food
services' 182352 11443293 2.192113658
81----
'Other services (except public
administration)' 83736 5264429 N/A
99---- 'Unclassified establishments' 551 N/A N/A

Table 26 summarizes those industry codes at the 2-digit NAICS level with a
location quotient greater than 1. Again, such location quotients indicate NAICS codes
where there are higher concentrations of one particular industry. Those with location
quotients greater than 1.5 demonstrate an even higher threshold of clustering or a higher
agglomeration potential. As indicated by the table, several areas may be of particular
interest to the green economy. Particularly promising areas of opportunity may include:
financing and insurance with a location quotient of 3.56, professional, scientific and
technical services with a location quotient of 4.80; and administrative, support, waste
management and remediation services with a location quotient of 2.209.
221
Table 26:
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA Location Quotients Greater than 1
Industry
Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay period
including March 12
Total Employment in the
United States
Location
Quotient
------ 'Total' 1809415 114509626
31---- 'Manufacturing' 127022 11632956 1.379368892
44---- 'Retail trade' 192895 14802767 2.934761366
48---- 'Transportation & warehousing' 65243 4159604 1.255716285
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 114494 6171240 3.557811473
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 216600 7839965 4.803878285
56----
'Admin, support, waste mgt,
remediation services' 111718 9060987 2.209031653
62----
'Health care and social
assistance' 236284 17531142 7.438216695
72----
'Accommodation & food
services' 182352 11443293 2.192113658

How can green industries be identified within the existing NAICS taxonomy? As
discusse d a bove , the re is no si ng le “ indus tr y ” th a t enc a psul a tes th e “ g r e e n e c onom y , ” or
the overarching desire by governments and nonprofit organizations to foster green jobs
wi thi n c omm unit ies. D ra wing to g e the r a “ gr e e n e c onom y indus tr y c lust e r” r e quire s
strategic integration of diverse NAICS codes across industry silos that determine where
such opportunities lie within the NAICS taxonomy.
Table 27 summarizes the results of such a framework, developed in the
methodology section above, of potential green economic activity within the existing
NAICS Taxonomy. Information on total employment and total establishments is garnered
at the 4-digit NAICS level. Quantification of total establishment is significant in
providing the total number of firms within the locale. Quantification of total employees is
likewise important as it demonstrates the number of employment opportunities for
constituents and is therefore a critical value from a workforce development prospective.

222
Table 27:
Green Industries in the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont MSA
Green Economy
Area/Sector
Industry
Sector
(2 digit
NAICS)
NACI
CS
Description
Total
Employees

Total
Establishments
Green Building
and Energy
Efficiency
22 – Utilities 2211 Electric Power Generation,
Transmission & Distribution [Energy
conservation planning & consulting.]
n/a 36
2212 Natural Gas Distribution n/a 2
23 –
Construction
236 Construction of Buildings 27169 3721
236115 New Single-Family Housing
Construction (except Operative
Builders)
4331 787
236116 New Multifamily Housing
Construction (except Operative
Builders)
1169 81
236117 New Housing Operative Builders 1871 129
236118 Residential Remodelers 8987 2157
236210 Industrial Building Construction 1113 33
236220 Commercial and Institutional
Building Construction
9698 534
238 Specialty Trade Contractors (incl.
Electrical Contractors)
59204 5273
238210 Electrical Contractors and Other
Wiring Installation Contractors
10732 984
238220 Plumbing, Heating and Air-
Conditioning Contractors
13179 119
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors 1996 271
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors 2913 3106
238990 Roofing Contractors 2914 3106

223
Table 27, Continued

31-33 –
Manufacturing
3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing
1067 20
3334
14
Heating Equipment (except Warm Air
Furnaces) Manufacturing
986 12
3351
10
Electric Lamp Bulb/Parts Mnf N/A 2
3351
21
Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Mnf 61 8
3351
22
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Lighting Fixture Mnf
224 9
3351
29
Other Lighting Equipment Mnf N/A N/A
3353
11
Power, Distribution, and Specialty
Transformer Manufacturing
217 5
42 –
Wholesalers
4237
20
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers
1095 79
53 – Real
Estate and
Rental and
Leasing
5313
11
Residential Property Managers 7276 797
5313
12
Nonresidential Property Managers 4409 438
54 – Bus. Prof. 5413
10
Architectural Services 6570 752
5413
20
Landscape Architectural Services 1439 194
5413
30
Engineering Services 26076 1250
5413
40
Drafting Services n/a 27
5413
50
Building Inspection Services 361 57
5414
20
Industrial Design Services 711 60
5416
20
Environmental Consulting Services 1958 227
92 – Public
Administration
921 Cities and Counties N/A N/A
924 Administration of Environmental Programs N/A N/A

224
Table 27, Continued
Biofuels/Farming 11 – Agriculture,
forestry, fishing
and hunting
111998 All Other
Miscellaneous Crop
Farming
N/A N/A
112519 Other Aquaculture N/A N/A
113110 Timber Tract
Operations
N/A N/A
113210 Forest Nurseries and
Gathering of Forest
Products
N/A 1
11511 Support Activities for
Crop Production
56 13
115310 Support Activities for
Forestry
N/A N/A
31-33 –
Manufacturing
311223 Other Oilseed
Processing
N/A 1
311225 Fats and Oils
Refining and
Blending
N/A 2
311613 Rendering and Meat
Byproduct
Processing
N/A 1
325221 Cellulosic Organic
Fiber Manufacturing
N/A 1
3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer,
and Other
Agricultural
Chemical
Manufacturing
52 5
333298 All Other Industrial
Machinery
Manufacturing
447 10
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering Services 267076 1250
541380 Testing Laboratories 1946 114
541620 Environmental
Consulting Services
1958 227
541690 Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
4593 1168
541711 Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
7856 206
92 – Public
Administration
924120 Administration of
Conservation
Programs
N/A N/A
Transportation/
Alternative Fuel
22 – Utilities 221122 Electric Power
Distribution
N/A 13
221210 Natural Gas
Distribution
N/A 2
31-33 –
Manufacturing
334512 Automatic
Environmental
Control
Manufacturing for
Residential,
Commercial, and
Appliance Use
295 8

225
Table 27, Continued

335312 Motor and
Generator
Manufacturing
43 4
336 Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing
N/A 94
44 – Retail 441100 Automobile
dealers [Service
departments.]
11842 313
447190 Other Gasoline
Stations1
1311 207
48-49 –
Transportation
and warehousing
4841 General Freight
Trucking
4506 472
4842 Specialized
Freight Trucking
4586 392
4851 Urban Transit
Systems [Includes
commuter rail
systems.]
N/A 14
4852 Interurban and
Rural Bus
Transportation
N/A 2
488310 Port and Harbor
Operations
154 4
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering
Services
26076 1250
541370 Survey and
Mapping Services
394 69
541380 Testing
Laboratories
1946 114
541614 Process, Physical
Distribution, and
Logistics Consulting
Services [Relates to
logistics.]
939 105
541620 Environmental
Consulting Services
1954 227
541690 Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting Services
4593 1168
81 – Other
Services
811110 Automotive
Mechanical and
Electrical Repair and
Maintenance
5245 1335
811190 Other Automotive
Repair and
Maintenance
3259 349
92 – Public
Administration
925120 Administration of
Urban Planning and
Community and
Rural Development
N/A N/A

226
Table 27, Continued
N/Water,
Wastewater &
Waste Management
22 – Utilities 221310 Water Supply and
Irrigation Systems
156 20
221320 Sewage Treatment
Facilities
N/A 7
23 – Construction 237110 Water and Sewer
Line and Related
Structures
Construction
2048 85
237990 Other Heavy and
Civil Engineering
Construction
[Relates to channel
construction.]
829 40
31-33 –
Manufacturing
333312 Commercial
Laundry,
Drycleaning, and
Pressing Machine
Manufacturing
N/A N/A
334512 Automatic
Environmental
Control Mfg. for
Residential,
Commercial, &
Appliance Use
295 8
335222 Household
Refrigerator and
Home Freezer
Manufacturing
N/A N/A
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering
Services
26076 1254
541380 Testing Laboratories 1946 114
541620 Environmental
Consulting Services
1958 227
541690 Other Scientific and
Technical
Consulting Services
4593 1168
56 –
Administrative &
waste services
562111 Solid Waste
Collection
4399 94
562112 Hazardous Waste
Collection
N/A 9
562119 Other Waste
Collection
62 9
562211 Hazardous Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
487 12
562212 Solid Waste Landfill 155 9
562219 Other Nonhazardous
Waste Treatment
and Disposal
N/A 4
562910 Remediation
Services
1705 57
562920 Materials Recovery
Facilities
476 7
562998 All Other
Miscellaneous
Waste Management
Services
N/A 6

227
Table 27, Continued

92 – Public
Administration
924110 Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and Solid
Waste Management
Programs
N/A N/A
Environmental
Compliance and
Sustainability
Planning
54 – Bus. Prof. 541370 Survey and Mapping
Services
394 69
541380 Testing Laboratories 1946 114
541620 Environmental
Consulting Services
1958 227
541690 Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
4593 1168
81 – Other
Services
813312 Environment,
Conservation and
Wildlife
Organizations
2926 180
92 – Public
Administration
924110 Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and Solid
Waste Management
Programs
N/A N/A
924120 Administration of
Conservation
Programs
N/A N/A
925120 Administration of
Urban Planning and
Community and
Rural Development
N/A N/A
926120 Regulation and
Administration of
Transportation
Programs
N/A N/A
926130 Regulation and
Administration of
Communications,
Electric, Gas, and
Other Utilities
N/A N/A

As indicated by the data above, the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area reflects a prevalence of higher skilled workers. Specifically,
professionalized workers including managers, public relations specialists, sales, among
others, are indicated in the location quotient analysis as exhibiting higher concentrations
of economic activities with the metropolitan statistical area. Although home to a
relatively diverse economy, several areas of green economic opportunities may stand out
as follows:
228
First, transportation may be an area of opportunity within the San Francisco-
Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. There is a proportionately high
incidence of establishments/total employment in terms of transportation broadly.
Automotive related services within San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area have a disproportionate volume of aggregate economic activity.
Specifically, automotive repair is high in terms of employment numbers and
establishments. As will be explored below, this may be somewhat linked with the
inst it uti ona l ac ti vit ies in t e rms of the state ’s foc us on g oods m ove ments and on clean car
standards. California Assembly Bill 118 (AB118) might also be relevant to
transportation-related occupations. Policy measures at the state level may be somewhat
fueling, or in the future potentially fueling, opportunities in this vein. As state policies
may apply to other metropolitan statistical areas in the study, this may be linked within
the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area in terms of
creating a regional transportation cluster.
Second, the construction industry is a large area of concentration both in terms of
total establishments, and in terms of total employment. Employment in this area may
provide a range of different opportunities along a wide-array of skill levels. Perhaps the
largest area of opportunity may be in the area of green building. Linkages to local green
building policies as an impetus to growth in this sector will be discussed in the section
below.
Third, engineering and environmental consulting exhibits relatively high location
quotients and may therefore be an area of opportunity. Employment in this realm may be
229
largely connected to San Francisco-Oakland- F r e e mont Metr opoli tan St a ti s ti c a l Are a ’ s
proximity to Silicon Valley. Many high-road opportunities in this sector broadly may
exist, therefore, that could be translated to green-specific opportunities given the right
mix of policies and economic forces.
F ourth a nd fin a ll y , manu fa c turin g ma y b e a n a re a of int e re st wi thi n the “ g r e e n
oc c upa ti ona l clust e r.” T he c lust e r itself is hi g h a n d therefore the overall economy differs
from other metropolitan statistical areas including the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Manufacturing is often constructed as a key area of
potential for green-collared jobs and the integration of accessible economic opportunities.
The direct manufacture of products touches many industries including transportation and
green construction materials.
A higher concentration of higher skilled workers may foster economic
opportunities and constitute a comparative advantage for the region. Future opportunities
for growth may also be linked to the prevalence of such occupations as highly-skilled
workers and companies might create demand for innovation and create a range of
employment opportunities as the output of growth in this regard. Equity considerations
are also raised by such a strategy. The distribution of benefits from green employment
must be considered in terms of the types of training barriers that persist in obtaining this
type of employment; green economic opportunities may not be attainable to a wide subset
of the population as a result of such barriers.

230
2. Institutional Analysis for San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA)
The San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area is located in
the Northern part of California and includes a number of counties and cities. Taken
together, the MSA is also popularly known as a poster-child of sustainability and
provides an interesting example of an area where green economic opportunities may be a
logical output. The following section will detail the governance structure around the
green economy within these MSA. As primary cities within the Metropolitan Statistical
Area, the City of Oakland and the City of San Francisco are a focus of the accumulation
and analysis of relevant data. Such a governance structure, linked with the occupational
and industrial breakdown sketched above, is defined by demographics, nonprofit groups,
and the formalized city structure incorporative of programs pertinent to the green
economy.
Linkages can be constructed between the economic opportunities in the green
economy and the institutional reality of the metropolitan statistical area. Programs,
policies, interests, and demographics can play a role in defining areas of competitive
advantage and thus in defining those particular industries and occupational clusters that
would make up the particular complexion of San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area ’s g re e n e c onomy. Policies and players can incentivize
economic activities, and such activities may have been captured in the industry-based and
occupational-based analysis conducted above. Moreover, such industries and occupations
may provide an indicator of potential areas of opportunity that could be further
231
incentivized through the rich matrix of policies, incentives, and significant nonprofit
actors.

1. City/Council of San Francisco
As a principal city, the city/county of San Francisco is a key area of analysis
seeking to link institutions to current and potential green employment. The following
analysis provides information about the city/council of San Francisco in order to further
sketch the institutional context around the green jobs movement in the bay area within the
selected metropolitan statistical area. First, the basic demographic characteristics are
defined. Second, policies and government agencies related to the green economy are
examined. Third and finally, the nonprofit interest group environment, including alliances
related to the green economy, is analyzed below.

a. Basic Demographic Characteristics
The basic demographic characteristics of the City and County of San Francisco
provide important contextual background for understanding the emergence of both green
jobs, and green jobs regimes. Basic demographic statistics, taken from the 2010 census,
are summarized in Table 28 below.
The C it y a nd Co unt y of S a n F ra n c isco c a n be bro a dl y c ha r a c te riz e d a s a “ Gr e e n
Gia nt” w he n the t y polo gy de v e loped in t he prior section is applied. Such cities are
defined by being located in a metropolitan statistical area that has a large population.
Such cities are also located in metropolitan statistical areas with a relatively higher
232
median income. Finally, such cities have relatively well developed sustainability
programming. Environmental nonprofits are generally well represented in this urban type.
The City of San Francisco itself is also particularly populous and wealthy. The
total population, as of 2010, is measured at 805,235. Median income within the City and
Council of San Francisco is very high and is indicated at $70,247 according to the Census
De pa rtmen t’s numbe rs. This compa re s with a lo we r sta tew id e a ve ra g e o f $58,000. The number of individuals falling below the poverty line is likewise lower in the City and
County of San Francisco as compared with the Statewide average.
Additionally, several other demographic factors stand out. Compared with
California, the City/County has a comparatively higher population influx. The
City/County is also relatively diverse compared with the state average. Educational
attainment is comparatively high in San Francisco. Housing prices are also likewise
steep. The high education levels, high median income, and high housing prices are likely
correlated together and are significant in defining the economic context of the City and
County of San Francisco.

233
Table 28:
Demographic Profile San Francisco, California

People QuickFacts
San Francisco
County California
Population, 2010 805,235 37,253,956
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 3.7% 10.0%
Population, 2000 776,731 33,871,648
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2009 5.1% 7.5%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2009 14.4% 25.5%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2009 14.0% 11.2%
Female persons, percent, 2009 49.2% 49.9%
White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 48.5% 57.6%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 6.1% 6.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons,
percent, 2010 (a)
0.5% 1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 33.3% 13.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,
percent, 2010 (a)
0.4% 0.4%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent,
2010
4.7% 4.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent,
2010 (b)
15.1% 37.6%
White persons not Hispanic, persons, 2010 41.9% 40.1%
Living in same house 1 year ago, pct 1 yr old &
over, 2005-2009
84.3% 83.9%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2005-2009 34.4% 26.8%
Language other than English spoken at home,
pct age 5+, 2005-2009
44.3% 42.2%
High school graduates, percent of persons age
25+, 2005-2009
85.6% 80.5%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age
25+, 2005-2009
51.1% 29.7%
Veterans, 2005-2009 34,673 2,092,627
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers
age 16+, 2005-2009
29.1 27.0
Housing units, 2009 361,218 13,433,718
Homeownership rate, 2005-2009 37.9% 57.9%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent,
2005-2009
66.0% 30.7%

234
Table 28, Continued
Median value of owner-occupied housing
units, 2005-2009
$781,500 $479,200
Households, 2005-2009 324,185 12,187,191
Persons per household, 2005-2009 2.41 2.91
Per capita money income in past 12 months
(2009 dollars) 2005-2009
$44,373 $29,020
Median household income, 2009 $70,247 $58,925
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009 11.7% 14.2%
Business QuickFacts
San Francisco
County California
Private nonfarm establishments, 2008 30,605 879,025
1

Private nonfarm employment, 2008 524,359 13,742,925
1

Private nonfarm employment, percent change
2000-2008
-5.6% 6.7%
1

Nonemployer establishments, 2008 79,348 2,688,453
Total number of firms, 2007 105,030 3,425,818
Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 2.7% 4.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native owned
firms, percent, 2007
S 1.3%
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 21.4% 12.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
owned firms, percent, 2007
0.2% 0.3%
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 6.6% 16.5%
Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 30.1% 30.3%
Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) 2,077,457 491,372,092
Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) 10,562,176 598,456,486
Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) 12,399,960 455,032,270
Retail sales per capita, 2007 $15,516 $12,561
Accommodation and food services sales,
2007 ($1000)
5,039,171 80,852,787
Building permits, 2009 300 35,069
Federal spending, 2008 10,512,643 299,922,630
1

Geography QuickFacts
San Francisco
County California
Land area, 2000 (square miles) 46.69 155,959.34
Persons per square mile, 2010 9,999.9 238.9
FIPS Code 075 06
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area
Taken from AmericanfactFinder

235
The demographic context of the City and County of San Francisco suggests an
area of green economic potential based upon the quantitative and qualitative analysis
de ve loped a bov e . As a “ g r e e n g iant” , on e would e x pe c t an inst i tutional structure
supportive of green jobs development. There appears to be strong resources, including
human capital, for the development of the types of policies that may create the demand
needed to develop the green economy through the fostering of new markets. Higher
incomes may also particularly create niche markets for more sustainable companies
within the City and County of San Francisco. In sum, such a demographic analysis
provides an important context for understanding the more specific institutional analysis
below—identifying the particular stakeholders and policies relevant to the green
economy.

b. Government Structure
Governmentally, San Francisco operates as a consolidated City-County
government. Additionally, San Francisco is also governed by a variety of regional
governments of relevance to the green economy. The Association of Bay Area
Governments is of particular interest as the relevant metropolitan planning association.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees transportation. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District operates as the pertinent air district. Such regional actors
have important impacts on green economic potential within the Metropolitan Statistical
Area.
236
The C it y of Sa n F ra n c isc o’ s pol icie s ca n be a pa rticula r f o c us. B roa dl y spea king ,
the City Charter defines governance of the city as falling under two equal branches. The
Mayor operates as the county executive and the Board of Supervisors serves as the city
council. Overall, therefore, power is roughly divided between these two groups.
The City of San Francisco has a strong history of environmental measures. As
indicated by sustainelane.com, it boasts a strong reputation for environmental
sustainability measures. Nationally, it is ranked second in overall rankings and is strong
across a multitude of categories. In nearly all categories, San Francisco ranks highly
including first in city innovation, energy and climate change policy, and solid waste
diversion. In the green economy, Sustainelane ranks San Francisco forth. The city ranks
poorly, despite these efforts, in housing affordability, water supply, metro street
congestion, and natural disaster risk. Despite these limitations, the empirical evidence as
collected by sustainelane.com indicates a strong, concerted effort towards sustainability
goals for the City and County of San Francisco.

237
Figure 32:
San Francisco Sustainability

How is sustainability, and environmental policy more specifically, governed
within the City and County of San Francisco? Governmentally, San Francisco has
specific government agencies committed to sustainability and environmental
preservation. Most notably, San Francisco has a strong department of the environment
that allows the city to explore a wider array of programs and policies related to
sustainability. The mission of the department is a s follows: “ SF Environment creates
visionary policies and innovative programs that promote social equity, protect human
238
health, and lead the way toward a sustainable future. We put our mission into action by
mobilizing communities and providing the resources needed to safeguard our homes, our
city, and ultimately our planet. ” Thus, the de p a rtm e nt aims to provide a n a r ra y of
environmental services in a formalized, and relatively comprehensive manner.
(http://www.sfevironment.org)
The Commission on the Environment is the policy arm of SF Environment. The
Commission actively sets the policy agenda. The commissioners advise the mayor and
Board of Supervisors. The Commission has a relatively long tenure in City/Council
government. The commission was created in December 1992 to advise the Board of
Supervisors around environmental and ecological legislation and policy. It consists of
fifteen voting members and three ex officio non-voting members. According to the City,
“ membe rs w e re re pr e se nt a ti ve of the e nvironm e ntal a nd e c olo g ical interest of all
segments of the population and all geog ra phi c a r e a s of the c it y .” (http://www.sfenvrionment.org) Specific environmental programs are numerous, and
many may potentially relate to the green economy as follows:
First, the city operates a number of programs related to waste. The city operates a
zero waste program that integrates waste reduction and reuse, total recycling, and
composting. Such an approach may provide opportunities in employment related to
recycling and manufacturing. Additionally, the city operates a toxics reduction program
that is aimed at citizen education around the reduction of potentially dangerous
chemicals. The approach integrates the promotions of approved green products for
landscaping, disposal of hazardous materials, and education around unsafe home and
239
body products. (www.sfenvironment.org)
Second, a variety of programs related to energy as a strong focus of city policy
and efforts around environmental policy. The city is engaged around climate change
through energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. (www.sfenvironment.org)
The city is relatively advanced in terms of policy and programs related to energy
efficiency and renewable energy. It serves as a primary focus on much municipal action
around environmental preservation. One particularly interesting program oriented around
energy is the Energy SF program. SF energy watch provides financial incentives and
technical assistance to commercial and multifamily properties amounting to half the cost
of an energy efficiency upgrade. From 2007 to 2009, 1500 businesses and multifamily
properties benefited from $5.7 million in energy savings. (Newsom, 2009) In a related
vein, GoSolarSF reduce the cost of installing solar power systems by more than 50
percent through federal tax credits and state incentives.(Newsom, 2009) Another
pa rticula rl y innovative pr og r a m i s the Ma y or ’s F o unde r’ s C irc le. Th e pro g r a m provide s
free solar assessments for businesses and nonprofits. (Newsom, 2009)
These programs specifically are focused around creating employment
opportunities and thus are directly connected to economic opportunities, at least in the
rhetoric. According to a March 28, 2009 Huffington Post article, Newsom notes:
All of this activity has been a big boost for companies that provide energy
efficiency and solar services in the Bay Area. Because of the way San Francisco
has structured those programs; local companies that hire locally benefit the most.
SF energy watch has helped to sustain and/or expand companies —both service
providers and suppliers —and currently supports 150 new and ongoing jobs in this
e mer g in g g re e n fie ld….. Go Sol a r SF ha s spe c ific bonus i nc e nti ve s for e mp lo y e rs
who hire new sta ff throu g h the c it y ’s wor kf o rc e d e ve lopm e nt pro g r a m. W e have
placed dozens of new employees in the local solar industry, and of the 640
240
employing projects under Gosolar SF, 83 percent are employing workforce
de ve lopm e nt t ra ine e s…F unding f rom S F e ne r g y w a tch c omes f rom Califor nia’ s
Public Good Charge, a fund for renewable energy and energy efficiency that you
play into with a percentage of every utility bill. These additional funds will allow
the companies that provide energy efficiency services to add an additional 30 new
e mpl o y e e s on t op of the 150 a lre a d y e mpl o y e d… S F e ne r g y W a tch a nd
GoSolarSF helps build the local economy and build the local economy and
develop a skilled local workforce development for the expanding greentech
industry. But most importantly, these jobs are sustainable. They are not based on a
single project, so when completed, these jobs do not disappear. Instead, these
programs are open-ended, and in the case of GoSolarSF supported by city
legislation that helps feed the process. And I can see a time coming shortly when
residential and commercial energy efficiency will be required by local or even
statewide mandates. (Newsom, 2009)

This m a y be indi c a ti ve of the Ci t y ’s use of the gr e e n e c onom y a s a f r a mew or k throug h
which environmental policies are discussed. Economic benefits are traced directly to
environmental programming through this approach. By tying this together through such a
framework, the Mayor demonstrates the enhanced political feasibility garnered from
layering economic benefits over existing environmental programming through a green
economy framework.
Third, a number of programs are oriented around air quality and transportation.
The city acknowledges the link between transportation policies and air quality impacts.
Specifically, the city has acknowledged that: “The pollution generated by hundreds of
thousands of motor vehicles traveling to and from San Francisco poses a serious threat to
the quality of air throughout the Bay Area. ” I n ord e r to r e du c e the impac t, S F e nvironmen t st a tes tha t “ The city's Climate Action Plan aims to reduce those emissions
by encouraging the use of clean fuels and vehicles and alternative modes of
tra nsporta ti on.” (San Francisco, 2004) The Climate Action Plan provides a framework for
action around reducing such emissions, as linked with climate change mitigation
241
approaches. This effort can be linked with the green economy. For example, fleet
purchases and other incentives may create employment opportunities within this area
through creating impetus around the production of cleaner fuel vehicles. Manufacturing
related to employment opportunities around infrastructure related to alternative fuel
production, or related to the installation of alternative fueling facilities, may also be
linked with policies at the state and local levels.
Forth, green building provides a municipal focus for environmental policy. Green
building policies are pursued and promoted to residents, businesses, and within municipal
departments. (San Francisco, 2004) San Francisco appears to have a particularly strong
commitment to green building as a prominent component of their environmental policy.
Such an approach has been largely developed since 2008. Specifically, in 2008, Mayor
Gavin Newsom signed a green building ordinance requiring green building certifications
according to LEED standards. Much of the focus on green building is on the retrofit of
the e x ist ing buil ding stock. Mor e than ha lf o f San F ra n c isco’ s comme rc ial buil ding sto ck
wa s con struc t e d prior to 1978’ s ado pti on of state e ne r g y e ff icie n c y standa r ds. The g ove rnor c onv e ne d a n “ e x is ti ng buil ding e f fic ienc y task f o rc e ” that is a c c or ding to
Ne wsom, “ c ompos e d o f membe rs of S a n F ra n c isc o’ s owne rship, de v e loper s, fina nc ial,
arch it e c tu ra l, en g ine e rin g, a nd c onst ruc ti on c omm unit y .” (Newsom, 2009) Green
building programs have been specifically linked to green economics opportunities. In a
Huffington post article , Ne wsom di re c tl y state s t ha t “, By retrofitting our existing
structures there is the potential to cr e a t e thous a nds of gr e e n jobs . ” (Newsom, 2009)
Economic opportunities are further bolstered through the implementation of private
242
sector partnerships. Newsom fur ther state s that, “ The Task Force builds upon a great deal
of work we're doing already - taking full advantage of the $7-$11 million provided in
Energy Efficiency Block Grants provided by the federal stimulus, leveraging our ongoing
$6.7 million a year energy efficiency partnership with PG&E, and working with private
partners to create a San Francisco Clean Energy Fund. Each of these efforts creates
hundreds of green jobs retrofitting our existing building stock, and in the process reduces
utility costs and environmental impacts, making San Francisco a more competitive place
to l oc a te a c ompa n y a nd ra ise a f a mi l y . ” (Newsom, 2009) A particularly comprehensive
and diverse array of policies related to the green economy exists, and may be linked with
employment opportunities.
Fifth, green business outreach is a lso add re ssed a s a pa rt of the c it y ’ s
environmental policymaking involvement. The City of San Francisco adopted an official
green business program. The program directly integrates the values of economics and
environmental preservation. According to the City of San Francisco “, The San Francisco
Green Business Program helps business adopt environmental practices that are
sustainable as well as profitable. This is achieved by setting stringent criteria, providing
technical assistance, and publicly recognizing and promoting Green Businesses with a
seal that enables customers to shop in keeping with their values. ”
(www.sfenvironment.org) The program is bolstered through its affiliation with the Bay
Ar e a C ounc il of Gove rn ment’ s pro g ra ms a round g r e e n busi ne sses th a t ope ra tes in
multiple counties. Such an approach offers an opportunity for businesses and government
agencies to interact with one another around sustainability considerations. Thus, the
243
green business program may create unique partnerships among businesses and
government agencies. Such businesses are likely niche businesses that are early adopters
of sustainability practices, and are thus seeking recognition for their efforts. This creates
a unique environment for the emergence of green jobs that is likely very diffuse across
industries and occupations.
Sixth, the distribution of greenspace within the city is also broadly addressed as a
pa rt of the Ci t y o f San F r a nc isco’ s env i ronme ntal poli c y e ff or ts. The Cit y s pe c ifica ll y pledge s to v a lue g r e e nsp a c e a s a municipa l ch a r ge . S a n F r a nc isco ’s de sc ri pti on of environmental programming, for example, specifically states that: “The city counts itself
lucky to be surrounded by natural wonders and resources, and feels a special
responsibility to the care and preservation of every tree, animal, and open space in San
Francisco through programs like the Landmark Tree Program. ”
(http://www.sfenvironment.org) Although efforts around greenspace may not be closely
linked with green economy opportunities, they may provide useful contextual
information around sustainability and environmental values within the city. Additionally,
to some limited extent, opportunities related to jobs in landscaping might be related to
urban greenspace programming.
Seventh, San Francisco also operates programs around environmental justice. The
C it y sp e c ific a ll y c omm it s that “, c losely with residents and businesses to make sure that
the basic necessities of life-water, air, food, and shelter-are of the highest quality, the
city's Environmental Justice program has committed itself to providing fundamental
rights to a safe and healthy environment in every San Francisco community. ”
244
(www.sfenvironment.org) Such an approach may indicate that San Francisco has
included equity considerations into their environmental policy approaches. In terms
specifically related to green economy considerations, such approaches may be eventually
linked to goals around green-collared employment.
Eighth, the city operates a clean technology task force. Similarly to the green
businesses program, the Clean Technology Task Force may be of particular relevance to
the topic of green jobs. The city has specifically and particularly focused on clean
technology in order to reach some of its technology goals. They specifically note that:
“Technology that's cleaner, greener, and inherently more efficient is the wave of the
future, and San Francisco is poised to catch that wave. Acting on an initiative presented
in 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom established the Clean Tech Advisory Council (CTAC) in
2005 to set the clean tech agenda. Its goal is to establish the city as a leader in innovative
environmental solutions by: Supporting industries that promote a cleaner, healthier
environment and reduce dependence on fossil fuels; Expanding investment in, and
markets for, clean technologies; Creating high-skill, high-wage job opportunities in these
industries for working San Franciscans. ” (http://www.sfenvironment.org)
The priorities of the group are multiple and relatively comprehensive. First, they
specif ica ll y c on c e ntr a te o n busi ne ss attra c ti on a nd investm e nt and state that “ The goal of
economic development is to generate an industry cluster effect in which companies are
attracted to the region and stimulate the competition necessary to solve global
environmental problems such as global warming. CTAC identifies the most promising
sub-industries to succeed in San Francisco and seeks strategies to address these
245
industries' needs. ” S e c on d, the y f o c us on m a rk e t grow th and state that “ The city will use
innovative demand-side strategies to broaden the market for clean technologies such as:
Solar power: San Francisco has committed to develop at least 30 MW of photovoltaics by
2017 to meet its electricity load needs, as part of the city's Electricity Resource Plan.
Biodiesel: The mayor has issued an executive directive for municipal fleets to convert to
biodiesel. Meanwhile, the biodiesel task force working with gas stations and distributors
to make biodiesel available in San Francisco. Tidal and Wave Power: The city is working
toward the installation of tidal and wave energy projects using the most effective
technologies. The city has initiated feasibility studies for both tidal and wave generation.
Green Building: The city and the developers of Hunters Point and Treasure Island have
signed an agreement to make the new developments a model of sustainability, building
Treasure Island to LEED Gold standards, one of the highest tiers in the LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating system. One of
the city's aims is to provide 100 percent renewable power to the developments at
Treasure Island and Hunters Point. ” (http://www.sfenvironment.org)
W ha t eme rge s fr om t he e x a mi na ti on of S a n F ra nc i sc o’ s governance structure is a
comparatively broad and deep commitment in terms of stated programs around
environmental policy. Such a structure may provide insights into the large number of
green jobs in the bay area. Although implementation of such programs may, in fact, be
mixed, there is somewhat of a stated commitment to environmental policy. And, taking
this another step farther, there is somewhat of a stated commitment to the development of
green jobs through, most notably, the clean tech task force and the green business
246
certification program. The city, moreover, appears to be engaged in policies and
programs that may be relevant to developing a green economy. The city intends to
develop green economy recommendations through a stakeholder event in the spring, and
in conjunc ti on with t he R io Ea rth Su mm it ( I nter vi e w G r e g W e ndt). The S a n F ra n c isco’ s
Ma y o r’ s Of fic e a nd the h e a d of E nvironmen tS F a r e prov idi ng c ritica l l e a d e rship f or the
event. Taken together, evidence suggests a relatively robust structure around
sustainability, environmental policies, and green economic goals.

c. Nonprofit Governance Structure
San Francisco, likewise, has a relatively robust nonprofit sector. Taken from
NCCS statistics, the table below provides an overview of some of the nonprofit behavior
within the City of San Francisco. A relatively large density, as of 2009, of environmental
organizations exists within San Francisco. A total of 97 environmental organizations exist
within the City and County of San Francisco, at a rate of 1.25 per capita. The magnitude
of environmental stakeholder interactions can also be measured by the total revenue and
grants of environmental organizations with in the City and County of San Francisco. A
total of $269,226,472 of private contributions and grants quantified by NCCS, or $347 as
measured on a per capita basis.
A significantly smaller number of civil rights and social action groups likewise
exist within San Francisco City/County. A total of 33 organizations are present as of
2009 in the City and County of San Francisco, or .42 as measured at a per capita level.
Total contributions and government grants totaled $37,195,471.
247
Taken together, a relatively robust degree of such organizations may indicate the
sort of institutional and governance structure palatable to green economy development, as
well as one that is more broadly linked to sustainability efforts at the sub-national scale.
As indicated above, the number of environmental organizations is relatively closely
correlated with green employment at the metropolitan statistical level. Thus, greater
numbers of environmental organizations, and related social justice organizations, may
suggest higher numbers of green employment within metropolitan areas. The City of San
Francisco appears, further corroborating this relationship, to have a prevalence of both.

248
Table 29:
Distribution of Nonprofit Groups City of San Francisco
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Environment (2009)
Number of organizations filing annually 97
Private contributions & government grants 269,226,472
Total revenue 372,647,164
Total expenses 417,279,667
Total assets 777,935,742
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita – Environment (2009)
Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) 1.25
Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 347
Total revenue ($ per capita) 480
Total expenses ($ per capita) 537
Total assets ($ per capita)
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Civil rights & social action (2009)
Number of organizations filing annually 33
Private contributions & government grants 37,195,471
Total revenue 41,693,640
Total expenses 41,871,110
Total assets 58,066,374
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita - Civil rights & social action (2009)
Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) 0.42
Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 48
Total revenue ($ per capita) 54
Total expenses ($ per capita) 54
Total assets ($ per capita) 75
Adapted from National Council of Charitable Statistics

Nonprofit Alliances
Several alliances have emerged around the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Such alliances crosscut sustainability values of
environment, equity, and environment in different constellations.

249
The Business Council on Climate Change
The Business Council on Climate Change is a business-driven effort around
reducing greenhouse gas emissions composed of over 100 Bay Area Businesses. The
organization serves as a networking organization providing best practice tools for
members, educational forums, and opportunities for the sharing of success stories through
case studies.
The P a rtne rship a rose ou t of the ma y o r’ s 2005 i nv olveme nt i n the U nit e d N a ti ons
World Environment Day. At that time, Mayor Gavin Newsom signed the UN Global
C ompac t C it ies Pi lo t P ro g r a m t ha t, ac c or din g to B C S , a im s to “im pr ove the qua li t y of
urban life through the effective use of local cross-sector partnerships between business,
g ove rnme nt, and c ivi l so c iet y . ” I n ord e r to a c c om pli sh this goal, BC3 was formed
through an initial partnership between the Bay Area Council (BAC), the San Francisco
Department of the Environment (SF Environment), the UN Global Compact. Businesses
could sign on to the partnership by agreeing to the Principle on Climate Change
Leadership.
Through this effort, businesses are encouraged to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. Through the Business Council on Climate Change, members can access
e x pe rtise. B C 3 ope ra t e s a s a “ thi nk tank” a nd inclu de s invo lveme nt b y industry
associations and outside experts.
BC3 partners with a variety of organizations, creating a coalition of stakeholders
around climate change mitigation. Deconstructing the coalition fosters a better
250
understanding of the stakeholder environment and connections around climate change
mitigation goals. Partners can be classified into several groups:

Government-Driven Members
The Bay Area Climate Collaborative is an alliance of the cities of San Francisco,
S a n J ose, a nd Oa kland “ t o a dva nc e a mbi ti ous t a rgets for growing the clean energy
e c onom y a nd sa fe g ua rding B a y A re a R e sourc e s.” The ir visi on is “ to ena bl e a he a lt h y sa fe a nd g lob a ll y c ompetit ive B a y A re a thro u g h c oll a b or a ti ve a c ti on on c li mate c ha n g e . ”
Similarly, the California Product Stewardship Council is a coalition of local
governments. The focus of this alliance is around solid waste, recycling, and resource
conservation. The organizations enables partnerships with nongovernment organizations
a nd busi ne sses a nd “ h a s c re a t e d a pow e rf ul netwo rk of people supporting product
stew a rdship a nd e x tende d pro duc e r re sponsi bil it y .”
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission is an agency aimed at the
“ pr otec ti on a nd e nha nc e ment of S a n F r a nc isco B a y a nd to t he e n c oura ge ment of the
B a y ’s re sponsi ble use . ” SF Environment is also a partner as the manager of all City of
San Francisco environmental initiatives. Operated by the Alameda County Waste
Management Board, Stopwaste.org provide leadership around solid waste management
and resource conservation throughout Alameda County. Involvement reaches beyond
local players. As a membership organization of government agencies, the United
National Global Compact Cities Program is a int e rna ti ona l or g a niz a ti on that is “ de sig n e d
to advance urban engagement in the UN Global Compact and provide support to city
251
lea de rs in de mons tr a ti ng thi s commi tm e nt.” T he c ompac t aims to deve lop pa rtne rships
through the implementation of sustainability principles that cross multiple sectors
including businesses, local governments, and com muni t y gr oups. The y be li e ve that “ the
inter-sectoral collaboration together with research-based management tools provide a
unique a pproa c h for the c it y lea d e r to a ppro a c h se e mi ng l y int r a c table iss ue s. ”

Business-Driven Members
The Bay Area Council is a business advocacy organization consisting of most of
the large businesses in the nine-counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a public-
poli c y a dvo c a c y or g a niz a ti on, “ the c ounc il proa c ti ve l y a dvoc a t e s for a stro ng e c onom y , a vital business environment, and a better quality of life for everyone who lives in the Bay
Ar e a . ” S im il a rl y , the North Bay Leadership Council is a business lead organization
operating in the North Bay. The organization is advocacy oriented. Specifically, they
state that the organi z a ti on “ is dedica ted to a c hievi ng the lon g -term economic
sustainability and quality of life in the North Bay by collaborating with other business
and civic leaders to promote sound, regionally- fo c used publi c poli c y . ” F ina ll y , NetImpact
is an international membership-based group oriented around sustainable businesses.
S pe c ifica ll y , their mi ssi on st a teme nt i s that “ne t i mpac t i s an inter na ti ona l nonpr of it organization with a mission to inspire, educate, and equip individuals to use the power of
business to c re a te a more socia ll y a nd e nvironmen tall y sust a inable wo rld.”
Additionally, there is some partnership with industry-specific business groups.
BOMA is an industry advocacy organization at the United States commercial real estate
252
industry. In San Francisco, BOMA represents over 72 million square feet of office space
in San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma Counties.
Several partners also specifically speak to sustainable businesses, or the niche
market emerging around the green economy. Sustainable Industries is a media company
that focuses on the development of sustainable industry products including online news, a
bi mont hl y ma ga z ine, a nd a podc a st s e ri e s. S pe c ifi c a ll y , th e y note tha t “Ser vice busi ne ss
and thought leaders on the West Coast and beyond, Sustainable Industries is a multi-
media platform that connects the dots between the environmental and social components
of r e g ional e c onomi c s.” S im il a rl y , Sustainable Life Media produced sustainable business
conferences and educational events. They specifi c a ll y note tha t “ W e ’r e h e r e to i nspi re and support innovation for sustainability by linking people with ideas and solutions that
a re c re a ti ng posi ti ve c h a ng e in t he g lob a l busi ne ss m a rke tpl a c e .”

Nonprofits and University Partnerships
Several nonprofit organizations aimed around environmental preservation are
included in the coalition. Chinadialogue is a nonprofit environment that aims to create a
productive environment between the bay area and China. Information exchange is the key
cha r g e o f the or ga niz a ti on;; t he y spe c ifica ll y note t ha t “ , as a key source of information
inside and outside of China, we aim to build trust, and promote justice, sound governance
a nd be st pra c ti c e int e rn a ti ona ll y .” Th e Environmental Defense Fund in an international
nonprofit group aimed at environmental preservation through a commitment to science.
The y not e that “ g uided b y sc ien c e , Environm e ntal De fe ns e F und e va luate s e nvironmen tal
253
problems and works to create and advocate solutions that win lasting political, economic
and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-efficient and fair. ”
University partnerships around workforce development are also included partners.
Dominican University of California is specifically connected with the group through its
new MBA in sustainable Enterprise. The degree program is aimed at creating at
“ e n g a g in g le a rnin g c om muni t y whe r e pe ople w it h st rong e nvi ronme ntal a nd soc ial va lues
develop effective leadership capabilities to advance economically successful,
ecologically r e stor a ti ve , a nd soc iall y just ini ti a ti ve s in an y t y p e of or ga niz a ti on.” Similarly, the Presidio Graduate School is a postgraduate educational institution
spec ifica ll y orie nt e d a rou nd sust a inabili t y . S pe c ifi c a ll y , “ P re sidi o Gr a du a te S c hool i s a
learning community dedicated to developing business and civic leaders with the
c ompete nc ies a nd c our a ge to i mpl e ment their idea s for c r e a ti n g a sust a inabl e f uture . ” S tudents a re tra ined sp e c ifica ll y in su staina ble p ra c ti c e s and “ gr a du a te a c ro ss all of our programs are prepared to lead organizations in ways that are socially and environmentally
responsible and financially successful. The Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
provides niche training around GHG measurement, accounting, auditing and
management. Specifically, “ th e ir mi ssi on is to addr e ss clim a te c h a n g e b y buil ding a nd
supporting a global community of experts with the highest standards of professional
practice in measuring, accounting, auditing and managing greenhouse gas emissions;
meeting the needs of governm e nts, cor po ra ti ons a nd or ga niz a ti ons l a rge a n d sm a ll .” The Cal State East Bay Small Business Develop Center focuses on developing business
254
owners and entrepreneurs. They partner with a range of partners in order to provide
services for entrepreneurs in small business development.
Several additional nonprofits are partners in the coalition. SPUR is oriented
a round plannin g poli c ies in t he S a n F ra n c isco Ba y Ar e a . S pe c ifica ll y , “ S P UR promotes
good planning and good government in the San Francisco Bay Area, through research,
e duc a ti on a nd a dvoc a c y . ” The David Brower Center provides space for environmentally-
c onscious busi ne sses. S pe c ifica ll y , a s “ one of th e B a y A re a ’s most a dva nc e d gre e n
buildings, the nonprofit David Brower Center is an inspiring home for environmental and
social action, combining both offices and program facilities in a 50,000 square-foot
spac e .” Plug-In America is an advocacy organization related to clean fuel vehicles.
Specifically, they note: “ W e a c c e l e ra te th e shi ft to pl ug -in vehicles powered by clean,
affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and
im pr ove the g lob a l envir onment.” F inall y , the California Academy of Sciences is a
nonprofit organization designed around providing science experiences to the public.
Specifically, “The California Academy of Sciences is a multifaceted scientific institution
committed to leading-edge research, to educational outreach, and to finding new and
innovative ways to engage and inspire the public. The Academy's mission - to explore,
explain and protect the natural world - extends to all corners of the institution; from a
research expedition in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, to a teacher training
pr ogra m”
Taken together, such a coalition helps to define the emergent alliance around
climate change in the San Francisco Area. Clearly, a unique array of groups have come
255
together around climate change and significant leadership is being taken in this context
by the business community in reducing climate change emissions. This alliance has
obvious linkages to the emergent governance around the green economy movement.

Bay Area Climate Collaborative
The Bay Area Collaborative is an advocacy organization aimed at reducing
greenhouse gap emissions. Their stated approach is “ he lpi ng the re g ion fulf il l i t s vision of
a more prosperous, healthy and vibrant community based on clean energy and action on
climate. The Bay Area Climate Collaborative advances this vision through fostering
strategic alignment, market acceleration initiatives, and best- pr a c ti c e s e duc a ti on.”
(http://www.baclimate.org)
The Collaborative is oriented around the idea of partnerships. The collaborative
notes that, “ P a rtne rs of the Collaborative are participating by bringing their expertise and
support. By participating, partners are acting together - defining solutions, building
c omm on dire c ti on, a nd a c c e le ra ti n g im pleme ntation.” The c oll a bo ra ti ve of fe rs a n a ll ianc e of business, government, and some nonprofit groups.
Businesses are included in the collaborative. The Collaborative states that
included businesses can benefit from the noti on o f “ a c c e le ra te the m a rke t. ” Businesses
include Bank of America, Pacific Gas and Electric, Better Place, Coulomb Technologies,
Cypress Envirosysrtems, ECOtotality, Genetech, Green Charge Network Lockheed
Martin, Microsoft, Serious Energy, SilverSpring Networks, and Webcor. Moreover,
include d in t he c oa li ti on a s “no nprof it membe rs, ” seve ra l busi ne ss advocacy groups were
256
also included. Business interests include Joint Venture: Silicon Valley, the Bay Area
Council and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. As a specific initiative of the Silicon
Valley leadership group, Solartech is oriented around the reduction of barriers in the solar
industry.
Several foundations are also included. The David and Lucille Packard
Foundations, the Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, and the Marin Community
Foundation are also included.
Additi ona ll y , “ environmental nonprofits ” are included in the alliance.
Environmental Defense Fund and the California League of Conservation votes fit the bill
of mainstream environmental organizations and tend to advocate for environmental
values.
Finally, government agencies are intimately involved in the coalition.
Specifically, Sustainable Silicon Valley is a multi-organizational collation. Government
membe rs a r e orie nted a ro und the mis sion t o: “E na ble jobs a nd gr owth in y o ur c omm unit y , buil ding r e la ti onshi ps, spee ding sol uti ons.” City members include: the city
of San Francisco, the City of San Jose, the City of Oakland, City of Campbell, City of
Cupertino, City of Fremont, City of Hayward, City of Los Altos Hills, City of Los Gator,
City of Morgan Hill, City of Mountain View, Redwood City, City of Saratoga, and City
of Santa Clara. Regional Organizations include: East Bay Green Corridor, San Mateo
County, Santa Clara County and Alameda County. Several state agencies are also
incorporated, including the California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy
257
Commission. Thus, the coalition acknowledges the need for governance of climate
change mitigation efforts at multiple scales of government.
As a part of their commitment, the Cities of San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland
signed a Bay Area Climate Compact in 2009. Taken together, they aim to integrate the
tri-fold sust a inabili t y va l ue s. S pe c ifica ll y , the y pr omi se that, a s si g na tori e s, the y “ will strive to enable and expand the environmental, economic, and equity benefits of climate
action.” As a p a rt of thi s c ompac t, g re e n jobs a r e spec ifica ll y r e fe re nc e d a s c ritica ll y connected to sustainability and climate-change oriented goals. As a part of their
“ lea de rship c a ll to ac ti on, the y pled ge to “w or k to ge ther to adva n c e … e c ono mi c opportunity and innovation that makes possible green jobs, provides workforce training
and education, and enables cutting- e d g e r e se a rc h a nd de ve lopm e nt.” Mo re ove r, a s a p a rt
of the “ a c ti on a re a g oa l a nd a ggre g a t e tar ge ts for t he thre e c it ies, w or kin g in coope ra ti on
with t he pa rtne rs to thi s c ompac t” the y a im to “inc re a se th e a va il a ble blu e a nd white
c oll a r “ c l e a n a nd gr e e n w or kf or c e ” c ou rse /t ra ini n gs b y the e nd of 2013 a nd he lp pl a c e 20,000 tra inee s and gr a d ua te in the la bor f o rc e b y the e nd of 2012.”
It appears that a critical part of this collaborative is the recognized need for better
governance around climate action goals. Specifically, as a part of the climate act, they
state that:
To accelerate results, and best serve the region, we will seek to:
-Advance models for use by the broader regional community on effective
local actions being taken to reduce GHG emissions;
-Help to identify and disseminate emerging best practices for each sector:
public, private, and civil society
-Accelerate adoption of solutions by scaling up successful programs
across the region
258
-Where advantageous, leverage selected green resources (e.g. solar
inspectors, community college green collar programs), in order to
maximize limited resources and speed progress
-Harmonize standards for more effective dissemination and action across
the region
-Monitor and track progress in reducing emissions and increasing
resiliency.

Therefore, through this alliance around climate change, a new regional governance
structure is emerging through a partnership between government, business and
environmental organizations.

Sustainable Silicon Valley
Sustainable Silicon Valley is an advocacy organization in the Silicon Valley
focused around sustainability and green business. According to the orga niz a ti on, “ S S V is
leading Silicon Valley to a more sustainable future through collaboration with local
government agencies, businesses, and community organizations to identify and address
these highest-priority environmental issues. We do this by engaging prominent Valley
organizations to proactively work toward self-imposed goals of reducing regional CO
2

emissions and water use – and helping them translate those goals into measurable
re sult s.” L ik e the pr ior to a ll ianc e s des c ribe d a bov e , S ustaina ble Si li c on Valley aims to
develop partnerships around sustainability values. Partners can be categories into a
number of key categories, and are summarized below.

259
Government
Government members cross different governmental scopes including individual
cities, and regional-entities. Partner government agencies include: Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, City of San Jose City of Belmont, City of Brisbane, City of
Burlingame, City of Campbell, City of Cupertino, City of East Palo Alto, City of Foster
City, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Los Altos, City of Milpitas, City of Morgan Hill,
City of Mountain View, City of Pacifica, City of Palo Alto, City of Redwood City, City
of San Bruno, City of San Mateo, City of Santa Clara, City of South San Francisco, City
of Sunnyvale, County of San Mateo, County of Santa Clara, Town of Atherton, Town of
Colma, Town of Los Altos Hills, Town of Los Gatos, Town of Portola Valley, Town of
Woodside, San Francisco International Airport, Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District.

University and Nonprofit:
There is a small number of nonprofit partners to the coalitions partners include:
Santa Clara University, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenhouse Gas Management
Institute, Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto Unified School District, Rosicrucian
Egyptian Museum, The Tech Museum of Innovation, Sierra Club

Business
The network is largely populated by single business membership. Members are in
disparate industries and include: CBS 5 San Francisco, Engage PR, Hara Software,
260
LifeScan, Inc., SAP, Symantec, Vantage Data Centers. 3Degrees, 511 Rideshare, Acterra,
Adobe Systems Incorporated, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Agilent Technologies, Inc.,
Applied Materials, Inc., Aurora Design Architecture, Aussie Rain Tanks, BD
Biosciences, Brocade, Byington Steel Treating, Inc., Calpine Corporation, Cargill Salt,
CH2M Hill, Cisco Systems Inc, CLiM8, CPI Inc, Dharma Merchant Services, Earth
Bound Homes, Eat My Dust, eBay Inc., Ecology Action, EcoShift Consulting,
EcoStrategy Group, Electronic Arts, , EnergyICT, an Elster Group Company, EnLink
Geoenergy, Ennovationz, ENVIROSMART Solutions Group, ETM Electromatic, Inc.,
Fenwick & West, Foothill-DeAnza Community College District, Franklin Templeton,
Genentech, General Dynamics, Gilead Palo Alto, Glumac, Green Business Specialists,
GreenWaste Recovery, Hewlett ImageX, Integrated Archive Systems, Integrated Design
Associates, Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit, J oseph i ne ’s Per sonne l S e rvi c e s, I n c . , Kuehne
Construction, Lawren Communications, LJ Engineering & Manufacturing, Lockheed
Martin Space Systems, Microsoft Corporation, Minerva Consulting, NASA Ames
Research Center, Network Appliance, Inc., Northrop Grumman Marine Systems, Our
City Forest , Pacific Gas and Electric Company , Pacific Gas Reel Grobman &
Associates, Responsible Purchasing Network, Silicon Valley Bank, Silicon Valley
Microelectronics, SolFocus, Specialty Solid Waste & Recycling, Steinberg Architects,
SunPower Corporation, SunWater Solar, Tarlton Properties, Inc., Toyota Sunnyvale,
WaterSprout, Watt Stopper/Legrand, Wave One/Palo Alto, Webcor Builders, Weiss
Associates, Wholly H2o, Yahoo, Inc., Zuvo Water, Satellite Telework Centers, Inc.,
Schering-Plough Biopharma, Seagate Technology, Serious Materials, RideSpring,
261
SanDiskRMC Water and Environment, Silver Spring Networks, and the Smart Grid
Library.
Several organizations also advocate on behalf of the business community.
Specifically, partners include: Sustainable San Mateo County, Silicon Valley Leadership
Group, Green Chamber of Commerce. This provides a voice for a multitude of other
individual businesses.
Taken together, this organization aims to provide networking opportunities and
“ c omm unit ies of pra c ti c e ” a round sust a inabili t y p oli c ies. Rathe r tha n c li ma te c ha n g e ,
sustainability is seen as an organizing goal for membership. Most members are either
businesses or government agencies.

2. East Bay/City of Oakland
The East Bay region, dominated by City of Oakland, is also incorporated in the
selected metropolitan statistical area as a significant population center with a prevalence
of green employment. This area includes Alameda County; the county also operates
policies relevant to the green economy. The following sections provide relevant case
study information related to the East Bay and the City of Oakland in specific. First,
demographic characteristics are described. Second, government activities and agencies
potentially relevant to the green economy are examined. Third and finally, nonprofit
behavior including the emergence of green alliances is also examined within the
following analysis.
262
a. Basic Demographic Characteristics
Oakland is a relatively large city in the Bay Area, east of San Francisco. The City
of Oakland has a relatively low median income. The median household income is
$40,055, as compared with the statewide level of $47,493. A slightly higher percent of
individuals are currently living below the poverty line as compared to the state average.
Educational attainment is also relatively comparable to the rest of the state. 30.9 percent
of indi viduals ha ve a ba c he lor’ s de g r e e or hig h e r, c ompar e d with a st a te a v e ra g e o f
26.6%. The homeownership rate is below the state average, and average home prices are
slightly higher than the state average. The population is relatively diverse, with a higher
than state average African American population.

Table 30:
Demographic Characteristics Oakland, California
People QuickFacts Oakland California
Population, 2006 estimate 397,067 36,457,549
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 -0.6% 7.6%
Population, 2000 399,484 33,871,648
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 7.1% 7.3%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 25.0% 27.3%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 10.5% 10.6%
Female persons, percent, 2000 51.7% 50.2%
White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 31.3% 59.5%
Black persons, percent, 2000 (a) 35.7% 6.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.7% 1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 15.2% 10.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) 0.5% 0.3%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 5.0% 4.7%

263
Table 30, Continued
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 21.9% 32.4%
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old &
over
51.5% 50.2%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 26.6% 26.2%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+,
2000
36.8% 39.5%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 73.9% 76.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 30.9% 26.6%
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+,
2000
31.1 27.7
Housing units, 2000 157,508 12,214,549
Homeownership rate, 2000 41.4% 56.9%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $235,500 $211,500
Households, 2000 150,790 11,502,870
Persons per household, 2000 2.60 2.87
Median household income, 1999 $40,055 $47,493
Per capita money income, 1999 $21,936 $22,711
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 19.4% 14.2%
Business QuickFacts Oakland California
Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) 3,565,596 655,954,708
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 2,518,773 359,120,365
Retail sales per capita, 2002 $6,276 $10,264
Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 535,149 55,559,669
Total number of firms, 2002 34,050 2,908,758
Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 17.5% 3.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms,
percent, 2002
1.5% 1.3%
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 14.8% 12.8%
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 8.6% 14.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms,
percent, 2002
S 0.2%
Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 37.2% 29.9%
Geography QuickFacts Oakland California
Land area, 2000 (square miles) 56 155,959
Persons per square mile, 2000 7,126.0 217.2
FIPS Code 53000 06
Counties Alameda
County

Taken directly from AmericanFactfinder

264
Overall, the City of Oakland does represent contrasting demographics to that of
San Francisco. Both are located within the same metropolitan statistical area. However,
as defined by the quantitative analysis conducted above, critical institutional
characteristics vary between Oakland and San Francisco. Most notably, median income is
significantly lower within Oakland. Given the demographic makeup, one would expect a
lower number of green jobs within Oakland, and particularly a different type of green
jobs strategies for the City of Oakland than one that would be pursued within San
Francisco.

b. Government Structure
City of Oakland Environmental Policies and Programs
The City of Oakland has operated a range of programs broadly around
environmental preservation. Environmental policy and planning in Oakland is both
relatively well developed, and long-lived. Similarly to the City of San Francisco, there
does appear to be a commitment to developing stated policies around the environment.
In 1998, the City Council adopted the Sustainable Community Development
I nit iative ( S D I ) b y R e sol uti on No. 74678C.M.S . with t he state d pur pose w a s “to pr ioriti z e sust a inabili t y iss ue s in t h e C it y of O a kland.” (Cappio & Patten, 2007) This represented a
public statement to take on the sustainability issue, and to bring it to the forefront.
Moreover, it also demonstrates the adoption of the discourse through the use of the world
“ sust a inabili t y ” withi n of fic ial g ov e rnme nt pro gr a mm ing . (Cappio & Patten, 2007)
265
The C it y of O a kland’ s co mm it ment to s ustaina bil it y a lso s temmed f rom the
partnerships that they forged with international partners. In 2009, Mayor Jerry Brown
joined as a signatory on the United Nations World Environmental Day Urban Accords.
This joined them to 50 other municipalities in public commitment to sustainability ideals.
Ke y a r e a s of the a c c or ds include : “e ne r g y , wa ste r e duc ti on, ur ba n na tu re , tr a nsporta ti on,
e nvironmen tal he a lt h, a n d wa ter . O a kland c omm it ted to be c ome a “ fo ur sta r c it y ” b y 2012. This commits the city to accomplishing 19 of the 21 stated actions. (Cappio &
Patten, 2007) Additionally, in July 2009, the City of Oakland approved a preliminary
GHG reduction target of 36% below 2005 levels in 2020. (Oakland, 2011)
Comparatively in terms of sustainability programming, Oakland is generally
ranked relatively highly across a relatively comprehensive array of factors. The figure
below summarizes its relative rank relative to sustainability measures as compiled by
Sustainelane.com. Several areas in particular stand out including waste management, air
quality measures and green building. Likewise, the green economy ranking of the City of
Oakland is comparatively high. Oakland ranks 15
th
in the area of the green economy, as
qua nti fie d b y S ustaine l a n e .c om’s metr ics.

266
Figure 33:
Oakland Sustainability

Taken directly from www.sustainelane.com

A variety of specific measures are pertinent to the green economy. Much of the
activities around the environment in Oakland are now inclusive under a ten year, 150
action climate plan aiming for a 36% reduction in GHG emissions. The plan was put
forth through a multi- stake holder a pp roa c h a nd w a s spec ific a ll y inclusi ve of “ membe rs o f
the Oakland Climate Action Coalition, AC Transit, Stopwaste.org, Quest Energy
267
Solutions, Beyond Compliance, City of Berkeley, City of Hayward, Alameda County,
a nd a ll membe rs of the O a kland Comm unit y . ” (Oakland, 2011) Thus, such a plan
governmentally extends beyond the city to incorporate other proximate locales. It
somewhat breaks down these institutional silos in doing so.
Moreover, governmentally, the plan is divided into specific implementation
actions. Relevant city departments are indicated with action measures and are required to
present yearly status updates to the Environmental Services Division. Additionally, a
special inter- d e pa rtmen ta l t e a m wil l i mpl e ment m e a sure s. S pe c ifica ll y , “ thi s tea m wil l
discuss progress and challenges in ECAP implementation. Team members will continue
relationships with key external partners (e.g. PG%E, EBMUD, Stopwaste.org) to foster
c oordina ti on a nd c oll a bo ra ti on.” (Oakland, 2011)
The climate plan specifically aims to incorporate a multitude of aims and values.
I t spe c ifica ll y notes, tha t “ , implementing the actions identified in the ECAP has the
potential to create a variety of community benefits, including energy cost savings, local
green economic development and job creation, reduce local air pollution, improved
publi c he a lt h, a nd other q ua li t y of life e nha n c e men ts t hr oug hout Oa kland. ” Thus, it recognizes the significant governance changes that are necessary to foster the diverse
stated values of the plan (Oakland, 2011). Many of the programs integrated are topical
and span areas including green building that will be deal and analyzed for our purposes
below.
The policy also specifically notes the potential “green economy ” ramifications of
the plan. Specifically, the Plan notes that “, Many actions that could be taken locally to
268
reduce energy use and GHG emissions hold the potential to create a range of economic,
health, and other quality of life benefits in Oakland. Actions described in this plan have
the potential to attract new green businesses, create hundreds of new local green jobs, and
help neighborhoods thrive. By reducing fuel consumption, we can also reduce fossil fuel
de pe nde n c e a nd lo c a l air poll utants, a nd he lp t o im pr ove publi c he lp.” G re e n jobs g oa ls
a re state d a s a lo g ica l out c ome of c li mate a c ti on. As noted in the pla n, “ C li mate a c ti on b y the City and complementary action by the Oakland community have the potential to
foster significant green job creation and green economic development in Oakland. The
city encourages the expansion of local green job training programs to help provide the
workforce needed to achieve these goals. The city also encourages private employers to
ensure that these are high quality, living wage jobs offering green career pathways for
local residents. The city will continue to support these objectives by applying existing
living wage, local hire and prevailing wage programs and pr ojec ts.”(Oakland, 2011)
Local green economic development is specifically referenced in the plan as a goal, or
corollary outcome from implementing the plan. Thus, green economic development is
included as an outcome of climate action planning and a nexus is thus created between
green house gas mitigation and green economic goals as necessitating institutional
change through the incorporation of a wide array of environmental goals and a wide array
of disparate departments into one comprehensive plan.
Additionally to climate action oriented activities, there are considerable green
building efforts within the City of Oakland. Oakland appears to be relatively strongly
committed to green building based upon their plans, documents, and websites. For
269
example, in their recent draft Energy and Climate Action plan, the city states that:
“ Oa kland a lre a d y h a s ma de pro g re ss i n a numb e r of these a r e a s, a dopti ng a g r e e n
building ordinance for civic buildings, implementing energy retrofits in most of the
C it y ’s e x ist ing 100 lar g e st fa c il it ies, w or king with par tner s to g uide impl e menta ti on of East Bay Energy Watch programs delivering energy efficiency services to local
businesses, promoting green building construction, installing more than six megawatts of
solar electric panels, and working with partners to submit successful proposals for
stimulus grants to support new programs ”(Oakland, 2011).
Green building efforts are relatively well established in Oakland dating back to
2000 . I n 2005, th e c it y c r e a ted the “ buil t i t g re e n” pr ogra m. I n ord e r to e v a luate mul ti -
family and single-family residential projects, the y de ve loped the “ Gr e e n P oint R a ti ng ” system as a forerunner to LEED certifications (Cappio & Patten, 2007). The Oakland
City Council passed the Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Resolution and
Recycling Ordinance (ordinance No. 12253 C.M.S.) in July 2000. Nonresidential or
apartment houses or alteration projects with permit valuation of at least $50,000 are
required to recycle 100 percent of all asphalt and concrete materials and 65 percent of all
other materials. (Cappio & Patten, 2007) In 2000, the city also opened the Green
Resource Center at the Planning and Zoning Council. According to the previous planning
dire c tor, the c e nter “ wa s e stabli shed to provide the public w it h e a s y a c c e ss to educ a ti ona l
materials about the benefits of sustainabl e busi ne ss pra c ti c e s. ” B e twe e n 20 00 a nd 2007,
over 23,000 individuals visited the center.(Cappio & Patten, 2007) In May 2005, the City
270
Council adopted the Civil Green Building Ordinance 12658 C.M.S. mandating all city
facilities meet U.S. Green Building Silver Standards. (Cappio & Patten, 2007)
In order to adopt green building standards and administer programs in this regard,
the City of Oakland had to create inter-departmental partnerships. They recognized that
there was a need for institutional change in order to accommodate their goals around
sust a inabili t y . As state d b y the f o rme r Oa kland C it y P lanning Dir e c tor ’s Re port to t he Oakland City Planning Commission in response to statistics related to green building,
“ g iv e n these statis ti c s re l a ted to gr e e n building construction and operation, improving
energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources in building is fundamental to
improving air quality and reducing the impacts of global climate change. Therefore, the
Planning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Division, and Building Services Division
a re in an inf lu e nti a l posi ti on to promot e sust a inabili t y in O a kland.” (Cappio & Patten,
2007)
The need to further eliminate silos and change the institutional structure around
green building measures was also accomplished by Resolution NO. 80650 C.M.S.
Ac c or din g to t he P lannin g Dir e c tor, the re solut ion “e stabli shed c e rta in deli be ra te
requirements for the Community and Economic Development Agency, including the
Building Services Division and the Planning and Zoning Division to enhance energy
e ff icie n c y a nd the re fo re g r e e n buil ding in O a klan d.” (Cappio & Patten, 2007) Measures
include the establishment of a multi-agency energy efficiency team. This recognizes the
need to overcome current government silos. They also recognize the need for internal
271
c ult ur a l cha n ge including, t he e ff or t t o “ c r e a te a t r a ini ng pro gr a m t o e duc a t e a pprop ri a te
city staff on energy efficiency and alternative energy matters ” (Cappio & Patten, 2007).
Man y o f the c it y ’s g r e e n buil ding a c t ions, as described above, are connected with
the Ci t y ’s ne w En e r g y a n d Cl im a te A c ti on P lan. Ma n y o f the a c ti on it e ms i n the pla n
foc us broa dl y a round g r e e n buil ding . Ge n e ra ll y sp e a kin g , the pla n st a tes th a t: “ A numbe r
of methods are available to the City to reduce GHG emissions from building energy use.
These include: optimizing energy efficiency in new construction, retrofitting existing
building to reduce energy consumption, promoting energy and efficiency advancing the
use of renewable energy, and improving the energy performance of municipal facilities.
Oa kland’ s g r e a test oppor tuni ti e s li e in re trof it ti ng the e x ist ing g r e e n buil ding stock.” Near term (those that will be developed in the next 3 years) measures include several
programmatic goals for Oaklan d: “A dopt a gr e e n buil ding ordina nc e f or p riva te
development; Offer property based energy financing; Launch a downtown commercial
retrofit program; Launch a residential green retrofit program; Conduct a multi-family
affordable housing retrofit program; Expand weatherization program delivery;
weatherization and energy retrofit loan program; implement advanced operating
pr oc e dur e s for c it y fa c il it ies;; re trof it c it y f a c il it ies to i mprove e ne r g y p e rf or manc e .” Therefore, in sum, review of publically available documents suggests that green building
appears to be seen by the City of Oakland as a central component to their environmental
efforts and even potentially as a point of pride.

272
Alameda County Waste Policies
Reaching beyond City of Oakland regulations, regional institutions also cover and
interact with activities at the municipal level. Waste is dealt with at the county level and
is relevant to environmental outcomes in Oakland. Specifically, activities around waste
may also be a component of a green economy strategy within the East Bay. Such policies
ma y c re a te oppor tuni ti e s for “ g r e e n e mpl o y ment” withi n the E a st B a y . Th e re ha s be e n
some history of leadership in the Alameda Corridor in terms of dealing with waste, thus
indicating some potential opportunities within this area. (Reliance, Authority, & Board,
2002) Waste is therefore an important part of the story in understanding the governance
of environmental policies within Oakland, and how this may impact green employment in
Oakland.
The two agencies most pertinent to this discussion are the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority and the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board.
Both agencies are charged with managing waste programs in the area at the county level
of governance . S pe c ifica l l y , “ P ur suant to C a li for ni a law , the A lam e da C oun t y W a ste
Mana g e ment Author it y i s re sponsi ble f or the p re p a ra ti on of Ala m e da C oun t y ’s I nte gr a ted
Waste Management Plan and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and provides support
a nd a ssi stanc e to i ts m e m be r a g e n c ies in t he im ple menta ti on of those pla ns….The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board is responsible for delivery of
water-approved programs in the area of waste reduction, recycled product procurement,
market development and grants to nonprofit organizations. Collectively the two legal
e nti ti e s ope ra tes a s on e o rga niz a ti on (the “ a g e n c y ” ), und e r th e dire c ti on of se lf -managed
273
teams. Although it controls no waste stream itself, the agency operates as a de facto
public/private partnership. It exercise its leadership role through a wide network of
citizens, public agencies, non-profit organization, private consultants, waste haulers,
recycling service providers, environmentalists, and public policy advocates to prevent
waste and limit landfill disposal ” (Reliance et al., 2002).
Interestingly, programs specifically exist around developing a market for
recycling. The y spec ifi c a ll y note, in a prior pl a n, f or e x a mpl e that “ the a g e nc y p rovide s
support to businesses and organizations to promote healthy markets for recycled
mate ria ls.” The y sp e c ific a ll y ope ra te s e ve r a l pro g r a ms aim e d a t cr e a ti n g a mar ke t
including a role i n fun din g . S pe c ifi c a ll y , “ it off e rs funding a ssi stan c e to pub li c a ge nc ies,
nonprofit organizations, private businesses and educational institutions through the
re volvi ng loan fund, “ mi ni g ra nts ” f or funding requests under $5000, market
development assistance, and grants to n onpro fits.” How e ve r, it is not currently seen in the
light of green economy, or marketed around green economy (Reliance et al., 2002).
Ne ve rthe l e ss, t he c ount y ’ s ef for ts a round w aste remediation, as well as the funding
mechanisms, may provide opportunities in waste remediation including recycling efforts.
Such opportunities may be reflected within the labor market information data through a
higher prevalence of occupations and industries related to waste.

274

b. Nonprofit Community Interactions: Advocacy Efforts and Alliances Around the
Green Economy

In addition to official city policies and government agencies, nongovernment
organizations play a significant role in the governance of both environmental and
economic development goals within Oakland and San Francisco. As described in the
methodological section above, nonprofit activity can be measured empirically through
data available from the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). NCCS data can
be utilized in order to sketch a background picture of nonprofit organizations within the
City of Oakland. Environmental organizations and civil rights and social action groups
may be particularly relevant to the green economy.
As indicated by the data, Oakland is home to a number of environmental
organizations. A total of 46 environmental organizations are present in the City of
Oakland, with a per capita of 1.15. The magnitude of environmental organizations can
also measured by private contributions and government grants. Total contributions and
government grants totaled $86,252,676, or $216 at a per capita basis. Overall, at a per
capita basis, there is somewhat less density of environmental organizations than
neighboring San Francisco.
A small number of civil rights and social action groups likewise call Oakland
home. NCCS data identified 17 civil rights, or .43 at a per capita basis. Total
contributions and government grants totaled $4,89,663, or $12 at a per capita basis.
Therefore, there are less social and civil action groups in Oakland than environmental
organizations as measured both at an aggregate, as well as at a per capita level.
275
Table 31:
Nonprofit Activity in City of Oakland
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Environment (2009)
26. Number of organizations filing annually 46
27. Private contributions & government grants 86,252,676
28. Total revenue 118,014,971
29. Total expenses 113,301,473
30. Total assets 142,619,249
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita - Environment (2009)
31. Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) 1.15
32. Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 216
33. Total revenue ($ per capita) 295
34. Total expenses ($ per capita) 284
35. Total assets ($ per capita)
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Civil rights & social action (2009)
26. Number of organizations filing annually 17
27. Private contributions & government grants 4,893,663
28. Total revenue 6,039,114
29. Total expenses 6,316,933
30. Total assets 4,401,329
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita - Civil rights & social action (2009)
31. Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) 0.43
32. Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 12
33. Total revenue ($ per capita) 15
34. Total expenses ($ per capita) 16
35. Total assets ($ per capita) 11

A contextual understanding of the number of nonprofit organizations only tells a
snippet of the story. As explained in the methodological section above, identifying and
understanding alliances between different nonprofit actors is particularly critical in
understanding the emergence of the green economy movement at the sub-national scale
of governance. What alliances, or green jobs regimes, are emerging within the Oakland

276
area around green employment? How have different nonprofit actors within the East Bay
come together around the green economy? Oakland provides a relatively comprehensive
example of such activity. Empirical evidence suggests that a relatively robust array of
new partnerships is, and has been, emerging around the green economy.

Business Community Action Around the Green Economy
Several alliances have arisen in the East Bay are broadly oriented around the
business community. Empirical research, particularly based on secondary sources,
suggests that the business community has cited a history of opportunities within the green
economy. As noted by the Chamber and the East Green Bay Corridor Partnership in their
re c e nt re port, “ The Ea st B a y ha s lon g been home to environmental consulting and
remediation firms, many of which have spearheaded innovations in environmental
engineering, seismic, geo-technical, and other environmental technologies. The industry
includes older firms providing environmental assessments and clean-up as well as newer
fir ms providi ng sust a inab il it y c onsul ti ng a nd gr e e n busi ne ss st ra te g ies.” The y spe c ifica ll y identify economic opportunities within environmental policy. They state, for example
that “ while some c ompan ies a re im pa c ted by the overall economic slowdown, long-term
prospects for growth are good because of increasing consumer and business interest in
sustainability, climate change legislation, and the disbursement of American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act 2009 (ARRA) funds. ”(Redman, 2009) This discourse represents a
tide change in terms of viewing of environmental policy and regulations nexus to
economic realities. This offers an official statement whereby the two are not constructed
277
in a zero-sum game, and likewise where environmental regulations are viewed as green
jobs generators.
Demonstrating a high level of interest, the business community has officially
organized around the green economy and appears to be playing a leading role in green
economy related discussions. Interesting, some of this partnership has occurred with the
City directly. Research suggests that there is a history of interaction between the City and
the business community around topical areas relevant to the community. The interactions
appear to be relatively robust and appear to be guiding much of the discussion related to
the green economy.
In recent years, t he int e rf a c e b e twe e n st a k e holder s be y ond th e C it y ’s dir e c t
structure focused specifically around green building. The Planning Department has
played somewhat of a leading role in this regard. The Planning Director in a 2007 staff
report specifically notes the need to reach out to stakeholders through official efforts.
S pe c ifica ll y the c it y a im s to “build a ne twork of st a ke holder s (su c h a s P G &E, Oa kland
Chamber of Commerce, and Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA) to
guide existing building owners and new permit applicants to programs that offer technical
a ssi stanc e a nd re ba t e s.” (Cappio & Patten, 2007) The y a lso aim to “r e c ruit busi ne sses
into energy programs that offer building tune- ups a nd re trof it s,” a nd spe c ifically state
their plan to “ c oll a bor a te with t he Oa kland Cha mb e r of C omm e rc e a nd B O MA.”

278
East Bay Green Corridor Partnership
The East Bay Corridor Partnership is particularly strong in this regard. First, in
2007, several cities participated in the creation of the East Bay Green Corridor
Partnership (EDGCP). The Mayor of Oakland, the Mayor of Berkley, the Mayor of
Richmond, the Mayor of Emoryville, University of California Berkeley, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory met to focus on green employment through the partnership.
Albany, Alameda, San Leandro, El Centro, Peralta Community College District, Contra
Costa Community College District, and California State University East Bay have since
signed on. With this interesting amalgamation of membership, the partnership offers a
regional approach towards green economy development.
The partnership specifically aimed to support collaboration and to facilitate
alliance building around the green economy at this regional scale. As noted by the
Chamber of Comm e rc e a nd the E a st Gre e n Ba y C or ridor P a rtne rship’ s re c e nt re sult , “ the
result is a heavily collaborative approach to supporting the development of green-tech
c ompanie s and g e n e r a ti ng g r e e n jobs .” Th e r e sult a nt g o a ls we r e de fine d a s mul ti ple
including : “a tt racting and retaining green businesses; promoting research and technology
transfer; strengthening green workforce development programs; working together to
secure federal funding (for things like job training, alternative energy research, capital
infrastru c tur e im pr ove me nt etc ).” (Redman, 2009)
In Oakland, the business community has specifically organized around a
relatively comprehensive green economy plan. Such a trend flows from the 2007 effort
by Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums to establish the Oakland Partnership as a public-private
279
pa rtne rship. As noted b y R e dmond, “The Oa kl a nd P a rt nership established a goal to create
a thriving, innovative, equitable, globally competitive regional economy that would
create 10,000 new jobs in five years by tapping into the creativity and talent of all
segments of the populations and providing benefits to all Oakland residents and
busi ne sses.” Thr ou g h thi s ef for t, O a kland pa rtne rs hip foc used on ke y indus tries, one of
which was green technology. Thus, they specifically identified green technology as an
industry focus for the area. (Redman, 2009)
More recently, the Chamber of Commerce and the East Bay Green Corridor
established a pa rtn e rship in such a n a na l y sis . As n oted b y the re sult a nt re po rt, “ The EBGCP has been successful in bringing together regional public sector and academic
partners to identify opportunities for collaboration in the development of public policy,
workforce training programs, business creation strategies, and joint marketing. The
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce has also played an important role in
re a c hin g out t o priva t e g r e e n tec h c ompanie s…R e c og niz e s the im porta n c e of invol ving the private sector in the development of regional policies, programs, and economic
development strategies. The EBGCP partnered with the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber
of Commerce to identify the key opportunities and constraints facing green tech
c ompanie s in t he r e g ion. ” As m entioned above, this is a key sea change in terms of the
nexus between environmental and economic considerations. The report issued itself
dire c tl y a c knowl e d g e s th is b y noti ng that, “ A ke y theme e c ho e d in all five r oundtable s
was the need for clear, consistent, and carefully-developed standards, policies, and
pe rf or man c e re quire m e nts. Thoug h indus tr y is oft e n c riticiz e d a s bein g ‘ a n ti - re g ulation,’
280
the majority of the green companies included in our outreach efforts were in support of
local or regional policies that would spur demand for green products or services (such as
mandatory green building requirements, industry certifications, or quality assurance
c ontrols t ied to ince nti ve s or r e c y c li n g o rdina nc e s).” The y a lso i ndica te r e a diness to have their worke rs. The r e port notes that “ I ndust r y lea d e rs w ould l ike to se e f u rthe r c onsen sus
a round a c c e ptabl e ‘ g r e e n ’ c e rtific a ti ons a nd woul d be will ing to deve lop o r und e r g o
a ddit ional tra ini ng s, shou ld t he re be c l e a r re w a rds for doing so. ” (Redman, 2009) These
statements, resulting from a large convening of private sector players, provides unique
insi g ht i nto t he busi ne ss communi t y ’s unde rst a nding a nd fr a mi n g of the gr e e n e c onom y within this classical tension. It offers a potential platform for further developing an
understanding of private sector players pertinent to the green economy, and the
differences that might persist in the way that they frame this relationship and reap
economic rewards from environmental preservation.
New thinking necessitated new partnerships. Partnerships may be particularly
important in terms of recycling and waste in order to facilitate a more positive image. As
noted b y E B C P a nd the C ha mber of Comm e rc e , “ F a c il it a ti ng c oll a bo ra ti o n be twe e n
recycling industry leaders, neighborhood environmental groups, and city and county land
use and zooning officials to prevent re c y c li n g c om pa nies f rom be in g c onsi d e re d ‘bli g ht’
or nuisanc e indus tries of re sidenti a l prope rties a r e in prox im it y to t he ir op e r a ti ons.” The y spec ifica ll y g o on to not e , “ im pr oving r e c y c l e r -resident relations and the public
perception of recycling companies by launching a communications campaign to
281
re ha bil it a te the indus tr y ’s im a g e s a nd re b ra nd it a s a le g it im a te “ g re e n
indus tr y .”(Redman, 2009)
To this effect, five roundtable discussions were held with business representatives
from east bay green businesses including: energy efficiency, HVAC and home
performance; green building construction and materials; environmental consulting; solar
energy; recycling and reuse. The purpose of the meeting, according to the published
re port, w a s to p ut fo r a pl a n whic h “ identifie s th e pr im a r y c ha ll e n ge s and o pportunit ies
confronting regional green companies, maps existing and potential industry-led
workforce and educational partnerships, and makes recommendations for further
integrating the private sector for further integrating the private sector in the development
of workforce training programs, policies, and other regional efforts to make the east bay a
c e nter o f innova ti on fo r t he gre e n t e c hnolo g y indu str y .” (Redman, 2009)Moreover,
R e dmond s tate s that “w it h a g o a l t o pro mot e the gr owth a nd de v e lopm e nt of “ g re e n” businesses and to create additional green jobs in the East Bay Green Corridor Partnership
(EDGP) worked together to reach out to companies in five sectors of the green
e c onom y .” (Redman, 2009)
S e ve ra l findi n g s eme r g e d f rom the e f for t, re p re se n ti ng the busine ss commu nit y ’s
pe rspe c ti ve a round g r e e n jobs in t he a re a . F irst, “e ng a ge the busine ss com muni t y a round spec ific issue s, ne e ds, an d oppor tuni ti e s.” Se c ond, “ shift t he e mphasis fr om r e s earch and
da ta c oll e c ti on to proje c t m a na g e ment a nd re spond ing to i ndust r y n e e ds.” T his i s a ne w,
and interesting finding in that it a irs the business c omm unit y ’s distrust and frustration
with data ga ther in g a rou nd the g r e e n e c onom y . T hird, “ standa rdiz e a n d harmonize
282
policies and incentives for promoting green tech in industry growth among the corridor
c it ies a nd pa rtne rs.” F or t h a nd fina ll y , “ sta y mi nd ful of d y n a mi sm and shifti ng opportunities in all the sub-sectors of the green- tec h indus tr y .” (Redman, 2009)
Additionally, the also indicated a need for better streamlining the workforce
de ve lopm e nt s y st e m not ing that “ l e t i ndust r y n e e d s and de ve lopm e nt drive wor kf or c e development investments and programs. Workforce development and educational efforts
should be designed to meet industry identified needs and employment opportunities, not
targeted populations seeking employment, to guarantee the greatest possible placement
a fte r tr a ini ng . ” The busi n e ss communi t y indi c a tes that a more c ompr e he nsi ve gre e n jobs strategy must therefore look towards workforce considerations as a critical component of
the governance structure.(Redman, 2009)
Of particular interest here, in terms of framing, is the way in which the business
community views partnerships, as evidenced by this report. According to the report,
“ ther e is a si g nific a nt op portunit y to grow the E a s t B a y Gr e e n E c onom y , b ut i t m ust be
done as a collective effort between the private sector and cities, universities, community
colleges, training centers, and economic development and marketing associations.
Forming real public-private partnerships and finding mechanisms for ongoing industry
engagement in the development of policies, promotional materials, incentives programs,
and training curriculum should be a key focus of the Oakland Chamber and East Bay
Green Corridor Partnership in the years ahead. The two organizations should work
together closely to make sure that the pr ivate s e c to r’ s prior it ies a r e r e fle c ted in t he c oll a bora ti ve a ge nda d e v e loped b y the E B GCP ’s ma n y publi c se c tor a nd n onpro fit
283
pa rtne rships.” Thus, the busi ne ss communi t y is p ushi ng f or p a rtne rships a c ross indust r y and aim to foster alliances around the green economy. (Redman, 2009)

Green-Collared Jobs Approaches to the Green Economy
Oakland Climate Action Partnership
The Oakland Climate Action Partnership is foc use d on a “ g re e n - c oll a re d jo bs”
approach towards the green economy. The Partnership is the local Apollo Alliance
Affiliate organization. The Oakland Apollo Alliance is lead by the Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW Local
595).
The Oakland Climate Action Project is specifically oriented around the
integration of equity considerations into the green economy. They specifically note that,
“The Oakland Climate Action Coalition is a cross-sector coalition of community-based
organizations, environmental experts and advocates, labor unions, and green businesses
working for a n e quit a ble a nd jus t Oa kland E ne r g y a nd Cl im a te A c ti on P lan ( ECAP ).” Equity goals are met through employment in the green economy. “The Oakland Apollo
Alliance believes that Oakland can become a shining national example of a blue-collar
town transformed into a green-collar powerhouse. Oakland can be used as a model
sustainable city that creates high quality jobs for its residents while cleaning up the
environment, improving public health and helping America achieve energy
indepe nde nc e .” They specifically structure their efforts around climate change based
upon e quit y va lu e s. F or e x a mpl e , the y ha ve “ c r e a t e d a li st of poli c ies tha t c a n a c hiev e
284
significant carbon reductions while building a vibrant local economy and improving the
quality of life for all Oakland residents —especially low-income communities and
c omm unit ies of c olor tha t ar e im pa c ted most b y g l oba l wa rmin g … Tha nks to t he wor k of
the Oakland Apollo Alliance and the Ella Baker Center, the city of Oakland is about to
pass one of the most effective and equitable Energy and Climate Action Plans of any city
in the country. With bold green house gas reduction goals and explicit equity language,
Oa kland’ s En e r g y a nd Cl im a te A c ti on P lan is a model f or c it ies a c ross the c ountr y to
follow.”
The group is formulated around the idea of social change, and on efforts that are
oriented around working in collaborative alliances. They specifically state, “At its heart,
the O a kland A poll o Alli a nc e is a “ movem e nt bui ldi ng ” proj e c t — a forum for groups
with widely different backgrounds to come together to explore mutual interests, work
throug h c ha ll e n g e s, a nd a dva nc e a c omm on a g e nd a .” The Alliance states the desire to
wor k with t he busi ne ss c omm unit y . Th e y spec ifi c a ll y note tha t “ , The O a kland Cli mate Action Project is a coalition of labor unions, environmentalists, community-based
organizations and green businesses, working together to create quality jobs in the new
e ne r g y e c onom y .”
To this end, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition (OCAC) has diverse
membership and is working for an equitable Oakland. The nature of the coalition can be
better understood by deconstructing its membership. Such an approach aids in
understanding the disparate values that are fostered through the coalescence of the
alliance around the green economy. In addition to the Local Clean Energy Alliance that
285
will be discussed in more details, a variety of organizations are included within the
coalition and discussed in further detail.
Several of the included organizations are focused around community-based
approaches to environmental justice. Included organization of this type are multiple and
include organizations as follows.
First, Transform is a longstanding social and environmental justice organization.
Much of their focus is on equitable access to transportation throughout the nine-county
Bay Area. Transform is also involved in efforts around sustainable land use planning.
The organization works regionally, and is actively involved in a number of coalitions.
(http://transformca.org/advocacy/bay-area-transportation)
Second The West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project is a local
e nvironmen tal jus ti c e or ga niz a ti on. The ir f oc us i s on “ a c hievin g h e a lt h y ho mes, he a lt h y jobs and healthy neighborhoods for all who live, work, learn and play in West Oakland,
C a li for nia.” The gr oup w or ks wit h loca l re sidents a round e nvironmen t a l j usti c e c ha ll e n g e s. Th e y spec ifi c a ll y de v e lop “c omm unit y - ba se d pa rticipa tor y r e se a rc h pro j e c t”
in order to foster grassroots capacity within communities. (http://www.woeip.org)
Third, Communities for a Better Environment is an environmental justice
organization focused on health disparities that works throughout the State of California.
Their work focuses on organizing lower-income, communities of color around
e nvironmen tal he a lt h dis pa rities ter med “ e nviron menta l ra c ism .” Th e or g a niz a ti on se e ks
to wor k dire c tl y with i mpac ted popula ti ons t o “ he l p c omm unit y membe rs i d entify their
own pr oblems, a nd de fine their own c a mpai g ns an d sol uti ons.” Thr oug h the ir e ff or ts,
286
the y “ be li e ve in bui ldi ng c omm unit y powe r to h e lp t he m t o a c hieve the b a s ic huma n rig ht
to cle a n a ir, c lea n w a ter , a nd c lea n l a nd a nd publi c spac e s.” (http://www.cbecal.org)
Forth, Bay Localize is a nonprofit organization organized around the idea of local
production of goods. Their efforts focus on the local production. They specifically
advocate for the local production of food and of energy within the San Francisco area.
(http://www.baylocalize.org/)
Fifth, Causa Justa: Just Cause (CJJC) is an environmental and social justice
organization that advocates for low-income communities in San Francisco and Oakland.
The or g a niz a ti on is a “ m ult i -racial, grassroots organization building community
leadership to achieve justice for low- in c ome San Fra nc isco a nd Oa kland re s idents.” The organization is involved in a number of coalitions including: Grassroots Global Justice
Alliance, Mission Anti-displacement Coalition, National Network for Immigrant and
Refugee Rights, Oakland Rising, Right to the City, San Francisco Immigrant Rights
Defense Committee, and SF Rising. (http://cjjc.org/)
Sixth, The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights is a well known social justice
organization headquartered in Oakland. The organization focuses on the challenges of
urban communities including safety, police brutality, and access to educational resource.
The organization operates the Green-Collar Jobs Campaign. They operate a number of
a ddit ional c a mpai g ns i nc ludi ng : B ooks Not B a rs “ the la r g e st s tate wide n e t wor k of
fa mi li e s of inc a r c e r a ted y outh” tha t “c ha mpi ons p oli c ies to re plac e C a li for nia’ s costl y ,
broken youth prison system with alternatives that work; ” S oul of the C it y t ha t aims to
honor residents that make a difference in Oakland; and Heal the Streets that provides
287
leadership training around safety to Oakland youth. Through these campaigns, the Ella
Baker Center utilizes a variety of tactics including policy advocacy, media campaigns,
and grassroots organizing.
Several included organizations focus on the youth movement. First, the Center for
Progressive Action is a youth-lead environmental justice organization focused on creating
networking opportu nit ies a nd bols ter ing c ivi c e n ga ge ment. S pe c ific a ll y , th e y “ are
working to create the changes that allow greater civic participation from the populace,
e spec iall y disenf ra nc hise d c omm unit ies.” The ir w or k foc uses on “ g ra ssroot s civic
e nga g e ment. ” Thr ou g h t h e ir wo rk, the y a im to “1.Mobil iz e our c omm unit i e s to t a ke control and responsibility for our local, state and federal governments;
2. Generate leadership and cultivate local leaders; 3. Bridge the gap between grassroots
movements and encourage collaboratio n a mon g di ff e r e nt ac ti vist grou ps.” Second,
Movement Generation is a environmental justice organization oriented towards training
organizers. Thus, this organization is focused around capacity building within the
moveme nt. S pe c ifica ll y , “ The Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project provides
in-depth analysis and information about the global ecological crisis and facilitates
strategic planning for action among leading organizers from urban Bay Area
organizations working for economic and racial justice i n c omm unit ies of c olor.”
(http://www.movementgeneration.org/)
Finally, as a different type of nonprofit organization as those listed above, The
Pacific Institute is a research-oriented nonprofit organization based in Oakland,
California. Their specific mission is to work to “ c re a te a h e a lt hier plan e t an d sust a inable
288
communities. We conduct interdisciplinary research and partner with stakeholders to
produce solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and
social equity —in C a li for nia, na ti ona ll y , a nd int e r na ti ona ll y .” Th e y c ondu c t applied
research for governments and advocacy groups. They operate three main research
programs: Water, Community Strategies for Sustainability and Justice, and Globalization.
In addition, the Institute focuses on four initiatives: International Water and
Communities, Water Use in Business, Climate Impacts and Adaptation, and Integrity of
Science. (http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/index.html)

3. Conclusion: Analyzing connection between industry and occupational analysis
with institutional factors

The San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area,
incorporating the City of San Francisco and the City of Oakland, is a bastion of green
economy potential in a multitude of ways. The metropolitan statistical area exhibits a
relatively high level of green jobs, as measured in terms of occupations, and in terms of
employment within industries that have the potential for green jobs. Given the analysis
above, this appears to be no surprise. Examination of this metropolitan statistical area
illuminates some interesting connections between green economic activity and
environmental policy more broadly, as well as the distribution and nature of pertinent
nonprofit groups. Taken together, demographic, economic development, and institutional
analysis tells a compelling story about the emergence of green employment within the
289
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area and the efforts, attitudes,
and realities of this locale.
In particular, the incidence of government commitment to sustainability policies
and green jobs appears to be demonstrated in the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont
Metr opoli tan St a ti sti c a l Are a ’s e x pe rie nc e . At the g ove rnme nt l e ve l, t he re is a r e lativel y robust infrastructure around environmental policy within both the City of Oakland and
the City of San Francisco. Both climate change mitigation measures and sustainability
efforts more broadly, are relatively well developed as municipal goals throughout the Bay
Area. Based upon this review of publically available information, evidence suggests a
common focus on climate change as a guiding environmental light throughout the Bay
Area.
Similarly to efforts around climate change and energy, governments in the Bay
Area are somewhat responsive to the need to address challenges across traditional
government silos. Many of these government efforts span traditional, thematic lines
between economic development and environmental policy. Climate action plans in
particular incorporate disparate city departments through multi-layered approaches to
complex problems around climate action. Moreover, and of particular note, Bay Area
cities are working together in multi-jurisdictional efforts to address these challenges.
Regional entities, moreover, are providing a coordinating role around climate action.
Moreover, regional entities extend to waste management issues that logically extend
beyond municipal boarders.
290
Institutional needs and barriers around these issues are critical to overcome in
developing green economy goals in a similar manner —both thematically and
jurisdictionally. Such an approach appears to be translating over directly into alliances
around green economy goals. In the Bay Area, governments are taking this a step farther.
Governments in the Bay Area have been particularly active in the creation of alliances
and the formulation of advocacy-oriented groups broadly organized around green
economy goals. Such alliances bring disparate agencies together to address these
concerns in relatively innovative ways. As discussed above, the Bay Area Green
Partnership provides a particularly illuminating organization in this regard.
Green economic activity at the nonprofit, nongovernmental level is of particular
interest in the metropolitan statistical area and is connected with direct governmental
action around environmental preservation. As noted above, there is a relatively robust
nonprofit sector within the metropolitan statistical area, and within both the Oakland and
San Francisco city limits. Environmental nonprofits were particularly prevalent within
both the City of Oakland and the City of San Francisco.
What may be more critical than the prevalence of environmental nonprofits, is the
emergence of alliances, often incorporative of such environmental organizations, between
different breeds of stakeholders that are broadly organized around green economy goals.
As indicated by empirical review of the institutional structure within both the City of San
Francisco and the City Oakland, an interesting array of green jobs regimes are emerging
in the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. The summary
table below summarizes some of the major coalitions and alliances within the
291
metropolitan statistical area, many of which were included and discussed in further detail
within the case study discussion above.
What does the green economy regime(s) look like within the San Francisco-
Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area? As explained in the introductory
section, the green economy is often characterized as a policy framework that can be
endorsed by environmental, economic, and social justice organizations through the
pursuit of sustainability values. However, empirical evidence suggests little progress in
terms of developing coalitions that truly incorporate these three interests in a
comprehensive manner within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Building on the analysis at the city level presented above, there appears
to be little overlap between labor, environmental, and business interests throughout the
San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area. Analysis of the nonprofit
g roups w it hin “ a ll ianc e s” or “ c oa li ti ons” that a re s omew ha t or g a niz e d a rou nd the g r e e n
economy is summarized in the table below. Nonprofit groups related to the green
economy appear to be taking form in a relatively bi- modal manne r: throu gh a “ g re e n -
c oll a re d jobs a ppro a c h ” or throug h a “ gr e e n busi n e ss assoc iations a ppro a c h .”
The green-collared jobs movement is reflected within the metropolitan statistical
area. The Oakland Climate Action Alliance, as described above, appears to be a leading
actor in integrating labor and environmental justice activists into the green economy
movement. Both in the City of Oakland and the City of San Francisco contexts, such
groups tend to integrate labor and environmental justice groups into coalitions and
alliances around green employment opportunities. These types of employment
292
opportunities tend to be at the lower-skilled end of the spectrum, and more interest and
resources are called for in terms of workforce development. Given the demographic
makeup of the City Oakland, including most notably a significantly lower median
income, the prevalence of this brand of green jobs alliances seems to make logical sense.
Green-collared jobs regimes are a logical output of the existing demographic needs and
stakeholders arrangements in this regard.
Green business associations appear to be particularly prevalent within the
metropolitan statistical area. Business interests and environmental interest are present in
green business alliances and associations such as the Bay Area Climate Collaborative.
Businesses involved in the process, throughout both San Francisco and Oakland appear to
come in a multitude of stripes. Many of them however, are niche businesses that span
across a multitude of industries. There is also a relatively well-developed business
community organized broadly around green building.
Clearly, government action through policy enactment, and the nonprofit,
stakeholder structure outside of city hall appears to be somewhat connected. Green
building and energy efficiency measures broadly oriented around climate change appear
to be reflected in both city policies, and within the stakeholder communities. It appears,
moreover, as indicated above, that there is multi-jurisdictional action occurring, and
alliances between government and stakeholder groups are emerging around green
economy goals.
At the same time, case study evidence suggests that such action many be
disarticulated and there is difficulty in crafting-equity driven solutions towards the green
293
economy. There appears to be a particularly close nexus between government agencies
and the business community within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area. There is a network between bay area cities and businesses, as evidenced
by similar membership between groups. The East Bay Green Corridor Partnership and
the Bay Area Climate Collaborative have several common members and represent a
relatively robust linkage between government-driven efforts, and business driven
a pproa c h e s to g re e n e c on om y a im s. This is no t t rue of the “ gr e e n c oll a re d j obs”
movement, which appears to not be incorporate of government players.
How is the institutional structure, both in terms of government actors and other
external stakeholders, reflected in the potential green employment within the
metropolitan statistical level? Through the methodology section described above, green
economy clusters can be established that draw together occupations, industries and
governmental action. There appears to be a link between these categories as discussed
below and summarized in the included table by particular green economy clusters.
First, occupations, industries, and policies aro und the “ g re e n buil ding a nd
c onst ruc ti on c lust e r” a re int e rc onne c t e d withi n the San F ra n c isco -Oakland-Freemont
Metropolitan Statistical Area. A variety of policies may account for the impetus around
such occupations and industries. Relevant policies include: City of San Francisco
Existing Building Retrofit program, the San Francisco Clean Energy Fund, Eastbay Clean
Energy Watch, Oakland Green building Ordinance, the Oakland Build it Green Program,
Oakland Construction and Debris Waste Ordinance, Oakland Civil Green building
Ordinance, and the City of Oakland Green Resources Center. Based upon industry data,
294
this has resulted in a total employment within this cluster of 197726 and a total number of
establishments of 2476. Proportionally, this cluster significant share of the total economy
totaling 11% of employment, and a very high 20% of establishments. The most
prominent industries include: commercial/industrial building; electrical contractors and
other wiring installation contractors; plumbing, heating and air-conditioning contractors;
engineering serves; and construction of building specialty trade contractors. At the
occupational level prevalent occupations demonstrating high location quotients include:
architects; architectural drafters; civil engineers; landscape architects; roofers; rough
carpenters; and urban and regional planners. Such occupations and industries appear to be
logically connected with the types of aggressive green building policies employed
throughout the MSA. Thus, activities in this cluster demonstrate the nexus between
institutional factors, and employment impacts at the sub-national scale.
Transportation and alternative fuel vehicles can also be defined as a potential area
of green economic activity within the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Within Oakland, transportation policies related to alternative fuel is
include d withi n the O a kl a nd Cl im a te A c ti on P lan. T he C it y of Sa n F ra n c isco’ s app ro a c h
is largely focused on municipal fleet purchases, and on cleaner fuels development
including biodiesel. A significantly smaller amount of green employment exists within
this cluster. When measured at the industry level, the total employment is 67143, and
total number of establishment is 6142. Taken as a proportion of the total employment and
establishments at the metropolitan statistical level, this is a relatively small proportion of
the total economy at 4% and 5 % respectively. Industries with the most prevalent
295
employment include: specialized freight trucking; general freight trucking; other
scientific and technical consulting services; automotive, mechanical, and electrical repair
and maintenance. Occupations identified with large location quotients include: bus
drivers, transit and intercity; freight forwarders; transportation engineers. Overall, there
appears to be less institutional emphasis on such a cluster, and less current employment
in this regard.
The “ W a ste, W a ste Ma n a ge ment, a nd Re c y c li n g ” c lust e r de mons tra tes a sim il a r
story in linking institutions, industries, and occupations. Several policies stand out
including the San Francisco Zero Waste Policy, and a variety of efforts headed by
Alameda County Waste Management Board. Hazardous materials and removal workers
are identified in the occupational analysis. The most prevalent industries include:
Environmental Consulting Services; Water and Several Line Related Construction; Solid
Waste Collection; Other Scientific and Consulting Services; and Engineering Services.
At the industry level, the aggregate number of employment within this sector totals
45185, and the aggregate number of establishments is 3130. As a proportion of total
employment and establishments within the metropolitan statistical area, this sectors
employment account for 5% of both employment and establishments in the metropolitan
statistical area. This is a small amount of the total employment within the MSA.
However, when compared to other metropolitan statistical areas with prevalent green
employment this is in fact notably high. According to this analysis, it amounts to twice
the number of employment when compared with the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
296
Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical
Area based upon shares of their metropolitan statistical level employment numbers.
Perhaps the most innovative and potentially expansive cluster related to the green
e c onom y is t he “ Environ menta l C ompl ianc e , S ustaina bil it y P lanning , a nd P oll uti on
P re ve nti on Cl uster .” The ve r y r ich a rr a y of e nviro nmental policies across all other
clusters is likely impacting employment here. Additionally, the SF Green Business
Program, and the Greenspace programs in the City of San Francisco may also be playing
a leading role here in defining opportunities in this sector. A large array of different
occupations were identified within this sector, potentially linked to the policies described
and incorporative of reaching compliance around many of the other environmental
policies throughout the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Specifically, occupations indentified include: green marketers; architectural/engineering
managers; water resource specialists; wholesale/retail buyers; energy auditors;
sustainability specialists; financial quantitative analysts; risk management specialists;
investment underwriters; Architects, ex. Landscape/naval; Landscape architects; Civil
engineers; Transportation engineers; Environmental engineers; Water/wastewater
engineers; Robotics technicians; Soil and plant scientists; Zoologists and wildlife
biologists; Chemists; Environmental scientists specialist; Climate change analysts;
Environmental restoration planners; Industrial ecologists; Remote sensing scientists;
Environmental economists; Urban and regional planners; Public relations specialists;
Securities and commodities traders; and Hazardous material removal workers. In total,
this cluster account for 8891 employees and 1578 establishments. Comparatively, this
297
cluster is a small subset of the overall economy, representing .05% of employees, and 1%
of total establishments.
“ Ene r g y G e ne r a ti on, R e n e wa ble E n e r g y , a nd En e r g y S tora ge ” is t he f inal gr e e n
economy cluster examined. A variety of policies have been enacted within the San
Francisco MSA. A variety of policies have been pursued in this regard including most
notably: Energy SF, SF Energy Watch; GoSolar SF; the Cleantech Task Force; the
Oakland Climate Action Plan. As measured at the industry level, economic activity
within this cluster is quite high. The total number of employees is measured at 283984, of
16% of total employment. The total number of establishments is much lower reflecting
the size class of such firms. The total number of establishment is modest and measured at
2094, or 2%.

Table 32:
San Francisco MSA: Linking Industry, Occupations, and Policies

Green
Economy
Cluster
Sample
Policies by
Green
Economy
Cluster
Prevalent Occupations Industry Data
Employment Establishments
Industry Categories with Highest
Employment
Green
Building and
Construction
Cluster
SF existing
Building
Retrofits
SF Clean
Energy
Fund
Eastbay
Green
Energy
Watch
Oakland
Green
Building
Ordinance
Oakland
Build It
Green
Program
Oakland
Const.
Debris
Waste
Oakland
Civil
Green
Building
Ord.
Oakland
Green
Resources
Center
 Architects
 Architectural drafters
 Civil engineers
 Landscape architects
 Roofers
 Rough Carpenters
 Urban and regional
planners
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 197726 24276
 Commercial/
Institutional
Building
Construction
 Electrical
Contractors and
Other Wiring
Installation
Contractors
 Plumbing, Heating
and Air-
Conditioning
Contractors
 Engineering
Services
 Construction of
Buildings
Specialty Trade
Contractors
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.1093 0.2049
298
Table 32, Continued
Transportation
and
Alternative
Fuel Vehicle
Oakland
Climate
Action Plan
SF Fleet
Purchases
SF grant
programs
 Bus drivers, transit and intercity
 Freight forwarders
 Transportation engineers
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster
671
43
614
2
 Specialized Freight
Trucking
 General Freight
Trucking
 Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
 Engineering Services
 Automotive
Mechanical and
Electrical Repair and
Maintenance

Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0371 0.0518
Waste, Waste
Management,
Recycling
SF Zero
Waste Policy
Alameda
County
Waste
Management
 Hazardous Materials Removal
Workers
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 45185 3130
 Environmental
Consulting Services
 Water and Sewer Line
and Related
Structures
Construction
 Solid Waste
Collection
 Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
 Engineering Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0250 0.0264
Environmental
Compliance,
Sustainability
Planning, and
Pollution
Prevention
SF Green
Business
Program
SF
Greenspace
Programs
 Green marketers
 Architectural/engineering
manager
 Water resource specialists
 Wholesale/retail buyers, no farm
 Energy auditors
 Sustainability specialists
 Financial quantitative analysts
 Risk management specialists
 Investment underwriters
 Architects, ex. Landscape/naval
 Landscape architects
 Civil engineers
 Transportation engineers
 Environmental engineers
 Water/wastewater engineers
 Robotics technicians
 Soil and plant scientists
 Zoologists and wildlife biologists
 Chemists
 Environmental scientists
specialist
 Climate change analysts
 Environmental restoration
planners
 Industrial ecologists
 Remote sensing scientists
 Environmental economists
 Urban and regional planners
 Public relations specialists
 Securities and commodities
traders
 Hazardous material removal
workers
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 8891 1578
 Survey and Mapping
Services
 Testing Laboratories
 Environmental
Consulting Services
Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0049 0.0133

299
Table 32, Continued
Energy
Generation,
Renewable
Energy,
Energy
Storage
Energy SF:
SF Energy
Watch
Energy SF:
GoSolar SF
SF
Cleantech
Task Force
Oakland
Climate
Action Plan
 Securities and
commodities traders
 Civil engineers
 Investment underwriters
 Energy
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 283984 2094
 Testing Laboratories
 Environmental
Consulting Services
 Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
 Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
Engineering Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.1569 0.0177

300
Table 33:
Green Jobs Regimes: Alliances and Coalitions in the San Francisco MSA

Green Collared Coalitions: Government-Driven
Efforts
Green Business Associations: Business, Nonprofit,
Government
Local Apollo Alliance Affiliate, Oakland
Climate Action Alliance
Alameda County Green Business Program
Alliance For West Oakland Development
America Works
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
(APEN)
Bay Localize
California Food Justice Coalition
California Interfaith Power and
LightCiviCorps
Causa Justa: Just Cause - CJJC
Center for Progressive Action - CPA
ClimateChangeEducation.org
Communities for a Better Environment
DIG Cooperative
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights - Green-
Collar Jobs Campaign
Environmental Conservation Options
Environmental Defense Fund
First Unitarian Church of Oakland
Food First/Institute for Food and Development
Policy
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives -
GAIA
Greenbelt Alliance
Greenlining Institute
Greywater Action
Grind for the Green
HOPE Collaborative
IBEW - International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Union Local 595
ILWU- International Longshore and
Warehouse Union Local 6
inNative
Local Clean Energy Alliance - LCEA
Mandela Marketplace
Mobilization for Climate Justice West
Movement Generation
Northgate Environmental Management
Oakland Food Connection
Oakland Resilience Alliance
Pacific Institute
Planting Justice
Progressive Jewish Alliance
PUEBLO
Rising Sun Energy Center
Sierra Club
Sun Light & Power
Sungevity
Sustainable Earth Initiative
Sustainable Economies Law Center
The Workforce Collaborative
TransForm
Urban Habitat
US Green Building Council
Walk Oakland Bike Oakland
Wellstone Democratic Club
West Oakland Environmental Indicators
Project - WOEIP

Your Solar Connection

Oakland Climate
Action Plan
AC Transit
Alameda County
Beyond Compliance
Pacific Institute
City of Berkeley
City of Hayward
Oakland Climate Action
Coalition
QuEST, Energy
Solutions
StopWaste.Org

East Bay Green
Corridor Partnership
(EBGCP)
Mayor of Oakland
Mayor of Berkeley
Mayor of Richmond
Mayor of Meryville
UC Berkeley
Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
City of Albany
City of Alameda
City of San Leandro
City of El Centro
Peralth Community
College District
Contral Costa
Community College
District
Cal State East Bay

San Francisco Clean
Tech Council
CalCEF
Cleantech Group &
Cleantech Venture
Network
Agile Software
Sigma Capital Group
Foerster
Natural Logic Inc.
US Renewables Group
Carlyle Venture Partners
I and II
WR Hambrecht +
Company
Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights (EBC)
University of California,
Berkeley
Environmental
Entrepreneurs (E2)
SF Community Power
Cooperative
Paladin
Clean Edge, Inc.
Environmental Capital
Group
The Women's
Technology Cluster
Nth Power
Aqua International

Membership US Green Building
Council:
2rw Consultants, Inc.
2vDesign
3Degrees
3QC
A Studio Green
AAA Home & Building Inspections
Abacus Property Solutions
Abide International
Able Services
ABM
ABM Janitorial
Accelerated Energy Solutions, Inc.
ACCO Engineered Systems
AECOM
Aedis Architects
Affiliated Engineers
AHA Project Development
Ahtna Government Services
Corporation
AIA National
Airco Commercial Services, Inc.
Alacrity Plumbing Company
Alain Pinel Realtors
Alameda County Waste
Management Authority
Alameda County, GSA-TSD
Albay Construction Co.
Alex Neuhold Consulting
ALFA TECH
Allen Land Design
Allen Matkins
Allied Container Systems
Allied Waste Services
Allsteel
Alpha Air Balancing Agency, Inc.
Amberix
Amberix
Ambiant Energy
Ambleside Logic
American Chiller Service, Inc.
American Institute of Steel
Construction
American Mechanical
American Modular
AMS
AMS
Anastasi Design
AndaCommunications
Anderson Brule Architects
Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc.
Anderson-Brule Architects
Anova Nexus Architects
Anshen + Allen Architects
AP+I Design
Apexx Enterprises
APP-TECH Inc.
April Philips Design Works, Inc.
ARC
ARCADIS
archit studio
Architectural Energy Corporation
Architectural Resources Group
Architectural Services Division
County of Sacramento

Membership BALLE
network
A2B Strategy
Advanced Home Energy
Alameda County Green
Business Program
Alchemy and Commerce
Alexander Sheets Saikley
Ann Ba3tz
Another Bullwinken\l
Show
Armstrong Taxation and
Accounting
Balin Financial
Ben Ringler, MFT
Berkeley Acupuncture
Center
Breathing Room
Organizing and
Sustainability Consulting
Cal Dining-UC Berkeley
Caramia Design
Cecilia Gunning Interior
Center for Creativity and
Work
Communication
Management
Cultivating Capital
Cutting Edge Capital
DeYoe Wealth
Management
Ecology Center
Effective Assets
Environmental and Public
Health Consulting
EnviroSystems Group
G Marketing
Give Something Back
Office Supplies
High Spirits Event Planning
Hiroko Kurihara Designs
Homeopathy and Integral
Health Care
Institute for Environmental
Entrepreneurship
Myriah Shanks
New Resource Bank
Nina Homisak Design
Noble Café LLC
OnePacific Coast Bank
Paradise by Design
Pre-Paid Legal Services
Rasa Travel/East Bay
Green Tours
Rubicon Programs, Inc.
Sage financial Netowrk
Sarah Ray Design
Sarai
Solar Mosaic
Sonoma State University
Step Into Sustainability
Stopwaste.org
Sunny Brooks
Sustainable Technology
Integration Partners
Swans Cohousing

Bay Area Climate
Collaborative
Bank of America
Pacific Gas & Electric
Better Place
Coulomb Technologies
Cypress EnviroSystems
ECOtality
Genentech
Green Charge Networks
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
Serious Energy
SilverSpring Networks
Webcor
California Public
Utilities Commission
California Energy
Commission
San Francisco
San Jose
Oakland
East Bay Green Corridor
Alameda County
Campbell
Cupertino
Fremont
Hayward
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Redwood City
Saratoga
San Mateo County
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Environmental Defense
Fund
Bay Area Council
California League of
Conservation Voters
David & Lucile Packard
Foundation
EV Communities
Alliance
Joint Venture: Silicon
Valley
Lisa & Douglas
Goldman Fund
Marin Community
Foundation
Silicon Valley
Leadership Group
SolarTech
Sustainable Silicon
Valley

Business Council on
Climate Change
Bay Area Climate
Collaborative
Bay Area Council

301
Table 33, Continued
Local Clean Energy Alliance
Bay Area Community Land
Trust
Bay Localize
Cal Inflector / Sun Energy
Clean Coalition
Cool Earth Solar
Energy Preparedness
Green Retirement Plans, Inc.
Pacific Environment
Sierra Club Bay Chapter
Sightworks
AndaPR
Aurora School
Bay Area Healthy 880
Communities
Beacon Day School
Berkeley Oil Independence
Task Force
Berkeley Sourcing Group, LLC
Brightline Defense Project
Cal Inflector
Center for Community,
Democracy and Ecology
(CCDE)
Center for Progressive Action
Center for Safe Energy
Citizens Against Pollution
Climate Corps Bay Area
Communities For a Better
Environment
Connect the Dots
Cooperative Community
Energy
Crunchy Foods
Culture Change
DIG Coop
East Bay Cohousing /
Cohousing California
East Bay Green Tours
Ecocity Builders
Ecology Center
ElementalLED
Ella Baker Center
Empowerment WORKS
Generation Green
Geoffrey Holton and Associates
Global Exchange
Green Cafe Network
Green Contractor Guide
Green Eco Tek.com
Greenhouse Collective.com
Kyoto USA
Local Power
Mainstreet Moms Organize or
Bust (theMMOB.org)
Malonga Ctr. For the Arts
Tenants Assoc.
martinHerzfeld
Moss Beach Renewable Energy
New Light Energy Design
Nomad Cafe
North Coast Solar
Northern California Land Trust
Oakland Community Action
Network
Oakland Food Connection
One Block Off the Grid
Open Neighborhoods
Our City
OvatteJalSerSj
Progressive Democrats of
America East Bay Chapter
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Rainforest Action Network
RE-volv
Real Goods Solar
Richmond SPOKES
San Francisco Community
Power
Etc.

Partners
Norcal
Future 500
PowerLight
CH2M HILL
Climate Group
Pacific Growth Equities
ArchWorks
Argo Insurance Brokers
Argo Insurance Brokers, Inc.
Art Institute of Pittsburgh
Artemis Commercial
Artichoke Design Company
Ascent Builders
Ashforth Pacific
ASSA ABLOY Door Security
Solutions
Association of Energy
Engineers
Atelier Ten
Attorney
Auerbach + Associates
Auerbach Glasow French
Augmentum
Auriemma Design
Aurum Consulting Engineers
Monterey Bay, Inc
Ausonio Inc
Autodesk Inc
Avid Energy
B Birmingham,Inc
B Metal Fabrication, Inc.
Bahr Architects Inc
BAR Architects
Barcelon & Jang
BASS Electric
Basse New Media
Bay Architects Associates
BCA Architects
BCCI Construction Co
be-4-green
Bechtel
Beckner Contracting &
Management
BELFOR
Belli Architectural Group
BELS
Betmar Construction
Better World Group
BetterWorld Telecom
Biagini Waste Reductions
Systems, Inc.
Bill Gould Design
BKF
BKi / GreenRise Consultants
Blach Construction Inc.
Black Horse Construction
Blackburn Engineering
CADA
Cal Maritime
Cal State East Bay
CalAg, LLC
CalAg, LLC
CaliChi Design Group
California Capital Realty
California College of the Arts
California Plus Engineering,
Inc.
California School of Garden
Design
California State University
Sacramento
Cambiios Design +
Management
Capital Engineering
Consultants
Capital Pacific
Capital Partners Development
Company, LLC
Carneghi-Blum & Partners, Inc.
Carpet Cleaner
Carver & Schicketanz
Architects
Cassidy Turley
Cavallini Construction, Inc.
Cavazos Environmental
Consulting, Inc.
CAW Architects
Etc
T h e B udd y C l u b C hil dr e n ’ s Shows
The Gertonson Institute
US Treasury Department
Wild Heart Enterprises: Life
and Career Coah
Wishnew Consulting
Working Ethics
Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
BOMA
California Academy of
Sciencies
Cal SBDC-Northern Regional
Network
Chinadialogue
David Brower Center
Dominican University of CA
Environmental Defense Fund
Greenhouse Gas Management
Institute
North Bay Leadership Council
Net Impact
Plug in America
Presidio Graduate School
SF Environment
SPUR
Stopwaste.org
Sustainable Industries
Sustainable Life Industries
United National Global
Compact Cities Programme
PLUS over 100 private
businesses

302
In conclusion, the analysis above demonstrates the potential linkages between the
institutional context, and the green employment that is exhibited within the San
Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan statistical area. Such an analysis provides a
framework through which green economic activity can be understood. The San
Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area may be a locale particularly
well suited for green economic growth given the historical commitment to environmental
preservation and a relatively high level of resources as reflected by high median income.
Again, a variety of alliances and cross-cutting efforts are present within the San
Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area that may provide further
impetus for future growth around the green economy within this metropolitan statistical
area. Green employment, in this sense, is a logical output and future strategy for the San
Francisco-Oakland Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area into the near future.

2. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area
The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area has a high
prevalence of green employment. As indicated in the case study selection above, it
appears to be home to a relative prevalence of green employment by a range of measures
and projections. What might account for the high prevalence of green employment
within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area? The metropolitan
a re a a nd incor po ra ted c it ies’ ba sic c h a r a c ter ist ics, a s desc ribe d in the first section,
suggests that this area would in fact be ripe for this sort of development. Often seen as a
303
re lativel y pro g r e ssi ve a n d we a lt h y loca le, th e a r e a c ould be se e n a s the t y pe of “ plac e ” well suited for green economic growth.
How might green employment, in aggregate, be distributed through this
metropolitan statistical area? How might the prevalence of green economic activities and
opportunities vary within metropolitan statistical areas? The data below summarizes
possible indicators of green jobs, Data was ascertained at a city level (as of 2009) through
the database at National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). The cities included are
those tha t ar e identifie d a s “pr incipa l citi e s” b a se d upon the c e nsus bur e a u’ s de fini tions
of metropolitan statistical areas.

Table 34:
Geographical Distribution of Green Employment Indicators Boston-Cambridge-
Quincy MSA
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Population
Median
Income
Environme
ntal Orgs.
Sustainabi
lity
Rankings
Boston 589,141 39,629 61 1
Cambridge 101,355 47,979 13 0
Quincy 88,025 47,121 1 0
Newton 83,829 86,052 4 0
Framingham 66,910 54,288 3 0
Waltham 59,226 54,010 3 0
Peabody 48,129 54,829 0 0
Total 1,036,615 85 1
Average 57,380 Per Capita

1. Economic Development Analysis
a.Occupational Analysis for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
What green occupations are prevalent within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area? Occupational analysis of the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
304
Metropolitan Statistical Area can identify and indicate points of comparative advantage
and economic activity broadly around the green economy. Such an approach enables a
more detailed examination of areas of green economic opportunities and areas of
potential comparative advantage in the wide array of occupations and corollary industries
that could be a subset of the broad concept of a green economy.
First, understating the distribution of occupations within the Boston-Cambridge-
Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area provides a contextual background through which to
understand the green economy. Table 35 shows those occupations that have a 1.5 or
higher location quotient, organized by 2- digit SOC codes with definitions of the sectors.
Additionally, I only keep those 2-digit categories with more than 4 categories as a start,
enabling me to eliminate areas where there is not a clear agglomeration of economic
activity, and therefore not a clear indication of potential competitive advantage within
this spectrum of occupations.
The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA, as indicated below, has several agglomerations
of groups or clustering of occupations. San Francisco boasts a multitude of opportunities
in higher-skilled areas. In particular, many occupational categories within the business
and financial operations occupational group exhibited location quotients that were greater
than 1.5. Additionally, business and financial operations occupations, computer and
mathematical operations, architectural and engineering occupations, and life, physical
and social sciences occupations likewise exhibit high location quotients and thus higher
concentration of these particular occupations within the metropolitan statistical area. A
305
large number of management occupations are present in the MSA, indicating a range of
opportunities in higher-skilled employment.
Table 35:
Occupational Analysis Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
Soc
Code Occupation Title
Total
Employment
Location
Quotient
Management Occupations
11-1011 Chief Executives 12,010 2.312
11-2021 Marketing Managers 6,360 2.033
11-2031 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers 1,810 1.781
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers 12,250 2.235
11-3031 Financial Managers 16,030 1.762
11-3061 Purchasing Managers 1,900 1.532
11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers 1,270 2.241
11-9031 Education Administrators, Preschool and Childcare Center/Program 1,660 1.720
11-9033 Education Administrators, Postsecondary 4,400 2.098
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers 5,640 1.701
11-9121 Natural Sciences Managers 2,050 2.353
11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers 3,650 1.650
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1021 Buyers and Purchasing Agents, Farm Products 400 2.082
13-1032 Insurance Appraisers, Auto Damage 340 1.767
13-1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists 3,160 1.620
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists* 10,080 2.028
13-2051 Financial Analysts 12,670 3.021
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors 5,510 1.867
13-2061 Financial Examiners 1,250 2.368
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 118,190 1.895
15-1111 Computer and Information Research Scientists 1,390 2.935
15-1132 Software Developers, Applications 23,460 2.474
15-1133 Software Developers, Systems Software 26,900 3.738
15-1141 Database Administrators 3,120 1.576
15-1150 Computer Support Specialists 16,980 1.544
15-1179
Information Security Analysts, Web Developers, and Computer Network
Architects 7,120 1.541
15-2011 Actuaries 720 2.074
15-2021 Mathematicians 90 1.619
15-2031 Operations Research Analysts 1,920 1.624
15-2041 Statisticians 1,010 2.338
306
Table 35, Continued
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval 3,480 2.087
17-1012 Landscape Architects 550 1.730
17-2031 Biomedical Engineers 1,340 4.608
17-2041 Chemical Engineers 1,090 2.005
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers 3,510 2.758
17-2071 Electrical Engineers 7,300 2.583
17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 4,280 1.686
17-3023 Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians 5,960 2.123
17-3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians 940 3.111
17-3025 Environmental Engineering Technicians 550 1.564
17-3026 Industrial Engineering Technicians 2,330 1.988
Life, Physical and Social Science Occupations
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 37,280 1.844
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists 2,240 5.179
19-1022 Microbiologists 1,460 4.201
19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Other 960 1.662
19-1041 Epidemiologists 370 4.100
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 7,890 4.440
19-2021 Atmospheric and Space Scientists 310 1.912
19-2031 Chemists 3,150 2.069
19-2032 Materials Scientists 390 2.439
19-3011 Economists 410 1.640
19-3032 Industrial-Organizational Psychologists 140 5.101
19-3039 Psychologists, All Other 310 1.522
19-3041 Sociologists 200 2.773
19-4021 Biological Technicians 4,540 3.279
19-4031 Chemical Technicians 1,830 1.625
19-4051 Nuclear Technicians 230 1.717
19-4061 Social Science Research Assistants 2,210 4.497
Education, Training and Library Occupations
25-1053 Environmental Science Teachers, Postsecondary 190 1.948
25-1054 Physics Teachers, Postsecondary 390 1.507
25-1062 Area, Ethnic, and Cultural Studies Teachers, Postsecondary 580 3.382
25-1063 Economics Teachers, Postsecondary 510 2.050
25-1065 Political Science Teachers, Postsecondary 470 1.547
25-1067 Sociology Teachers, Postsecondary 570 1.721

307
Table 35, Continued
25-1112 Law Teachers, Postsecondary 930 3.339
25-1121 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers, Postsecondary 3,400 2.059
25-2053 Special Education Teachers, Middle School 3,100 1.622
25-3021 Self-Enrichment Education Teachers 5,460 1.785
25-4011 Archivists 180 1.870
25-4012 Curators 510 2.543
25-4013 Museum Technicians and Conservators 360 1.835
25-9011 Audio-Visual and Multimedia Collections Specialists 460 3.152
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, Media
27-1011 Art Directors 870 1.532
27-1013 Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators 380 1.921
27-1014 Multimedia Artists and Animators 790 1.560
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other 300 2.068
27-1029 Designers, All Other 260 1.603
27-2012 Producers and Directors 5,570 3.514
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists 7,800 1.821
27-3041 Editors 3,520 1.867
27-3042 Technical Writers 1,910 2.288
27-4011 Audio and Video Equipment Technicians 1,900 2.103
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
29-1021 Dentists, General 2,540 1.525
29-1063 Internists, General 2,020 2.119
29-1065 Pediatricians, General 1,130 1.976
29-1122 Occupational Therapists 3,070 1.613
29-1199 Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners, All Other 1,430 2.401
29-2011 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists 4,960 1.587
29-2012 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians 4,670 1.571
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians 850 1.867
Personal Care and Services Occupations
39-3093 Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room Attendants 780 2.375
39-4011 Embalmers 380 2.943
39-5094 Skincare Specialists 1,060 1.841
39-6012 Concierges 810 2.173
39-9031 Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors 6,750 1.575
Sales and Related Occupations
41-3031 Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents 8,120 1.548
41-3041 Travel Agents 2,270 1.684

308
Table 35, Continued
41-4011 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products 14,720 2.033
41-9031 Sales Engineers 3,100 2.470
43-4011 Brokerage Clerks 2,930 2.681
Production Occupations
51-2011 Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers 1,640 2.376
51-2022 Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers 6,330 1.848
51-2023 Electromechanical Equipment Assemblers 3,440 3.695
51-4193 Plating and Coating Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 920 1.584
51-6042 Shoe Machine Operators and Tenders 220 3.674
51-6051 Sewers, Hand 280 2.556
51-8092 Gas Plant Operators 490 1.905
51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians 470 1.870
51-9141 Semiconductor Processors 1,080 2.709
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3011 Ambulance Drivers and Attendants, Except Emergency Medical Technicians 610 1.648
53-3041 Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs 5,780 1.879
53-5022 Motorboat Operators 70 1.540
53-6021 Parking Lot Attendants 3,600 1.520
53-7041 Hoist and Winch Operators 80 1.535

Green Occupational Analysis
How does this occupational distribution specifically relate to activities within the
green economy? I now engage in green occupational research through the methodology
identifie d a bove in ord e r to deve lop a pic ture o f a “ gr e e n o c c up a ti ona l clust e r” f o r the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. Occupations identified by 6-
digit level SOC codes with high location quotients identified above, can be matched to
the potential green occupations that have been identified and included within the potential
green occupational framework developed in the prior section. Green occupations within
the MSA that can be identified through this method are further described by the training
leve l def ined a s eithe r “ incr e a s e d de mand o c c up a ti ons” “ gr e e n e nha n c e d s kil ls” or “ Ne w
309
a nd Eme r g in g ” Th e dist ributi on of potential g r e e n oc c upa ti ons, or the id e nti fie d “ g r e e n
oc c upa ti ona l clust e r” is l ist e d in T able 36.
Green occupational analysis of the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan
Statistical Area reveals a range of opportunities in the green economy that are
significantly different from those in other locales, such as the Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area. Generally speaking, there are significant
numbers of higher-skilled occupations in Boston. This may be a benefit in terms of
fostering innovation. On the other hand, data reveals limited opportunities in terms of
manufacturing or construction with the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan
Statistical Area. This is very different than the occupational breakdown of other
metropolitan statistical areas such as the Los Angeles-Santa Ana-Long Beach
Metropolitan Statistical Area. This may equal a smaller spectrum of opportunities for
“ gr e e n- c oll a r e d jobs .”
In terms of the taxonomy developed here, several occupations identified below
fall in the “new and emerging category. ” Identified occupations according to this analysis
include: biofeules/biodiesel technology; product development managers; water resources
specialists; and robotics technicians. They thus, may be also toggled to a more
innovative, high tech strategy towards green economic growth. Again, this may be a
completely different picture than Los Angles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA ’s distribution
of green employment.
For the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA, engineering and architectural
occupations appear to be a particularly strong occupational cluster within the broader
310
“ gr e e n e c onom y ” c lust e r. S pe c ific o c c up a ti ons i nc lude: a rc hit e c ts ex c e pt l a ndsca pe a nd
naval; landscape architects; electrical engineers; electronics engineers; electrical
engineering technicians; electro-mechanical technicians; environmental engineering
technicians; and industrial engineering technicians. Within engineering, many of the jobs
are related to “ gr e e n e nh a nc e d ski ll s” oc c upa ti ona l ca te g or y . This may be beneficial from
the workforce training perspective, in that the workforce development community needs
to provide re-training, rather than starting from scratch in wholly new occupational types.
In a related vein, there is already a strong educational structure that helps to bolster this
effort. Specifically, many opportunities may be directly oriented around engineering
opportunities. On the other ha nd, “ New and emerging jobs ” in an existing cluster may
provide significant strength from an economic development perspective, moving forward.
This, thus, may be a key point of comparative advantage. Green jobs strategies here
should be focused around clean tech strategies in order to more fully take advantage of
the high-tech competitive advantage in the metropolitan statistical area.

311
Table 36: Green Occupations Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA

Soc
Code Occupation Title Increased Demand Green Enhanced Skills
New and
Emerging
Management Occupations
11-
2021 Marketing Managers
11-2021.00
Marketing Managers

11-
9041
Architectural and Engineering
Managers
11-9041.00
Engineering Managers
11-9041.01
Biofuels/Bio
diesel
Technology
and Product
Developmen
t Managers
11-
9121 Natural Sciences Managers
11-9121.00
Natural Sciences Manager

11-9121.02
Water
Resources
Specialist

Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-
1021
Buyers and Purchasing Agents,
Farm Products
13-1021.00
Purchasing Agents and Buyers,
Farm Products

13-
2051 Financial Analysts
31-2051.00
Financial Analysts

Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-
1011
Architects, Except Landscape and
Naval
17-1011.00
Architects Except Landscape
and Naval

17-
1012 Landscape Architects
17-1012.00
Landscape Architects

17-
2071 Electrical Engineers
17-2072.00
Electrical Engineers

17-
2072
Electronics Engineers, Except
Computer
17-2072.00
Electronics Engineers,
Except Computer

17-
3023
Electrical and Electronics
Engineering Technicians
17-3023.01
Electrical Engineering
Technicians
17-3023.03
Electrical Engineering
Technicians

17-
3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians
17-3024.00
Electro-Mechanical
Technicians
17-3024.01
Robotics
Technicians
17-
3025
Environmental Engineering
Technicians
17-3025.00
Environmental Engineering
Technicians

17-
3026 Industrial Engineering Technicians
17-3026.00
Industrial Engineering
Technicians

Life, Physical and Social Science Occupations
19-
2031 Chemists
19-2031.00
Chemists

19-
2032 Materials Scientists
19-2032.00
Materials Scientists

19-
4031 Chemical Technicians
19-4031.00
Chemical technicians

Production Occupations
51-
2022
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Assemblers
51-2022.00
Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Assemblers

312

In conclusion, the above examination sought to provide an occupational analysis
of the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. The analysis broadly
seeks to identify opportunities in occupations that may be connected to the green
economy, and the broader desire to provide employment opportunities locally in
environmentally preservative occupations. In order to identify such opportunities, the
location quotient was utilized as an indication of areas of opportunity and then linked to
corollary 6-digit SOC codes specifically relevant to the green economy. First, the overall
occupational makeup of the MSA was identified. Second, a framework was employed in
order to identify opportunities particular to the green economy. The following section
utilizes industry —based analysis to further identify green economic activity within the
metropolitan statistical area.

b. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA Profile: Industry Analysis
Building on the occupational analysis above, industry-based analysis provides another
critical point of analysis within a green economic framework. Industry analysis utilizes
County Business Patterns data to understand the distribution of employment in the
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA. Through this approach, I identify areas of potential
comparative advantage through the identification of clusters within the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) taxonomy.
First, table 38 summarizes all industry categories by 2-digit NAICS codes. Table 37
provides both the total number of establishments, as well as the total annual payroll as an
313
indicator of magnitude of different types of industry sub-sectors. Second, Table 38
displays the location quotients for industries at the 2-digit NAICS level. Taken together,
this provides a brief snapshot of the industry makeup of the metropolitan statistical area.

314

Table 37:
County Business Patterns Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA

2009 MSA Business Patterns
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
Major Industry
Industr
y Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay
period including March 12
First-quarter
payroll ($1,000)
Annual
payroll
($1,000)
Total
establishme
nts
------ 'Total' 2251076 32605516 126752776 122467
11----
'Forestry, fishing, hunting,
and agriculture support' 666 6523 29117 156
21---- 'Mining' 491 5709 28041 45
22---- 'Utilities' 8817 262603 922776 168
23---- 'Construction' 84270 1175176 5075194 11689
31---- 'Manufacturing' 159618 2474742 9938530 4736
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 102499 1938247 7610513 6480
44---- 'Retail trade' 244844 1518966 6377865 16594
48----
'Transportation &
warehousing' 55591 536916 2213324 2499
51---- 'Information' 87665 2057495 7696518 2858
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 178630 5891969 18530569 7393
53----
'Real estate & rental &
leasing' 35665 471927 1960229 4730
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 223575 5044555 20193936 17170
55----
'Management of companies &
enterprises' 74818 2164162 7881929 968
56----
'Admin, support, waste mgt,
remediation services' 139109 1320695 5499880 7034
61---- 'Educational services' 153507 1524363 6193766 1941
62----
'Health care and social
assistance' 386611 4435081 18985535 12631
71----
'Arts, entertainment &
recreation' 37104 298340 1329250 2132
72----
'Accommodation & food
services' 187419 816600 3528620 11091
81----
'Other services (except public
administration)' 89618 657668 2741285 11815
99---- 'Unclassified establishments' 559 3779 15899 337

315
Table 38:
Location Quotients Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA

Industry
Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay period
including March 12
US Total
Employment
Location
Quotient
------ 'Total' 2251076 114509626
11----
'Forestry, fishing, hunting, and
agriculture support' 666 153829 0.220235767
21---- 'Mining' 491 604653 0.041307329
22---- 'Utilities' 8817 641552 0.699102437
23---- 'Construction' 84270 5967128 0.718388677
31---- 'Manufacturing' 159618 11632956 0.697981028
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 102499 5827769 0.894682902
44---- 'Retail trade' 244844 14802767 0.841392044
48---- 'Transportation & warehousing' 55591 4159604 0.679836281
51---- 'Information' 87665 3288109 1.356225387
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 178630 6171240 1.472427094
53---- 'Real estate & rental & leasing' 35665 2036590 0.890821028
54----
'Professional, scientific & technical
services' 223575 7839965 1.450644361
55----
'Management of companies &
enterprises' 74818 2853450 1.333790642
56----
'Admin, support, waste mgt,
remediation services' 139109 9060987 0.78096498
61---- 'Educational services' 153507 3200553 2.43980434
62---- 'Health care and social assistance' 386611 17531142 1.121801038
71---- 'Arts, entertainment & recreation' 37104 2010339 0.938865265
72---- 'Accommodation & food services' 187419 11443293 0.833133191
81----
'Other services (except public
administration)' 89618 5264429 0.865955975
99---- 'Unclassified establishments' 559 N/A N/A

Two-digit NAICS codes with location quotients greater than one are summarized
in the table below in order to identify those industry sub-sets that may have a
comparative advantage within this particular MSA. These are areas where the broader
cluster shows some agglomeration potential. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA ’s in dustry
constellations are relatively narrow in scope and largely on the higher-skilled end
including high numbers in finance and insurance; professional, scientific, and technical
services, educational services; management of companies and enterprises; educational
316
services; and health care and social assistance. Conversely, there are not high location
quotients exhibited in manufacturing and in construction —areas that may tend to provide
lower-skilled employment opportunities.

Table 39:
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA Location Quotients Greater than 1
Industry
Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay period
including March 12
US Total
Employment
Location
Quotient
------ 'Total' 2251076 114509626
51---- 'Information' 87665 3288109 1.356225387
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 178630 6171240 1.472427094
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 223575 7839965 1.450644361
55----
'Management of companies &
enterprises' 74818 2853450 1.333790642
61---- 'Educational services' 153507 3200553 2.43980434
62---- 'Health care and social assistance' 386611 17531142 1.121801038

How can green industries be identified within the existing NAICS taxonomy? As
discusse d a bove , the re is no si ng le “ indus tr y ” th a t enc a psul a tes th e “ g r e e n e c onom y , ” or
the overarching desire by governments and nonprofit organizations to foster green jobs
wi thi n c omm unit ies. D ra wing to g e the r a “ gr e e n e c onom y indus tr y c lust e r” r e quire s
strategic integration of diverse NAICS codes across industry silos that determine where
such opportunities lie within the NAICS taxonomy.
Table 40 summarizes the results of such a framework, developed in the
methodology section above, of potential green economic activity within the existing
NAICS Taxonomy. Information on total employment and total establishments is garnered
317
at the 4-digit NAICS level. Quantification of total establishment is significant in
providing the total number of firms within the locale. Quantification of total employees is
likewise important as it demonstrates the number of employment opportunities for
constituents and is therefore a critical value from a workforce development.
Several areas of potential opportunities emerge from this industry-based analysis.
Engineering and business professional services may be an area of opportunity in the
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. For example, as indicated in
the table below, opportunities include: engineering services with 23861 employees,
testing laboratories with 2231, environmental consulting services with 2233 employees,
other scientific and technical consulting services with 3084 employees, research and
development in biotechnology with 10850 employees.
Although construction was not noted as a high location quotient at the two-digit
NAICS level, several of the areas identified below in construction do have considerable
numbers of employment and employees. Potential industries that exhibit significant
employment numbers include: construction of building; new single-family housing
construction; new multifamily housing construction; new housing operative builders;
residential remodelers; industrial building construction; commercial and institutional
building construction; new housing operative builders; residential remodelers; industrial
building construction; commercial and industrial building construction; specialty trade
contractors; electrical contractors and other wiring installation contractors; pluming,
heating, and air-conditioning contractors; finish carpentry contractors; all other specialty
contractors; and roofing contractors. As it relates to the green economy, opportunities
318
may be specifically related to green building policies in the City of Boston. Other
industries in this regard include: architectural services with 6071 employees; landscape
architectural services with 962 employees; and industrial design services with 312
employees.
In addition to the opportunities discussed above, there are also some areas of
limitation for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. There are
limited opportunities in the manufacturing sector. This is important to note and different
from the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area context
where manufacturing is a source of new jobs. Within manufacturing, the employment
and establishment numbers that do suggest some potential green economic activity my
focus on t hose a r e a s r e lat e d to g r e e n buil din g . I n p a rticula r, “ ve nti lation, he a ti ng , a ir
c ondit ioni ng , a nd c omm e rc ial re fr i g e r a ti on e quip ment manuf a c turin g” ha s 1014
e mpl o y e e s, “he a ti ng e qui pment” ha s 235 e mpl o y e e s” , “ r e sidenti a l ele c tric l ig hti ng fix ture man uf a c turin g” ha s 256 e mpl o y e e s.

319
Table 40:
Green Occupational Analysis Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
Green Economy
area/sector
Industry
Sector (2-
digit NAICS)
NAIC
S
Description [notes]

Total
Employees
Total
Establishments
Green Building
and Energy
Efficiency
22 – Utilities 2211 Electric Power
Generation,
Transmission &
Distribution [Energy
conservation planning &
consulting.]
6611 95
2212 Natural Gas
Distribution
N/A 40
23 –
Construction
236 Construction of Buildings 18409 3266
2361
15
New Single-Family
Housing Construction
(except Operative
Builders)
1984 524
2361
16
New Multifamily
Housing Construction
(except Operative
Builders)
N/A 57
2361
17
New Housing
Operative Builders
1006 281
2361
18
Residential Remodelers 5774 1801
2362
10
Industrial Building
Construction
554 48
2362
20
Commercial and
Institutional Building
Construction
7485 551
238 Specialty Trade
Contractors (incl.
Electrical Contractors)
58757 7803

320
Table 40, Continued

2382
10
Electrical Contractors and Other
Wiring Installation Contractors
13308 1577
2382
20
Pluming, Heating and Air-
Conditioning Contractors
24686 1831
2383
50
Finish Carpentry Contractors 2035 453
2389
90
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors 2420 554
2389
90
Roofing Contractors 2420 554
31-33 –
Manufacturing
3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing
1014 26
3334
14
Heating Equipment (except Warm Air
Furnaces) Manufacturing
235 9
3351
10
Electric Lamp Bulb/Parts Mnf N/A N/A
3351
21
Residential Electric Lighting Fixture
Mnf
256 6
3351
22
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Lighting Fixture Mnf
N/A 6
3351
29
Other Lighting Equipment Mnf 119 8
3353
11
Power, Distribution, and Specialty
Transformer Manufacturing
N/A 8
42 –
Wholesalers
4237
20
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers
1531 126

321
Table 40, Continued

53 – Real
Estate and
Rental and
Leasing
5313
11
Residential Property Managers 9113 790
5313
12
Nonresidential Property Managers 3149 328
54 – Bus.
Prof.
5413
10
Architectural Services 6071 632
5413
20
Landscape Architectural Services 961 150
5413
30
Engineering Services 23861 1176
5413
40
Drafting Services 81 20
5413
50
Building Inspection Services 151 54
5414
20
Industrial Design Services 312 42
5416
20
Environmental Consulting Services 2233 211
92 – Public
Administration
921 Cities and Counties N/A N/A
924 Administration of Environmental Programs N/A N/A
Biofuels/Farming 11 –
Agriculture,
forestry,
fishing and
hunting
1119
98
All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming N/A N/A
1125
19
Other Aquaculture N/A N/A
1131
10
Timber Tract Operations N/A N/A
1132
10
Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest
Products
N/A 2
1151
1
Support Activities for Crop Production N/A 9
1153
10
Support Activities for Forestry 60 11
31-33 –
Manufacturing
3112
23
Other Oilseed Processing N/A 1
3112
25
Fats and Oils Refining and Blending N/A N/A

322
Table 40, Continued

3116
13
Rendering and Meat
Byproduct
Processing
N/A 2
3252
21
Cellulosic Organic
Fiber Manufacturing
N/A 2
3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer,
and Other
Agricultural
Chemical
Manufacturing
N/A 10
3332
98
All Other Industrial
Machinery
Manufacturing
1186 26
54 – Bus. Prof. 5413
30
Engineering Services 23861 1176
5413
80
Testing Laboratories 2231 104
5416
20
Environmental
Consulting Services
2233 211
5416
90
Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
3084 337
5417
11
Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
10850 236
92 – Public
Administration
9241
20
Administration of
Conservation
Programs

Transportation/
Alternative Fuel
22 – Utilities 221122 Electric Power
Distribution
4214 68
221210 Natural Gas
Distribution
N/A 40
31-33 –
Manufacturing
334512 Automatic
Environmental
Control
Manufacturing for
Residential,
Commercial, and
Appliance Use
314 8
335312 Motor and
Generator
Manufacturing
N/A 12
336 Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing
4919 101

323
Table 40, Continued

44 – Retail 441100 Automobile
dealers [Service
departments.]
15547 627
447190 Other
Gasoline
Stations1
2951 586
48-49 –
Transportation
and
warehousing
4841 General
Freight Trucking
5952 450
4842 Specialized
Freight Trucking
4502 465
4851 Urban Transit
Systems [Includes
commuter rail
systems.]
2803 28
4852 Interurban
and Rural Bus
Transportation
280 11
488310 Port and
Harbor
Operations
N/A 2
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering
Services
23861 1176
541370 Survey and
Mapping
Services
632 130
541380 Testing
Laboratories
2231 104
541614 Process,
Physical
Distribution, and
Logistics
Consulting
Services [Relates
to logistics.]
1856 135
541620 Environmental
Consulting
Services
2233 211
541690 Other
Scientific and
Technical
Consulting
Services
3084 337
81 – Other
Services
811110 Automotive
Mechanical and
Electrical Repair
and
Maintenance
12325 2594
811190 Other
Automotive
Repair and
Maintenance
2125 347
324

Table 40, Continued

92 – Public
Administration
925120 Administration
of Urban
Planning and
Community and
Rural
Development
N/A N/A

Water,
Wastewater &
Waste
Management
22 – Utilities 22131
0
Water Supply
and Irrigation
Systems
108 21
22132
0
Sewage
Treatment
Facilities
N/A 10
23 –
Construction
23711
0
Water and
Sewer Line and
Related
Structures
Construction
2214 162
23799
0
Other Heavy
and Civil
Engineering
Construction
[Relates to
channel
construction.]
465 70
31-33 –
Manufacturing
33331
2
Commercial
Laundry,
Drycleaning, and
Pressing Machine
Manufacturing
167 6
33451
2
Automatic
Environmental
Control Mfg. for
Residential,
Commercial, &
Appliance Use
314 8
33522
2
Household
Refrigerator and
Home Freezer
Manufacturing
N/A N/A
54 – Bus. Prof. 54133
0
Engineering
Services
23861 1176
54138
0
Testing
Laboratories
2231 104
54162
0
Environmental
Consulting
Services
2233 211
54169
0
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
3084 337
325

Table 40, Continued

56 –
Administrative
& waste
services
56211
1
Solid Waste
Collection
2776 167
56211
2
Hazardous
Waste Collection
N/A 16
56211
9
Other Waste
Collection
N/A 12
56221
1
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
293 14
56221
2
Solid Waste
Landfill
N/A 7
56221
9
Other
Nonhazardous
Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
N/A 4
56291
0
Remediation
Services
1782 95
56292
0
Materials
Recovery
Facilities
227 17
56299
8
All Other
Miscellaneous
Waste
Management
Services
112 17
92 – Public
Administration
92411
0
Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and
Solid Waste
Management
Programs
N/A N/A
Environmental
Compliance and
Sustainability
Planning
54 – Bus. Prof. 54137
0
Survey and
Mapping
Services
632 130
54138
0
Testing
Laboratories
2231 104
54162
0
Environmental
Consulting
Services
2233 211
54169
0
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
3084 337
81 – Other
Services
81331
2
Environment,
Conservation
and Wildlife
Organizations
1943 144

326

Table 40, Continued

92 – Public
Administration
92411
0
Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and
Solid Waste
Management
Programs
N/A N/A
92412
0
Administration of
Conservation
Programs
N/A N/A
92512
0
Administration of
Urban Planning
and Community
and Rural
Development
N/A N/A
92612
0
Regulation and
Administration of
Transportation
Programs
N/A N/A
92613
0
Regulation and
Administration of
Communications,
Electric, Gas,
and Other
Utilities
N/A N/A

2. Institutional Analysis for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area is located in the
northeast in Massachusetts and includes a number of counties and cities, most notably the
City of Boston. The following section will detail the governance structure around the
green economy within this MSA. As the largest primary city in the Metropolitan
Statistical Area, the City of Boston is a focus of the accumulation and analysis of relevant
da ta. B oston ’s governance structure, linked with the occupational and industrial
breakdown sketched above, is defined by demographics, nonprofit groups, and the city
structure and programs pertinent to the green economy.
327
Linkages can be constructed between the economic opportunities in the green
economy and the institutional reality of the metropolitan statistical area. Programs,
policies, interests, and demographics can play a role in defining areas of competitive
advantage and thus in defining those particular industries and occupational clusters that
would make up the particular complexion of B oston ’s green economy. Policies and
players can incentivize economic activities, and such activities may have been captured
in the industry and occupational-based analysis conducted above. Moreover, such
industries and occupations may provide an indicator of potential areas of opportunity that
could be further incentivized through the rich matrix of policies, incentives, and
significant nonprofit actors.

a. Basic Demographic Analysis
Basic demographic information on the City of Boston provides significant
contextual background for understanding the emergence of green jobs, policies, and
regimes. At $52,433, Boston has a relatively low median income as compared with the
state. However, compared to the national average and the average of large cities
domestically, the median income in the City of Boston is relatively high. The City of
Boston has a relatively high education level with 42.9% of people having at least a
bachelors education or higher. This may suggest a relatively well-trained workforce
within the City of Boston and an abundance of opportunities in higher-tech sectors
around the green economy.

328
Table 41:
Demographics Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
People QuickFacts Boston Massachusetts
Population, 2010 617,594 6,547,629
Population, percent change, 2000 to
2010
4.8% 3.1%
Population, 2000 589,141 6,349,097
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 5.2% 5.6%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 16.8% 21.7%
Persons 65 years and over, percent,
2010
10.1% 13.8%
Female persons, percent, 2010 52.1% 51.6%
White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 53.9% 80.4%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 24.4% 6.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native
persons, percent, 2010 (a)
0.4% 0.3%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 8.9% 5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, percent, 2010 (a)
Z 0.0%
Persons reporting two or more races,
percent, 2010
3.9% 2.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin,
percent, 2010 (b)
17.5% 9.6%
White persons not Hispanic, percent,
2010
47.0% 76.1%
Living in same house 1 year & over,
2005-2009
76.7% 86.2%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2005-
2009
26.7% 14.1%
Language other than English spoken at
home, pct age 5+, 2005-2009
34.6% 20.4%
High school graduates, percent of
persons age 25+, 2005-2009
84.2% 88.4%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of
persons age 25+, 2005-2009
42.9% 37.8%
Mean travel time to work (minutes),
workers age 16+, 2005-2009
28.7 27.1
Housing units, 2010 272,481 2,808,254
Homeownership rate, 2005-2009 37.3% 65.0%
Housing units in multi-unit structures,
percent, 2005-2009
81.9% 41.4%

329
Table 41, Continued
Median value of owner-occupied
housing units, 2005-2009
$404,500 $357,600
Households, 2005-2009 237,397 2,465,654
Persons per household, 2005-2009 2.47 2.54
Per capita money income in past 12
months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009
$32,255 $33,460
Median household income 2005-2009 $52,433 $64,496
People of all ages in poverty - percent,
2005-2009
19.1% 10.1%
Business QuickFacts Boston Massachusetts
Total number of firms, 2007 49,667 596,790
Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 11.6% 3.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native
owned firms, percent, 2007
0.6% 0.4%
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 7.9% 4.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander owned firms, percent, 2007
0.1% 0.0%
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 7.2% 3.3%
Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 29.7% 29.8%
Manufacturers shipments, 2007
($1000)
3,193,339 86,428,959
Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007
($1000)
6,225,668 95,275,672
Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) 6,808,832 88,082,966
Retail sales per capita, 2007 $10,934 $13,553
Accommodation and food services
sales, 2007 ($1000)
3,661,700 14,917,210
Geography QuickFacts Boston Massachusetts
Land area in square miles, 2010 48.28 7,800.06
Persons per square mile, 2010 12,792.7 839.4
FIPS Code 07000 25
Counties Suffolk
County

Overall, the basic demographic characteristics in the City of Boston suggest that
there may be a prevalence of green economic opportunities within the City of Boston and
likely throughout the greater metropolitan statistical area. Boston, when taken at the
metro poli tan statist ica l ar e a leve l, i s ch a ra c ter iz e d a s a “ g r e e n g iant ” a s de fine d b y th e
330
urban typology developed above. The City of Boston, anchoring the MSA, has similar
characteristics including a robust environmental nonprofit sector, high income, a large
population, and a broad commitment to sustainability. As such, the contextual
background of Boston is particularly palatable for green jobs.

b. Government Structure Boston
The City of Boston has been recognized as a city committed to progressive
environmental policies and efforts broadly around sustainability. Sustainelane.com,
ranking the largest domestic cities, ranks Boston as sixth in te rms of it ’s ove r a ll sust a inabili t y ra nkin g s in 2008. I n t e rms of the Ci ty ’ s ra nkin g s for indi vidu a l ca te g or i e s,
the city ranks relatively highly on a number of categories. The City of Boston ranks
second in city commuting, third in local food and agriculture, sixth in city innovation,
fifth in water quality, seventh in green building, and ninth in the green economy. The
City of Boston ranks relatively highly in terms of solid waste diversion (18
th
), water
supply (14
th
) energy and climate change policy (17
th
), and knowledge base and
communications (11
th
). T he c it y ’ s ra nkin g s in a nu mber of othe r a re a s ar e r e lativel y low
including forty-fourth in housing affordability, thirty in metro street congestion, and
twenty-fifth in air quality.

331
Figure: 34:
Boston Sustainability

The Mayor appears to be playing a key and guiding role in green economic
development within the City of Boston. Sustainable Economic Development, in fact, is a
key part of his stated priorities. His vision states that:
Boston has a history of prosperity, under both challenging and thriving economic
conditions. In order to capitalize on growth industries and develop the workforce
to sustain these industries, Mayor Menino is placing a renewed focus on
developing the South Boston Waterfront and Marine Industrial Park as platforms
for job creation. Situated in this area of the City, the Innovation District will
combine all the right ingredients clustered in one central location to attract
knowledge industry businesses and create jobs in fast growing sectors. New
models of office space, housing, and culture will create value for the employers
332
that locate there and enhance the ability of the employees who live and work
nearby to develop groundbreaking research, technologies, and services. To
bolster the Innovation District in its infancy, city agencies will collaborate to
facilitate early proof projects in the area.
Having put Boston at the forefront of sustainable growth with a first-of-its-kind
municipal green-building code, Mayor Menino is directing city agencies to take
the next step by pursuing new permitting measures to facilitate development of
the green economy and the urban food economy. Boston will be one of the first
cities in the nation with new solar and agricultural permitting policies that build
on its green-building standards. The policies will enhance small business growth
in these areas as well as provide cost savings for residents and companies who
refurbish, build, and grow green.
Because small businesses are a key driver of local economic vitality, the Mayor is
also placing new emphasis, through innovative partnerships and streamlined City
resources, on investments that make starting and growing a business in Boston as
easy as possible for entrepreneurs.
(http://www.cityofboston.gov/mayor/priorities/)

The state ment r e fle c ts t h e Ma y or ’s notion of the gr e e n e c onom y a s fo c used on job
opportunities in innovative industries. A high-tech strategy around green employment is
strongly reflected in this statement.
The green econo m y a ppe a rs to be a subset o f the Ma y o r’ s bro a de r foc us o n job
g ro wth withi n the Cit y o f B oston . The g r e e n e c on om y is us e d withi n the M a y o r’ s r e c e nt
“ jobs re port” a nd is re f e r e nc e d sev e r a l t im e s. F or e x a mpl e , a s one of the ke y stra t e g ies
related to job grow th, t he plan state s “B oston is bu il ding a stron g platf or m f or grow in g sectors. 70 companies have located in the Innovation district since January 2010. Green
e ff or ts hav e made us a h ub fo r c le a ntec h jobs .” T his i s unde r the subt it le of the
“ innovation ec on om y .” T hus, g r e e n e mpl o y ment i s li nke d to i nnova ti on -intensive
industries. Additionally, the green economy is one of the proposals made in the plan.
S pe c ifica ll y , it is i nc luded in “ pr oposa l 8” statin g : “T he Ma y or ’s B oston Y outh F und, the
Private Industry Council, and other summer jobs partners will enhance outreach efforts to
333
start-up companies and other businesses in greentech, life sciences, and technology
sectors. Currently summer employment is heavily weighted towards established
companies. Early outr e a c h will be ne c e ssa r y to ed uc a te ne we r c ompanie s a bout t he c it y ’s
nation- lea din g sum mer s j obs progr a ms.”

1. Environmental Policymaking
Environmental policy in Boston is largely led by the Environmental and Energy
Services Cabinet. The mission of the cab inet is de f ined a s “to pr e s e rve a nd e nha nc e the
resources of our built and natural environment and to promote affordable, efficient,
re li a ble a nd s a fe e ne r g y s y s tems for B oston r e side nts.” The c a bin e t over se e s the
Inspectional Services Department and the Environmental Department. The Cabinet serves
a s a c ha i r of the Ma y o r’ s Ene r g y Man a ge ment B oa rd. T he y a ddit ionall y ove rse e a number of policies across topical areas including green buildings, groundwater, park
planning, recycling, renewable energy, and select areas of transportation.
The Environment Department is a major source of environmental policy within
the City of Boston. According to the C it y th e de pa rtmen t i s as f oll ows: “ The Environment Department aims to protect our built and natural environments and provide
information on environmental issues affecting Boston. Sound management and
environmental practices will help to ensure the future of our livable City. The Department
maintains a wealth of historic sites, buildings, landscapes, and waterways through
pr otec ti ve de si g na ti on a n d re view pro c e sses. ” Thus, the environmental department is
charged both with environmental preservation and historic preservation throughout the
334
City of Boston. Charged with this mission, several commissions are subsumed under the
Environmental Department and carry out environmental policy for the City of Boston.
F irst, t he Air Pol lut ion C ontrol C omm iss ion “pr ot e c ts air qua li t y throu g h a i r
poll uti on, nois e , a nd pa roling f r e e z e r e g ul a ti ons.” Air q ua li t y e mi ssi ons a r e li mi ted ba se d
upon how such emissions may cause nuisances, be injurious to health, or interfere with
the quality of life. Specific regulations are numerous and include a variety of areas and
outline provisions. Permissible types of fuel at stationary facilities, the density of smoke
emissions for smoke stacks and other industrial sites, chemical cleaning of buildings, dust
and noise from construction sites, abrasive blasting limiting open burning, and exhaust
from idling vehicles. Regulating air quality emissions is complex and requires
coordination beyond the commission. The commission directly acknowledges this and
state s that: “ B e c a us e a ir t ra ve ls fr e e l y a c ross poli ti c a l boundar ies, th e APC C a c ti ve l y cooperates with other local, regional, state, and federal agencies to develop strategies and
implement programs to improve air quality throughout New England. The APCC writes
and enforces regulations, grants permits, advises other City Hall departments, holds
public hearings, and cooperates with other local, regional, state and federal agencies in
the pursuit of common goals. The APCC enforces state and city ordinances against
excessive idling of vehicle engines. It also participates in a region-wide campaign to
encourage the voluntary retrofitting of diesel-powered vehicles with pollution control
e quipm e nt.”
Interestingly, many of the programs underneath the Environmental Department
re late to pr e se rv a ti on. S e c ond, the B oston L a ndm a rks Com mi ssi on “ pr e se r ve s hi storic
335
pr ope rties thr ou g h r e g ula tor y r e view a nd pr ovidi ng infor m a ti on on be st pra c ti c e s.” I n a re late d ve in, t hird, the Hist or ic D ist ric t C omm iss i on “ r eviews exterior design changed in
nine loc a l hi storic dist ric ts.” The C it y of B oston is c omm it ted to his toric a l pre se rv a ti on.
As noted b y th e C it y , “ As one of the oldest American cities, Boston has long played an
important role in the development of the nation. It is home to a wealth of important
c ult ur a l re sour c e s: t he r e a re mor e than 8,000 pr op e rties loc a ted with t he C it y ’s nine loc a l
Historic Districts or designated as individual Boston Landmarks. These are the buildings,
structures, sites, and areas that inform us about the people that have lived and worked in
B oston a nd the e v e nts t ha t have shap e d the Cit y f rom it s beg inni n g to t he pr e se nt.” St a te
leg isl a ti on in 1975 esta bl ished the B oston L a ndma rks Com mi ssi on a s the C it y ’s hist or ic
preservation agency. Oriented around preserving historical properties, reviewing
demolition, and providing public information and assistance relative to preservation.
Ta ke n to g e the r, both c o mm iss ions s e rve a s the “ stew a rd of B oston ’s hist or ica l bui ldi ng s,
places, and neigh bo rhoo ds.” F inall y , in a r e late d ve in, the City Archeology Program
“ mana g e s the Ci t y ’s a rc h a e olo g y r e sou rc e s. ”
F ifth, t he B oston C onser va ti on Co mm iss ion “pr ot e c ts and pr e se rv e s we tl a n ds an d
B oston ’s na tur a l ar e a s.” The C omm iss ion i s com posed of se ve n m a y oral appointees.
Wetland preservation is a central goal of the committee and Boston is committed to
wetland preservation stating that: “Wetlands are vital to the City's natural environment,
providing habitat for fish, shellfish and wildlife. Wetlands also maintain groundwater and
wa ter qua li t y , a nd mi ti ga te the im pa c ts of f loodi n g a nd st or m d a ma g e . ” Th e C omm iss ion
has the power to define buffer zones, place conditions on development projects that
336
impact wetlands, and review the permitting process for projects that impact wetlands. The
Commission is charged with administering the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act
(M.G. L. c131 s. 40), the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act (HB s. 18.26) and the
Conservation Commission Act (H.B s. 18.9). Additionally, the commission controls a
number of op e n sp a c e p r ope rties c oll e c ti ve l y c a ll e d the “ Ur ba n W il ds.”
S i x th, Envi ronme ntal R e view / I mp a c t Assessment “ a na l y z e s dev e lopm e nt p roje c ts
for potential e nvironmen t a l i mpac ts.” The e nviron menta l re view sp e c ific a ll y e v a luate s
development, infrastructure, and transportation projects for environmental impacts in
pursuant of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Article 80 of the
Boston Zoning Code, MGL Chapter 91, administered by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Local
industrial, commercial, mix use and residential development and redevelopments are
reviewed. Reviews also include local and regional transit and transportation projects, as
well as new or amended local, state, and federal regulations and rules.
In addition to the overall structure of environmental policymaking described
above, a variety of specific policies and programs guide environmental efforts within the
City of Boston. Policies are described below, and analyzed in terms of their employment
impact.

337
Project Specific, Land-Use Driven Policies
The City of Boston has engaged directly in land-use centric strategies towards
green economic growth in a relatively progressive and distinctive manner. Several
strategies have emerged broadly around green jobs that are targeted towards specific
districts in the city. Such site-specific, district-driven strategies appear to be a focus for
the City Boston and an area where their policymaking around the green economy is
particularly well developed.
Boston Redevelopment Agency ’s N e wma rke t Ec o -Industrial Project provides an
interesting example of a district-driven approach to the pursuit of green economic goals.
The project seeks to provide district-wide benefits to businesses within the specified
z one . Ac c or din g to t he B oston R e de ve lopm e nt A ge nc y ’s g r e e te c hbost on.or g w e bsit e :
“the creation of an eco-industrial zone will be a critical step in implementing district-
scale synergies between businesses which will reduce their operating costs and market
them more competitive as a sustainable model of economic growth for the city of the
futur e .” The district covers nearly 800 acres and consists of over 500 businesses and
11,000 employees across a diverse range of industry sectors.
(http://www.newmarket.wikidot.com/newmarket#toc)
Environmental benefits and impacts are a key element of the strategy —
implemented by the redevelopment agency and thus institutionally sitting within the
broader economic development focus of the city. Specifically, the project aims to bolster
energy efficiency in included businesses through the adoption of district-scale energy
solutions including combined heat and power, geothermal heating, and biomass.
338
Emission reduction will also be achieved through the employment of anti-idling and
plug-in solutions. Green roof strategies will also be pursued on buildings. District wide
strategies will be identified through the collection of storm water management data.
(http://www.greentechboston.org) The project was facilitated through federal funding
via the EPA’s Sus taina ble Sk y li ne G ra nt. Funding totaled $67,000.
(http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/dorchester/2010/09/city_to_boost_energy_e
fficienc.html)
Again, the development of the Newmarket Eco-Industrial Project is billed as a
local effort with direct economic impacts, as well as environmental benefits within the
specified district. And, the economic benefits garnered from this approach are relatively
nove l ones. The B oston R e de ve lopm e nt A g e n c y ’ s g r e e nte c hbos ton.org site notes that

Gr e e nte c h’ s EP A f und e d Ne wma rk e t ec o -industrial zone project is pursuing a
number of sustainable strategies for local businesses to reduce their operating
costs associated with energy and waste. The wholesale produce and meat
distribution facilities in Newmarket collectively produce over 27,000 tons of
organic waste, which is presently tucked off-site by waste, handling companies
and would provide enough feedstock for a district based agriculture facility. This
presents a tremendous opportunity for the district to secure a renewable energy
source that is centered on a locally sourced waste product. The project will be
exploring the implementation of a district-scale energy facility that uses the
biogas as a fuel source through a co-generation plan to provide both electricity
and district heat for the businesses within the industrial corridor.
(http://www.greentechboston.org)

Thus, the strategy here is not one specifically restricted to environmental benefits, but
which is also inclusive of economic values as per the more routine role of redevelopment
agency programming across broad averages.
339
Administered by the Redevelopment Agency, these values are clearly reflected
and also represent the role of a redevelopment agency in the green jobs discussion more
broadly. The project is interesting governmentally because of the participation of the
redevelopment agency as the guiding entity. Redevelopment agencies can provide
project- spe c ific a pp roa c h e s to t he “ g re e n e c on om y ” que sti on throug h th e int e gr a ti on of economic and, to some extent, equity considerations into the process. The strategies
engaged might be different than those managed by an environmental agency given the
governmental structure of this approach. Thus, environmental goals are layered onto the
role of the redevelopment agency through this novel pursuit of environmental policy
goals in a novel manner through the green economy lens.
The Boston Innovation District provides another example of an innovation
strategy, centered on a particular geographic locale, and aimed at broadening green
economic opportunities at the sub-national scale.( http://www.innovationdistrict.org)
The area consists of 1000 acres on the cit y ’s w a t e r fr ont t o ser ve a s a “ testin g of
g round b re a kin g te c hnolo g ies in c le a n e n e r g y .” The project specifically operates as a
business incubator around high-tech solutions. As an incubator, the idea behind the
Boston Innovation District is rooted in the idea of fostering start-ups that ultimately lead
to job creation within Boston. Thr oug h thi s app ro a c h, “ the Sout h B oston W a ter fr ont i s a
proving ground for collaborative efforts between the city and its partners, scaling up the
successes to benefit all n e ig hborh oods.” The p ro gr a m spec ific a ll y not e s that, “t he idea
economy provides new opportunities for Bostonians of all backgrounds and education
levels for shared innovation-ranging from manufacturing to human services to high tech.
340
By establishing a hub for emerging ideas and a development space to create new best
practices, citizens across the city are able to benefit. ” The y note, f or e x a mpl e , that “ As
start-up companies take root and grow, they provide citizens with new job opportunities
at a range of skill levels, the opportunity to test creative policy strategies can put Boston
at the forefront of urban economic development in the twenty-first century; and the
ability to conduct small scale test of new technologies, materials, and designs to enhance
urban life allows the implementation of only the most successful projects to other
ne ig hbor hoods, be ne fiting a ll c it iz e ns of B oston . ”
Similarly, Sustainable Chinatown provides a neighborhood-centric approach that
integrates public-private partnerships between greentech initiative (a private firm), the
Asian American Civic Association, and business owners located in Chinatown. This
approaches aims to make sustainability measures, and business greening, more accessible
to small businesses located in Chinatown. The project aims to garner economic benefits
to par ti c ipating busi ne ss e s. S pe c ifica ll y , “ the pr oj e c t wil l addr e ss bus iness
competitiveness issues-rising energy, water, and solid waste management costs-with
practical and affordable solutions that help business owners reduce costs and
environmental impacts, build long term sustainable business expertise capacity in a
predominately non-English speaking community, while helping the City of Boston meet
its aggressive greenhouse gas reduction and renewable e ne r g y g oa ls.” It provides an
example of a neighborhood-specific approach towards green economic growth.

341
Climate Action Plan
Much of the environmental policy in the City of Boston is broadly oriented
around the climate action plan. The City of Boston has been relatively aggressive in
recent years in greenhouse gas reduction efforts. In 2007 the Mayor enacted an executive
or de r “ re lative to c li mate a c ti on in B oston ” that a i med to r e duc e muni c ip a l g a s e mi ssi ons
by 80 percent by 2050. The executive order also outlined a range of other areas of
reductions. Efforts included ratcheting up energy efficiency standards for municipal
buildings, more widespread procurement of renewable energy, and requirements for
alternative fuel vehicles.
Governmentally, the executive order set the stage for activity around greenhouse
gas reductions. Specifically, the order mandated the adoption of a climate action plan for
the city. A community climate action task force was likewise established. Additionally,
actively around greenhouse gas reductions was significantly impacted by state-wide
activities relating to climate change. In 2008, the Commonwealth in Massachusetts
passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Green Communities Act. The impact
was directly noted by the City of Boston within their climate action plan. They
specifically state that, “ O ne c onseq ue n c e o f the Gr e e n Com muni t y Ac t i s th a t
Massa c husetts’ e l e c tricit y a nd n a tura l g a s ut il it ies ha ve to su bstanti a ll y inc re a se th e ir
investment in energy efficiency by making financial and other resources available to
B oston r e sidents and bus inesse s who w a nt t o be c o me mor e e ne r g y e f fic ient .” R e sourc e s
for the program come from state and federal programs. Specific sources include a $6.5
million federal Energy efficiency and Conservation block grant.
342
Within the climate planning effort, the City of Boston roundly acknowledges the
need for a novel governance structure that is inclusive of a wide range of interests. The
City specifically indicates the need for a climate commission in this vein. They discuss
a nd de fine thi s as: “ a c o mm iss ion t ha t bring s togethe r le a d e rs f rom a ll se gments of the community should be established to provide a regular forum for discussing progress,
obstacles and new ideas, evaluating and coordinating public and private efforts, and
continually energizing and engaging the entire Boston community in climate action.
Members should include business, institutional, youth, and community leaders, as well as
technical experts, who are willing to serve as ambassadors for climate action among their
constituencies. The commission should hold public meetings at least semi-annually . ” They additionally a c kno wle dge that, “ B oston c it y g ove rnme nt sho uld wor k with
residents, community- based organizations, institutions, and businesses, forming
pa rtne rships t o im pleme n t clim a te policie s and pro g r a ms.” F in a ll y , the y a c k nowle dge a ne e de d li nk with re g ional e nti ti e s. The y sp e c ific a ll y note B oston ’s r ole in te rms of provided necessary leadership for the region, st a ti ng , “ B ost on City Government should
work with government authorities and other organizations out of Boston to address issues
requiring or benefiting from larger- s c a le stud y , c o or dination, and impl e menta ti on.”
The complex, interdepartmental nature necessitated by climate change mitigation
measures can also lead to many departments skirting the responsibility of the overall
vision of green economic growth. What may persist is a lack of coordination ability of
crucial, interdepartmental and overlapping spheres of responsibility. This problem
appears to be an unde rstood a nd st a ted c onc e rn;; it is re fle c ted withi n the c it y ’ s di sc ou rse
343
around climate change. To stem this problem, the pla n dicta tes tha t “the ma y o r should
assign to one official responsibility for coordination across all government departments
a nd re portin g on c li mate a c ti on in B oston .” Thus, the ma y o r’ s of fic e prov id e s
coordination and leadership around the implementation of environmental efforts broadly
around climate change mitigation goals. This potentially illuminates the governance
issues pertinent to climate change, and perhaps also related to green economy goals.
The nexus between economy, environment, and equity is also explored in
B oston ’s Cl im a te A c ti on P lan ( 2010) . Specifically, the plan specifies that “ im planta ti on
of the climate action recommendations should not exacerbate existing social and
economic inequities and should, whenever possible, contribute to recycling those
inequalities. This includes ensuring that economic status, language, or other factors do
not restrict access to the economic opportunities created through climate action or the
se rvic e s and re sour c e s a v a il a ble f rom c it y a nd st a t e g ov e rnme nt f rom loca l uti li ti e s.”
Therefore, the plan broadly acknowledges concerns and conflicts related to climate
change mitigation in Boston. Equity is considered a stated goal within climate change
mitigation within the Climate Action Plan.

Green Buildings
Green building policy broadly appears to be a focus of environmental policy
making for the City of Boston. Out of total GHG reductions, nearly two thirds will come
from the building sector based upon the climate action plan. The role of the state-level
governance is crucial in this effort. According to the Climate Action Plan (2010), the
344
City specifically acknowledges that “ the la r g e st s a ving s ar e e x pe c ted f rom state -
mandated, utility-run energy efficiency programs, which will provide financial and
tec hnica l assis tanc e to B oston r e sidents and businesse s.” Mor e ove r, “ the n e w sta te
building energy codes —i nc ludi ng the optional “ str e tch” c od e whic h B oston shoul d
consider adopting-will make sure that all buildings are built and renovated to high
e ff icie n c y standa rds.” ( p g . 21) Th e C li mate Ac ti o n P lan outli ne s a mult it u de of me a sur e s
around green building in c ludi ng : “1) e ve r y home a nd commercial building should be
evaluated for energy use and efficiency, and receive an energy usage label similar to the
comparative energy labels currently applied to cars and appliances. 2) The Boston Zoning
Code requirement for green building (Article 37) should have a lower size threshold. 3)
By mid-decade, all buildings should be required to meet minimum standards before they
can be sold. 4) New and replaced roofs on commercial and institutional buildings should
be cool roofs to reduce air conditioning loads.”
The City of Boston also directly engages in a variety of green building efforts.
Many of these efforts are contained in the Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan
calls for better energy monitoring and benchmarking. For residential housing, by 2012,
the city aims to “ de ve lop a n e ne r g y ra ti n g a nd lab e li ng r e quire ment f o r B o ston re sidenti a l
properties that makes this information available for prospective owners or tenants, and
link this, through Renew Boston, to utility efficiency programs.” For commercial
properties, by 2012, the c it y a im s to “ implement an energy rating and labeling program
for all commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet that makes this information
available for prospective owners or tenants. Phase in this program for all commercial
345
building s ove r 500 0 squa re f e e t b y 2015.” The intent is to further extend and develop
such or dinanc e a round e ne r g y e f fic ienc y . The c it y int e nds t o de ve lop a “ B oston R e sidenti a l Ene r g y C onser va ti on Or dinan c e ” b y 2 015 incor pora ti ve of o wn e r -occupied
housi ng , r e nt a l hous ing a nd c ondomi nium s. B y 2 016, B oston will a dopt t he “ B oston C omm e rc ial Ene r g y C on se rva ti on Or dinan c e ” th a t applies to all comme rc i a l prope rties
above 5000 square feet.
Additionally, the city addresses financing issues related to energy efficiency in
buildings. The Green Lease Program is a financing program aimed at incentivizing
be ha vior a nd ov e rc omi n g the “ spli t i nc e nti ve ” pro blem c ha ra c ter iz e d b y th e f a c t t ha t t he building owner is not incentivized to finance energy efficiency measures. Through the
green lease program, the owner and tenants can share in the cost of energy improvements
and benefits. The City also intends to engage in a variety of other tools towards green
c onst ruc ti on including “ p rope rt y tax a ba teme nts, t a x c re dits, grants and height and
de nsit y c riter ia.”

Integrated Waste Management Plan
Waste is also a critical area related to both environmental benefits, as well as to
potential economic benefits through employment in waste remediation. Policies at both
the state and the local level are playing a role in such economic and environmental
benefits from waste management and remediation, including waste diversion and
recycling programs.
346
Local control is also possible in terms of garnering environmental and economic
benefits. Interestingly, solid waste provides a critical point in terms of governance,
although providing limited emissions impacts and a sordid history in terms of the equity
concerns around waste disposal closely married to the environmental justice movement.
Boston clearly acknowledges the limited impact of waste within the Climate Action Plan
(2010) , stati ng that “ c om pa re d to bui ldi ng s a nd tra nsporta ti on, sol id wa ste dispos a l i s a
re lativel y small c ontribut or to t he c omm unit y ’s G HG inventor y , but t he wa y w e dispo se of waste is almos t complete l y und e r our c ontrol.” De spit e thi s fa c t, from a governance
standpoint, waste may be a strategic point of entry into the green economy, and one that
may address difficult environmental justice concerns in the urban core. Boston states, for
e x a mpl e that “ the na ture of the w a ste iss ue s f a ll s st ra tegically within jurisdictional lines
a nd ma y thus be a n a re a of potential lea de rship fo r the C it y of B oson.” Ad dit ionall y , th e City of Boston envisions waste as an issue that can also be readily addressed by the
nongovernmental community. They note that, “Furthermore it is a process visible to the
community and amenable to indiv idual a nd c omm unit y e f for ts.”
Within public documents, the City of Boston aims to play a leadership role around
waste based upon a variety of policies and pledges. The City ultimately aims to set a goal
of zero waste within Boston. Additionally, they intend to raise recycling rates and they
aim to expand recycling programs to include areas such as food waste. Finally, the city
aims to develop disincentives around waste that will reduce non-recyclable waste at both
residential and commercial establishments through effectively fostering behavior change.
347
In addition to the localized nature of waste remediation and recycling, this sector
is also impacted by state level policies. Specifically, the Integrated Waste Management
Plan governs waste reductions at the state level at further provides opportunities to garner
green economy benefits at multiple layers of governance. Massachusetts has set targets
on solid waste disposal, reducing disposal by 30% by 2050. This is done in concert with
the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008. The C it y of B o ston’s C li mate Action Plan acknowledges the economic benefit from waste reduction policies at the city-
based level. It specifically estimates that “, the economic benefits of increased recycling
rates have an enormous impact on the state by bolstering and supporting over 2000
businesses associated with recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing with an estimated
14,000 jobs and revenues $3.5 bil li on.” Empl o y m e nt, t hus, spans both wa ste r e media ti on
and in the manufacturing of recycled materials. This crosses several potential, disparate
industries and may offer a variety of types of employment.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
The use of renewable energy sources is governed at the state level through the
Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires that a
certain percentage of energy sources supplied by energy suppliers come from renewable
sources. Originally a part of the Commonwealth Green Communities Act, the Act
measures the percentage of energy coming from renewable sources through 2020. In
total, 15 percent of electricity sales are mandated to come from renewable sources. The
state-wide Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard additionally mandates that an additional
348
five percent of electricity sales coming from combined heat and power must come from
alternative energy sources. In total, by 2020, this will result in a total of 20 percent of
electricity sales coming from renewable and alternative energy sources.
Furthermore, the City of Boston plays a role in the implementation of policies
related to renewable sources of energy. Boston City Government has shown a
commitment to the development of a strong program supporting energy development in
recent years. In 2008, Mayor Merion set a goal of increasing Boston Solar capacity to 25
mw by 2017 through the Solar Boston program. In 2009, standards for citing wind
facilities were established through the new article 88 of the Boston Zoning code. Solar is
a focus of new construction and retrofitting of buildings. All new buildings and major
re nova ti ons i nc ludi ng ro of c onst ruc ti on or r e plac e ment mus t be ma de “ sol a r r e a d y .”

2. Green Economy Policies and Programs
The City of Boston also specifically engages in the green economy as a
framework for both economic development and environmental policy. Green-collared
jobs are specifically targeted by the City of Boston through the use of empowerment zone
funds. The city received $300,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development in order to provide programming related to green collared jobs. The
pr ogra m has r e c e ived signi fic a nt l e a de rship f rom t he Ma y or ’s o ff ice . As sta ted b y the
Mayor in a recent press re lea se , “ With help from a number of our partners, Boston is
ahead of the curve when it comes to investing in t he e mer g in g g r e e n e c ono m y ,’ Ma y o r
349
Menino sa id. ‘ These are smart investments that will make a difference in our
neighborhoods in the short and the long term. Our grantees have the ability to give both
high-risk youth and adults in need of career training an opportunity to gain meaningful
jobs to make sure that we stay at the forefront of the green economy. This funding will
train people for jobs that are available today and for careers coming in the future. ’"
Divided equally, the funding specifically targets three key programs. Fist, the
Green Youth Corps is a training program that trains high-risk, empowerment zone youth
in sustainability and green careers through partnerships with community organizations.
Second, the funding will be used in order to provide green technician and auditor training
for participants through community partnerships. The Asian American Civic Association
(AACS) and JYF Networks (a local workforce and career development center) will
training 10-15 adults to work as assistant energy auditors and brownfield remediation
initiatives. Third, training and workforce development is funded through the Renew
Boston Initiative. The funding will be used to create employment as energy auditor jobs.
Working in partnership with Next Step Living, these auditors will provide energy audits
and immediate retrofits of at least 150 Boston homes through the Renew Boston
Residential Energy Efficiency Pilot Program. This will amount to between 8 to 14 green
jobs for residents of the empowerment jobs.
(http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/Default.aspx?id=4261)

350
c. City of Boston Interest Group Environment
The City of Boston is home to an impressive array of nonprofit organizations
related to the environment. Taken from NCCS statistics, the table below provides an
overview of some of the nonprofit behavior within the City of Boston. A relatively large
density, as of 2009, of environmental organizations exists within the City of Boston. A
total of 61.27 environmental organizations exist within the City of Boston, at a rate of
1.04 per capita. The magnitude of environmental stakeholder interactions can also be
measured by the total revenue and grants of environmental organizations with in the City
of Boston. A total of $148,361,160.28 of private contributions and grants were quantified
by NCCS, or $252.33 as measured on a per capita basis.
A significantly smaller number of civil rights and social action groups likewise
exist within the City of Boston. A total of 32 organizations are present as of 2009 in the
City and County of San Francisco, or .54 as measured at a per capita level. Total
contributions and government grants totaled $14,895,546
Taken together, a relatively robust degree of such organizations may indicate the
sort of institutional and governance structure palatable to green economy development, as
well as that which is more broadly linked to sustainability efforts at the sub-national
scale. As indicated above, the number of environmental organizations is relatively closely
correlated with green employment at the metropolitan statistical level. Thus, greater
numbers of environmental organizations, and related social justice organizations, may
suggest higher numbers of green employment within metropolitan areas. The City of
Boston appears, further corroborating this relationship, to have a prevalence of both.
351

Table 42:
Nonprofit Environment Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Environment (2009)
Number of organizations filing annually 61.27
Private contributions & government grants 148,361,160.28
Total revenue 233,480,262.29
Total expenses 213,676,868.30
Total assets 629,756,911
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita – Environment (2009)
Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) 1.0432
Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 252.33
Total revenue ($ per capita) 396.34
Total expenses ($ per capita) 363.35
Total assets ($ per capita) 1069
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities - Civil rights & social action (2009)
Number of organizations filing annually 32
Private contributions & government grants 14,895,547
Total revenue 18650417
Total expenses 18597165
Total assets 18022759
Nonprofit Public Charity Activities per Capita - Civil rights & social action (2009)
Number of organizations (per 10,000 persons) .54
Private contributions & government grants ($ per capita) 24
Total revenue ($ per capita) 32
Total expenses ($ per capita) 32
Total assets ($ per capita) 31

How do significant nonprofit interests interact with one another? Alliances
between nonprofit interests are important to understanding the context around stakeholder
involvement in the green economy. A variety of alliances have emerged that are pertinent
to the green economy, and therefore are of particular interest. Analysis of such alliances,
including their composition, reveals some of the intricacies around the emergent
governance structure around green jobs in the City Boston. Two primary types of
352
alliances are emerging around the green economy in the City of B oston . F ir st, a “ gr e e n
c oll a re d jobs ” c oa li ti on ha s dev e loped withi n the City of Boston that appears to be
relatively active. Several coalitions have emerged around the green economy broadly
oriented around green businesses or clean technology approaches to green economic
development. Such coalitions are broadly characterized as green business associations,
consisting largely of environmental and business membership. The table below
summarizes the key emergent coalitions within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area.

353
Table 43:
Green Economy Alliances Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA

Green Collared Jobs
Coalition

Government-Driven Efforts:

Green Business Associations:
Local Apollo Alliance
Affiliate
Alliance to Develop Power
(ADP)
Alternatives for Community &
Environment (ACE)
Boston Climate Action
Network (BCAN)
B o s to n W o r ke r s ’ Al li a nc e (BWA)
Chelsea Collaborative
Chinese Progressive
Association
Clean Water Action
Coalition Against
Poverty/Coalition for Social
Justice (CAP/CSJ)
Dudley Street Neighborhood
Initiative (DSNI)
Greater Four Corners Action
Coalition
L a b o r e r s ’ Ne w E n g l a n d
Regional Organizing Fund
Massachusetts Energy
Consumers Alliance
MassCOSH
Neighbor to Neighbor
New England Council of
Carpenters
New England United for
Justice
Painters & Allied Trades
DC35
Project RIGHT

Climate Action Partners:
Alternatives for Community and
Environment
Boston Climate Action Network
Boston Building Trades
A Better City
Hyde Square Task Force
Bethel MEW Church/Ten Coalition
EnerNOc
Boston Properties
Boston Architectural College
Union of Concerned Scientists
Rockport Partners
Nitsche Engineering
Youth Climate Action Network
Dukakis Center for Urban and
Regional Policy, Northwestern
City Controller
Staples
Membership US Green Building Council:
A Better City
A&M Construction Co., Inc.
Acella Construction
Acentech Incorporated
Ahold, USA
Allen & Major Associates, Inc
American Iron & Steel Inst.
aMortonDesign
Architecture+ Planning+
Arrowstreet
ART Engineering Corporation
Arup
B. W. Kennedy & Co.
Beacon Architectural Associates
Bergmeyer Associates
Boston Green Building
Boston Properties
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Brookfield Properties
BuildingGreen
Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP
CB Richard Ellis
CBT Architects
Cisco Systems Inc.
Clean Harbors
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Coler & Colantonio, Inc.
Comfort Systems USA
Concord Square Planning & Development
Conservation Services Group
Cosentini Associates
CSC
Cutler Associates, Inc.
Devens Enterprise Commission
DW Arthur Associates Architects
Eco Clean Systems/Sunshine Serivces
Elias Global Solutions
Ellen S. Light AIA

Balle Membership:
912 Auto
A Better City
Apex Green Roofing
Arrow Paper Corporation
Basil Tree Catering
Blue Tierra
Chocolate
Brookline Booksmith
Cambridge Commons
Cambridge Family & C hi l dr e n’ s Services
Cambridge Naturals
The Carruth
Chive Sustainable Event Design and Catering
C h r i s t o ph e r ’ s Restaurant & Bar
City Feed and Supply
Classic Graphx
Clever Green
Costa Fruit & Produce
Downtown Wine and Spirits
Dancing Deer Baking Co
Eat at J um b o ’ s
EBI Consulting
EcoLogic Development Fund
Equity Office
First Church in Cambridge
The Fishmonger
Follow The Honey
Fornax Bakery
The Garment District
Geekhouse Bikes
Gentle Giant Moving Company
Griffin Properties
Greenward
Haley House Bakery & Cafe
Hub Bicycle
Karma Yoga
Katsiroubas Brothers

354

Table 43, Continued

Enernoc, Inc.
Finegold Alexander + Associates Inc
Garcia, Galuska, DeSousa, Inc.
General Services Administration
Gorman Richardson Lewis Architects
Green Building Concepts, Inc.
Harvard Capital Planning & Project Management
Harvard University
Housing Assistance Corp
Humanscale
Infra-red Analyzers
JLL
Jones Lang LaSalle
K&L Gates
Lee Kennedy Co.
Leisure Green
Levi+Wong
Linnean Solutions
MacRitchie Engineering
Maguire Group
Margulies Perruzzi Architects
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
MassDEP
MASSMUTUAL
McKenzie Engineering Co., Inc.
Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Meyer and Meyer Architecture and Interiors
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
National Grid
Next Phase Studios
Next Step Living Inc.
Nitsch Engineering
Nitsch Engineering
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Payette
Pearl's Premium
Pier 1
R. W. Sullivan, Inc.
Resource One
Ripman Lighting Consultants
Robinson & Cole LLP
Ryley Builders
SAK Environmental LLC
Sasaki Associates
Save That Stuff
Scopa Group
SCPrice Designs
Shaw Environmental
Sherenstein Realty
Signer Harris Architects
SimpsonGompertz & Heger
Skipping Stone
Sovereign Bank
Structure Tone, Inc.
Sunrise Erectors
Symmes, Maini & McKee Associates
Tara Finance
The Green Engineer
The Green Roundtable/NEXUS
The Principal Construction Group, Inc.
TLT COnstruction
Triumph Modular Inc.
Tsoi/Kobus & Associates
Turner Construction
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
US Department of Transportation
USGBC MA
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
VernerJohnson Inc.
Versatile Solutions, Inc.
VERTEX
VHB
Wentworth Institute of Technology
William Lynn Holland, Architect
Wilson Architects
Winn Companies
ZeroEnergy Design

Littlefoot Energy
Lizard Lounge
The Longfellow Clubs
Mama & Me
MaryMac Missions
Nitsch Engineering
NitWits Lice Salon
Pilot House
Point Plus Realty
Red Lentil
Red Sun Press
Rostam Capital
Rough Mountain Studios
Save That Stuff
Spencer Organ Company Inc.
S por t s m a n’ s Tennis Club
Sudo Shoes
TAGS Hardware
Tech Networks of Boston
Thinklite
TOAD
Toro Restaurant
True Grounds
Ula Cafe
Urban AdvenTours
Veggie Galaxy
Wediko Children Services
West Side Lounge
The Williams Agency
Appalachian Naturals
Architectural Consulting Services
Atlantic Retirement Group
Balance & Beam
Bartlett Interactive LLC
Be Healthy Boston
Boston Organics
Boston Tree Preservation
Compass Furnished Apartments
Energy Consumers Alliance of New England
(Mass Energy)
Equal Exchange
Evergreen Consulting & Training
Good Egg Marketing
Greener Everyday Consulting
Intercreativa
Just Works Consulting
Living Structures, Inc
Meridian Consulting Group
Nella Pasta
Prism Consulting
Recycline
Season to Taste Catering
Smudge Ink
Stone Consulting
Symbiosus
Tel-Affinity
Tyrone Yang Design
Welsh Consulting
Zevin Asset Management

355

a. Green Collared Jobs Alliances
A rich array of activity appears to be developing in Boston around the notion of
the “ g re e n c oll a r e d job.” S uc h a pproa c he s, in a gg r e ga te, a pp e a r to b e broa d l y orie nted
around equity-centric goals. The following analysis provides an analysis of the
composition of interests groups that compose such alliances. I provide a brief summary of
the nature of interest groups that are members of these alliances.
S pe c ifica ll y , the ke y “ g re e n c oll a re d jobs ” a ll ianc e withi n B oston is t he Gr e e n
Justice Coalition. The Green Justice Coalition envisions the move towards the green
e c onom y a s a si g nific a nt shi fting in prioriti e s. The y spe c ifica ll y note tha t “ Global
wa rming is for c in g us t o g o g r e e n, a nd th e “ g r e e n re volut ion” w il l be a s dra matic a s the
Industrial Revolution. To prevent floods, disease, economic and environmental
disruption, we must transform the economy and stabilize the climate. We need to act
forcefully, we need to act soon, and we need to act together: communities, political
leaders, congregations, environmenta li sts , busi ne sses a nd unions .” The y sp e c ifica ll y sit e the green economy as an opportunity for economic benefits for low-income communities.
The y not e that, “ Tod a y ’s f luctua ti ng e ne r g y p ric e s a nd de c li nin g e c onom y a re c re a ti ng a n
opportunity as well as a challenge. The green wave can lower energy costs, put people
back to work, and jumpstart our sinking economy. It can reshape the state's economy for
the benefit of working class people and those who have been most overburdened
environmental injustices like p oll uti on a nd hig h a s thm a r a tes.” (GJC website:
http://massclu.org/green-justice-campaign)
356
Equity is a guiding value for the coalition. In 2008, the Green Justice Coalition
formed around a campaign to make energy efficiency upgrades to low-income
communities of color in Boston. As noted by the Coalition, “are a partnership of
community groups, labor unions, environmental groups, and other organizations that
support a sustainable, equitable, and clean energy economy in the Boston region. Low-
income communities and communities of color have been overburdened by our
unsustainable economy. We want to ensure that these communities are at the forefront of
the growing green, sustainable economy. We are committed to making sure that our
re g ion’s g row in g g r e e n e c onom y c re a tes qua li t y jobs, loca l wor kf or c e d e v e lopm e nt
oppor tuni ti e s as w e ll a s h e a lt hier a nd s a fe r c omm u nit ies.” (GJC website)
The Coalition has continued to make significant strides forward. In January of
2011, the Green Justice Coalition began pre-weatherization work on old homes for low-
income residents who previously could not afford this work. Including laying cement to
basements, installing sheetrock and asbestos removal, the work is necessary prior to
weatherization. The coalition is advocating for pre-weatherization financing for low-
income communities. Their organizing efforts in this regard include door-to-door efforts
to educate constituents about weatherization benefits. (ACE Annual Report 2011)
Additionally, the focus of the coalition has been specifically on the equity
c onsi de ra ti ons a round e n e r g y e f fic ienc y p ro g ra ms . S pe c ifica ll y , “ the state wide Gr e e n
Justice Coalition (GJC) is working to reduce climate change and provide living wage
green jobs to lower- inco me c omm unit ies a nd c o mm unit ies of c olor.”
357
W ha t g roups ha v e c ome t og e th e r a round the “ g r e e n c oll a re d jobs ” visi on of the
green economy characterizing this alliance? The following provides a summary of the
key groups composing the alliance. Taken together, it demonstrates the nature of the
alliance and the disparate interest that are brought together through the green economy
framework.

Labor Unions and Organizations
Labor unions and organizations provide a leading voice in the coalition.
Community Labor United coordinates the Coalition as the Apollo Alliance affiliate
organization. The organization is oriented around organizing and policy campaigns. Their
mission defi ne s their r ole in t he B oston a re a a s: “t o move strategic campaigns combining
the joint power of community-based organizations and labor unions in order to protect
and promote the interests of low and middle-income working families in the greater
Boston area. Through a program of coalition building, research and policy development,
public education and grassroots mobilization, we will move forward policies that promote
quality jobs, secure healthcare and affordable housing for all of the Boston area's working
pe ople.” The y foc us on c a mpaig ns t ha t bol ster l a b or a nd c omm unit y o r g a ni z ing in orde r
to provide quality jobs, affordable housing and community development in low-income
families in Boston. As an element of their campaign development, CLU also specifically
develops research products in order to support their policy goals.
The organization is also specifically oriented around creating a network around
pertinent groups in the Boston region. In fact, one of their specific g oa ls i s to “ foster the
358
development of relationships between decision makers in community and labor
organizations that can help groups in their individual organizing and collectively can
be g in t o c re a t e a ne w pr o g r e ssi ve powe r c e nt e r w i thi n the r e g ion. ” The y m or e ove r,
envision their role as one that consolidates existing stakeholders, and bolsters their
position through research, grassroots organizing, and discourse. They specifically note
that: “Our campaigns bring together low and moderate-income people already organized
through community organizations and unions, who come together based on interest in the
issues involved. We develop new organizing opportunities for community organizations
and labor, and increase civic engagement. We also educate the wider public through our
research studies, whose findings we disseminate aggressively. Essentially we are a new
“ thi nk and act tank” c om ing f rom poo r a nd wor ki ng pe opl e ’s pe rspe c ti ve s. ” More ove r,
they state that, “CLU is fortunate to be able to build upon the existing strength of a
number of different organizations in Massachusetts. These groups are effectively
organizing and winning important improvements and changes for their constituencies.
We believe the sum of this work can, over time, add up to even more than its individual
parts. Together, we can change the economic dialogue and economic reality in our
re g ion.” T hus, a ll ianc e b uil ding a round e quit y c o nsider a ti ons i s a ke y tena nt of the g roup.
Similarly, The Boston Workforce Alliance is also oriented around joblessness.
The Boston Workforce Alliance formed in 2005 as a community-based effort around
joblessness in the Boston Community. Job training is at the core of their activities. Their
mission is incorporative of community- b a se d, e qu it y c onc e rns, a nd st a t e s that: “ B oston Workers Alliance (BWA) is a community organization led by unemployed and
359
underemployed workers fighting for employment rights. We have united to end CORI
(Criminal Offender Record Information) discrimination and the crisis of joblessness in
the community. We fight for social and economic justice by creating and demanding
decent jobs for all people who want to work. The ability to live productively and raise our
families in peace is a right. As we walk towards our freedom, we build strength and hope
through cooperation, political awareness and collective action. We organize to overcome
the oppr e ssi ve f o rc e s that oppose our f ull potential to l ive.” The organization has
grassroots buy-in and works with the community through 5 subcommittees: outreach,
CORI reform, job creation, legislation, and media. Their mission is also oriented around
s y stema ti c c ha n g e a nd in c lude la n g ua ge in t he ir w e bsit e such a s: “W e r e c o g niz e that
unless we demand a societal change to have fair work for all, members of our community
will be forced to compete, like crabs in a barrel, for fewer lower- pa y in g job s.”
Green jobs appear to be a burgeoning part of their vision for change. In 2008,
B W A be g a n a “ g r e e n c ol lar jobs pr o g ra m.” T h e ir a pproa c h to gr e e n e mpl oy m e nt fo c used
on e quit y c onsi de ra ti ons, with t he prog ra m aimi n g to “e nsure that n e w jobs i n the
growing green economy were good, CORI friendly jobs that were available to our
c omm unit y .” The i r e f for t s con c e ntr a te on two pr i mar y a r e a s. F i rst, the y c o nc e ntra te on
weatherization through a campaign targeting weatherization in lower income
communities. Second, they have become members of the Boston Recycling Coalition that
focuses on creating employment opportunities through increasing city recycling rates.
(http://bostonworkersalliance.org/?page_id=2)
360
Several labor unions are involved in the coalition. Included groups have some
stake in the green economy through the specific types of trade that they are involved in.
First, the Laborers New England Training Trust Fund is a multi-state labor
organization. The Fund has been in operation since 1969. The Fund offers a variety of
apprenticeship and training programs in concert with a number of local unions in Boston.
The fund provides a variety of classroom instruction.
(http://www.nelaborerstraining.com)
Second, the New England Regional Council of Carpenters (NERCC) represents
over 20,000 carpenters, pile drivers, shop & millmen, and floorcoverers in the New
England NERCC is affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, a building-
trades unions. The union is headquartered in Dorchester, Massachusetts, and also
provides training programs. (http://www.nercc.org/)
Third and finally, Painters and Allied Trades DC35 is a multi-state labor
organization with over 4000 members in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Rhode Island. The group is affiliated with the International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Workers include: construction industry painters,
wallcoveres, glaziers, and drywall finishers; residential painters, drywall finishers,
glaziers, and wallcoverers, glassworkers. Sign painters and sign erectors, institutional
maintenance trades workers, and public employees. (Http://www.iupatdc35.org/node/7)

361
Environmental Justice Community-Based Organizations
The alliance also has strong membership from the environmental justice
community. Such organizations are specifically oriented around community-based
concerns over environmental hazards.
Alternatives for Community and Environment is a Boston-based environmental
justice organization. Their mission is oriented around traditional environmental justice
concerns, stating that “, ACE builds the power of communities of color and low income
communities in Massachusetts to eradicate environmental racism and classism, create
he a lt h y , sust a in a ble c om muni ti e s, and a c hieve e n vironmenta l j usti c e .” As a largely
community-based organization, they are oriented around inequity in power for
communities. This orientation is demonstrated through their de ve loped “ visi on of c ha n g e ” statin g that “ Systemic change means moving beyond solving problems one by
one to eliminating the root causes of environmental injustice. ACE is anchoring a
movement of people who have been excluded from decision-making to confront power
directly and demand fundamental changes in the rules of the game, so together we can
a c hieve ou r r i g ht t o a he a lt h y e nvironmen t.” (http://www.ace-ej.org)
The organization began in 1993 by two lawyers in order to provide a “ pow e rf ul
bottom- up model f or e nv ironme ntal or g a niz ing a n d a dvoc a c y .” The y not e that “ , our
early work supported community leadership on environmental justice issues and provided
lega l re sour c e s fo r c omm unit y pa rtne rs.” Th e or ga niz a ti on is fo cused around the
Roxbury Neighborhood in Greater Boston around Massachusetts. They envision their
role as one that incorporates project specific efforts, as well as more systematic change in
362
the g r e a te r B oston R e g io n. The y n ote tha t “, Our work has also prevented additional
environmental insults such as asphalt plants and freeway off-ramps. But solving
immediate environmental threats is not enough. Thus, many of our initiatives have grown
from individual neighborhoods seeking relief from specific hazards to proactive system-
wide efforts, such as converting the public bus fleet from diesel to cleaner alternative
fuels, cleaning up and redeveloping "brownfields", and promoting a resident vision of
sust a inable c omm unit ies.” (http://www.ace-ej.org/)
The organization has a deep-rooted history around neighborhood-driven
environmental justice work, and coalition and alliance building in that regard. Since
1994, they have partnered with over 40 neighborhood groups representing over 3500
indi viduals t hr oug hout t he Gr e a ter B oston a r e a . T he y not e that “ , we actively build
coalitions and serve as a primary resources for the growing movement for environmental
justice in Greater Boston and throughout New England. We have helped groups address
pe rsist e nt problems suc h a s tra sh t ra nsf e r sta ti ons, va c a nt l ots, and dirt y die se l ex ha ust.”
In 2001, ACE worked with youth and residents in the community around a $12 million
clean up of asbestos. In October 2002, the group participated in a coalition to enact an
Environmental Justice Policy, calling for all state environmental agencies to engage with
the environmental justice community and bolster environmental impact review for
projects. In March 2002, ACE worked in a coalition with 50 partners to launch a
“ tra nsporta ti on jus ti c e a n d li va ble c omm unit ies a ge nda ” a round the $40 mil li on
procurement of 100 clean fuel buses. In 2007, ACE worked with the community in
Chelsea to oppose a diesel power plant. ACE has also partnered with community groups
363
in Dudley Square around the development of air quality monitoring stations.
Additionally, they worked with the Coalition Against Asphalt Plants, composed of
residents from Roxbury, Dorchester, South Boston and South End, to defeat a proposed
asphalt plant. (http://www.ace-ej.org/)
Their work around green jobs is a logical extension of this effort and
demonstrates their alliance and coalition-driven model around environmental justice
g oa ls. Th e y spec ifi c a ll y state that, “ W e ’ve h e lped buil d a powe rf ul alli a n c e of c omm unit y , labor , a nd e nvironmen tal gr oups wit h the G re e n J usti c e C oa li ti on.” The ir
role is specifically oriented around infusing equity considerations into the green jobs
discourse. The benefits from this work around green employment includes local
we a ther iz a ti on jobs . The c oa li ti on e nvisi ons i ts rol e a s ensur in g that “ th e y will be hig h
roa d jobs pa y in g a pa c ke t of w a g e s a nd be ne fits of $22/hour or more .” Mo r e ove r, the y envision their role as ensure community involvement and input into the coalitions
including “ inc re a s e d c om muni t y invol ve m e nt i n our membe r me e ti ng s, w e a ther iz a ti on
projects, and coalition-building. (http://www.ace-ej.org/)
The Alliance to Develop Power is a grassroots effort around energy efficiency in
Boston ’s lowe r in c ome c omm unit ies . The Alliance focuses on grassroots efforts around
environmental benefits in communities. The mission statement incorporates these values,
and is : “Me mber s of Alli a nc e to D e ve lop P owe r a re R e a l P e ople w it h Rea l S olut ions
building Real Power. ADP grassroots leaders fight for just policy reform, create new
cooperatively controlled businesses, and build strong, vibrant communities, all while
empowering a diverse grassroots base - we are creating a sustainable community
364
e c onom y that leve r a g e s p owe r, r e lations hips, a nd r e sourc e s. ” The visi on st a teme nt
corroborates the “ so c ial jus ti c e ” or e quit y f o c us of the or ga niz a ti ons. The y state that, “ W e recognize that it is difficult —if not impossible —for people to work for social and
economic justice when their immediate needs for food, housing, and employment are
unmet, and that many low-income families are isolated from institutions that traditionally
connect people to broader society. ADP works to establish and promote cooperative
economic development and civic engagement as a vehicle to bridge these gaps: to
provide low income people with basic necessities through institutions that we own and
direct; to foster a sense of responsibility for each other in a community focused on
building our power; and to serve as a mediating institution for the thousands of families
whose pove rt y c uts t he m of f f rom c ivi c li f e .” ( http://www.a-dp.org/about-us/mission)
The green zone project provides training around fill time employment related to
75 residences in Springfield Massachusetts. The Green Justice Coalition involving
several businesses, agencies, and a range of organizations including Western
Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECo), Community Labor United, Environmental
Compliance Services (ECS), Alliance to Develop Power and Untied for Hire. WMECo
wor ks co ope ra ti ve l y with ot he r util it y p rovide rs to ser vice c ustom e rs in the “ gr e e n z one . ” Neighborhoods were targeted in pilot programs. A private company, Environmental
Compliance Services (ECS), provided energy assessments and on-the-job weatherization
training. (http://www.a-dp.org/about-us/mission)
The Boston Climate Action network is a relatively small community-based
organization concentrating on the Jamaica Plains neighborhood. The group is organized
365
around climate change, and the need for community-based organizing around green
house gas emissions. The group specifically aims to bolster neighborhood-based capacity
a round such e ff or ts. F or e x a mpl e , the g roups or ga niz e s wha t t he y c a ll “ L o w Ca rbon
L ivi n g g roups.” Th e se w or kshops ar e o r g a niz e d a round indi vidual leve l ef f or ts t o reduce
emissions. (http://www.bostoncan.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/LCD 9-08 Judy.jpg)
MassCOSH is a public health organization oriented around improving working
conditions. The organization is aimed at brining together the labor and environmental
c omm unit y . The y note th a t “Ma ssC OSH br in g s tog e th e r w or k e rs, unions, c omm unit y groups, and health, safety, and environmental activities to organize and advocate for safe,
secure jobs and healthy communities throughout eastern and central Massachusetts.
Through training, technical assistance and building community/labor alliances
MassCOSH mobilizes its members and develops leaders in the movement to end unsafe
wor k c ondit ions.” (http://www.masscosh.org/node/116)
MassCosh participates in a wide array of alliances, and has a long seated
commitment to work with partner organizations. The Urban Toxics Use Reduction (TUR)
I nit iative “ s e e ks t o r e duc e wor ke r e x posure to t ox i c c he mi c a ls b y buil din g a c a dr e o f
unions that are knowledgeable about and actively promote TUR in their workplaces and
in t he ir publi c poli c y e ff o rt.” The Alli a nc e f or a H e a lt h y Tomo rr ow is a “ br oa d ba se d
c oa li ti on…pr omot ing a c t ive involveme nt b y unio ns i n poli ti c s that promot e saf e alternatives to toxic chemicals. The Environmental Justice for Cleaning Workers is a
c oa li ti on that “ supports a nd a ssi sts janitors, c ustod ians a nd their unions in e ff or ts t o
a c hieve s a fe , h e a lt h y wor king c ondit ions.” The F l oor F ini shing ini ti a ti ve s is a
366
“ c omm unit y-industry-labor task force that his working to address the safety and health
da nge rs” th a t re late to floor f ini shing . The He a lt h y S c hools I nit iatives “ e n ga ge s school
staff, parents, students, administrator, labor, environment and public health activists in
efforts to identify ad reduce environmental health hazards in schools through education,
technical assistance and advocacy. The New England Consortium (TNEC) operates in
Ne w En g land a s a “ wo rk e r he a lt h a nd s a fe t y tr a ini ng or ga niz a ti ons, wit h a f oc us on
workers in some of the most hazardous jobs —hazardous waste workers and emergency
re sponde rs. ” ( http://www.masscosh.org/node/116)
The ir a ll ianc e wor k a lso c onc e ntr a tes spe c i fic a ll y a round the “ gr e e n e c ono m y .” They specifically create a link between labor and environmental interests. They
spec ifica ll y note tha t, “ T hr oug h th e L a bor E nviro nmenta l He a lt h I nit iative , MassCOS H
forges successful coalitions between labor and environmental health groups to combat
environmental health threats that impact our workplaces and communities. They
specifically engage with the green economy through a variety of mechanisms. First,
“building a thriving Blue/Green alliance to promote policies and workplace strategies that
achieve safe alternat ives to t oxic c he mi c a ls.” S e c o nd, “ e n g a g in g unions in ef for ts t ha t
subst it ute sa fe r a lt e rn a ti ve s for tox ic c he mi c a ls on the shop f loor.” Third, “ pr ovidi ng tra ini ng a nd t e c hnic a l ass ist a nc e to uni ons, wor ke r s, tea c he rs a nd pa re nts.” Fourth and
finally, “d eveloping leaders in the movement through active involvement in occupational
and environmental health committees, community-based task forces and labor-
environmental health coalitions. (http://www.masscosh.org/node/116)

367
Social Justice Community Based Organizations
The Chelsea Collaborative has a long rooted history dating back to its founding in
1988 as the Chelsea Human Services Collaborative. They envision themselves as the
“ pr e mi e r c ivi l rig hts, h u man e mpow erment, and grassroots organizing force for the
c omm unit y of Che lsea , M.A. The C oa li ti on a im s to p rovide “ e mpl o y m e nt , de c e nt
housi ng , a nd a c c e ss t o Eng li sh l a n g ua g e c lasse s ” for the c h a n g ing im mi g ra nt communi t y in Chelsea. The Coalition is focused around equity concerns and operates programs with
a f oc us on “ so c ial, e c ono mi c , a nd e nvironmen tal j usti c e .” Ac c or din g to t he C oa li ti on,
“ these pro g r a ms contain a ve r y im porta nt l e a de rsh ip deve lopm e nt compone nt,
empowering people to recognize injustice and advocate for themselves and their
c omm unit y .” The C o a li ti on ther e for e prov ides a n e ig hborh ood -specific approach towards
equity and justice concerns. (http://chelseacollab.org/about/history)
The Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) is focused on equity concerns within
B oston ’s Chi ne se c omm unit y . CP A w a s founde d in 1977 ar ound or g a niz ing c a mpai g ns
a round scho ol des e g re ga ti on in B oston ’s Chi na town. The g uidi ng mi ssi on state ment f rom
the group is: “ The C hin ese Progressive Association is a grassroots community
organization which works for full equality and empowerment of the Chinese community
in the Greater Boston area and beyond. Our activities seek to improve the living and
working conditions of Chinese Americans and to involve ordinary community members
in making decisions that affect our lives. “ S pe c ifica ll y , th e y a lso no te tha t “ C P A ha s no
368
single issue focus because we believe that people have many concerns —jobs, education,
freedom from discrimination, a c lea n a nd s a fe li vi ng e nviro nment.” (http://www.cpaboston.org/)
Man y o f the g roups’ a c ti vit ies a re r e l a ted to c a p a c it y buil ding . The y sp e c ifi c a ll y e nga g e in a v a rie t y of c o a li ti ons t ha t aim t o “ affect public policy and build a movement
for c ha n ge .” I nvolv e men t has include d: Asi a n P a c ific I sl a nde r Mov e ment, B oston Te na nt
Coalition, Chinatown Master Plan 2010, Civic Engagement Initiative, Community Labor
United, Green Justice Coalition, Immigrant Workers Center Collaborative, New
Majority, Right to the City Alliance, The Chinatown Coalition, and Whose Boston?
Through these efforts, the organization represents the immigrant community, and
generally seeks to bolster quality of life for the ethnic-based population through a range
of activities. (http://www.cpaboston.org/)
The Coalition Against Poverty/Coalition for Social Justice is a local social justice
group focused on grassroots social movement building. The organization engages in
phone banking, legislative action alerts to members, legislative lobbying visions, and
public hearing attendance. Much of there work is organized around particular campaigns.
(http://www.thecoalitionagainstpoverty.org)
The Gr e e n J usti c e C a mpaig n is amon g the Coalit ion’s wor k. Most of this wor k is
facilitated through their partnership with Community Labor United. Through the effort,
the y a im to be “ a t t he f o r e fr ont of sha pin g the ra pi dl y g row in g w e a the riz a ti on indus tr y in
Massachusetts. Goals of the campaign are to expand community access to energy
efficiency and establish a high standard for gr e e n j obs a va il a ble to loca l wo rke rs.” Th e y
369
participated in the campaign through their role in bringing together community groups in
the “ c ha re tt e e ” proc e ss d iscussi ng we a ther iz a ti on. The y st a te “ MassS a v e ’s a bil it y to
bring energy savings through weatherization to Massachusetts residents who have
historically been underserved by this program...Once a successful shift has been made it
will significantly improve energy efficiency options for thousands of Massachusetts
households and ensure that these communities are at the forefront of the growing green
e c onom y .” The y thus a im to ensur e that e quit y c onsi de ra ti ons a re in c or po ra ted into t he process. (http://www.thecoalitionagainstpoverty.org)
The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) is a nonprofit, community-
based group in the Roxbury/North Dorchester Neighborhoods of Boston. Local residents
founded the organization in 1984 by local residents. DSNI aims to foster comprehensive
“ ne i g hborh ood r e vit a li z a ti on” that include s “e c on omi c , human, ph y sic a l, a nd
e nvironmen tal g row th.” The grou p now boa sts m e mber ship o ve r 3,00 0, in c ludi ng residents, businesses, nonprofit-s and religious institutions. The initiative also specifically
maintained eminent domain and has developed abandoned parcels throughout the
neighborhood. (http://www.dnsi.org/index)
The initiative envisions its role as providing comprehensive change in the Boston
region. They note that “ T he Dudle y S tre e t N e ig hb or hood I nit iative is a n innovative, hig h
performing holistic community change effort that continues to thrive. Residents lead a
community collaboration with the shared goal of creating a vibrant, high quality diverse
urban village. Today, the dramatic rebuilding of human, social and physical infrastructure
has signaled that this is a neighborhood on its way back. DSNI focuses on three strategic
370
areas: community economic development, leadership development and collaboration, and
yout h oppor tuni ti e s and de ve lopm e nt.” To facilitate this, the group works with residents,
c omm unit y de ve lopm e nt c oope ra ti on’s (CDCs), businesse s, re li g ious i nsti t uti ons, ba nks,
government agencies, corporations, and foundations. (http://www.dnsi.org/index)
The Greater Four Corners Action community is a small community-based
or ga niz a ti on fo c used a t t he ne i g hborh ood sc a le. T he grou p a dvo c a tes f o r “ ne ig hbor hood
stabil iz a ti on” in F our Cor ne rs Com muni t y of D o r c he ster , Mass a c husetts. Their approach
is multipronged; it is incorporative of transportation, environmental, and economic justice
iss ue s and is ac c ompl ished b y “ a ddr e ssi n g the issues, throug h o r g a niz ing r e sidents,
providing positive opportunities for youth, promoting economic development and
c oll a bora ti n g with ot he rs .” F oc us e d a t t he ne i g hbo rhood leve l, t he y se e thei r r ole a s
“ or g a niz e r, se rvic e prov i de , a nd c oll a bor a tor/supp or ter of othe r e f for ts.” Th e ir pa st work
has focused on improving transportation services.
(http://www.mydorchester.org/civic/greaterfourcorners)
Neighbor to Neighbor is a community-based organization that is oriented around
affordable housing. The group specifically provides counseling around the availability of
affordable housing for residents in Larimer County. They specifically emphasize the need
for multi-family affordable housing and relative supportive services.
(http://www.n2n.org)
Project RIGHT is a neighborhood- ba se d gr oup tha t promot e s “involve ment in
neighborhood stabilization and economic development within the community of Greater
Gr ove H a ll ( R ox bur y a n d Nor th Dor c h e ster ). T h e ir visi on “ is t o tra in and suppor t
371
emerging leadership by providing an inclusive network for resident organizations to
e nga g e in communi t y buil ding e f for ts wi thi n Gr ov e Ha ll .” The gr oup is orie nted a round c a pa c it y buil din g withi n the c omm unit y . Crit ica l i ssues include : “public po li c y iss ue s,
public safety and crime prevention efforts, electoral mobilization, housing and economic
de ve lopm e nt i ssues, z oning , a nd oth e r ne i g hborh o od a nd c omm unit y wide e ff or ts.”
Taken together, their efforts aim to bolster quality of life within Boston.
(http://www.projectright.org)
New England United for Justice is a non-profit organization that is oriented
around social justice. The organization is based upon membership and capacity building
around low-and moderate-income families across multiple issues. The organization
spec ifica ll y a im s to b olst e r the “ voic e ” o f its s take holder s. The ir or ient a ti on a round the
green jobs movement is specifically related to their commitment to social justice. It is
indi c a ti ve of a “ so c ial jus ti c e ” a nd loc a li z e d vision around the green economy, and is thus
worth replicating as follows:
People in our neighborhoods come up with many ideas on what "Green" means to
them....But we are going to share what "Green" means to our members and our
organization. Members of our organization have been involved in Green Justice
issues that relate to energy efficiency programs and services that create a chain of
social and economic justice issues for our neighborhoods. The Green Justice
Coalition brings the power of labor, community and environmental organizations
to collectively address issues around energy efficiency work as it realities to jobs,
our community, services and the environment.
The Green Justice Coalition Demands and is Organizing to Ensure that:
Community Mobi li z a ti on: Uti li t y c omp a nies ha ve n’ t done a g ood job s ig ni ng up
residents for home weatherization. We want them to support community
organizations with the resources they need to conduct on the ground outreach with
strong door to door models in our neighborhoods to make sure residents are aware
of the programs in place to help reduce carbon and create energy savings in our
neighborhoods!
372
High Road Jobs: OUR neighborhoods need jobs! And not just any job, but jobs
with descent wages, benefits, safety training, safe working conditions, and paths
to lifetime careers that will build up our communities, not just strip the labor
power out of them.
Financial Support: It is not enough to inform local residents on all the repairs
buildings and homes will need in order to be weatherized for energy
e ff icie n c y …re sid e nts nee d upf ront f inanc ial suppo rt so that we c a n re pa i r o ur homes.
R e membe r, it’s O UR m one y , a nd it is OUR rig ht t o c re a t e a g r e e n oppor tun it y and a true pathway out of poverty while improving our neighborhoods, one
community and one door at a time. We are paying the utility companies an
“ e ne r g y e ff i c ienc y ” c ha r g e e ve r y mont h to pa y fo r home we a th e riz a ti on. W e pa y the federal government income taxes that pay for the stimulus program and we
pay the City property taxes to administer green programs like Renew Boston. We
want a real voice in how that money is spent and we want the money used to help
g e t us o ut of the “ jobl e ss ” r e c e ssi on a nd c re a t e sust a inable f uture s fo r us a s working people.
We have come a long way in this campaign and have won services with upfront
financial support to local residents, green jobs that support our high road platform
for the new green workforce in our communities and outreach resources for local
organizations to help get the word out about weatherization.
We have also won new energy efficiency programs for Boston Residents and have
had an impact in improving programs across the state to ensure our communities
are not left out of the ability to Go Green!
http://www.neunited4justice.org/en/current-campaigns/green-justice.html

Environmental Organizations
Finally, two larger environmental organizations are also members of the coalition.
These gr oups a re not as “ c omm unit y - ba s e d” a s the e nvironmen tal jus ti c e or g a niz a ti ons
outlined above.
First, Clean Water Action is a multistate environmental organization. They define
their role in environmental terms, and utilize climate change as a framing mechanism for
their work. As an example, they state:
Science confirms that global warming is real, present and caused by human
activity. The International Panel on Climate Change warns that, without
intervention, temperatures may increase more than 10°F by the end of this
century. As the world grows hotter, water resources will become scarcer and more
373
seasonal. Increasingly frequent heat waves will be accompanied by intense
storms, dangerous floods and severe drought.
We must act quickly to prevent these worst-case scenarios, and we should begin
by rethinking our energy sources. Currently, we rely almost exclusively on fossil
fuel and nuclear energy production methods, which accelerate climate change
while contaminating our water resources with ionizing radiation, heavy metals
and chemical pollution. In addition, these established energy production methods
rely on a steady and reliable supply of water. In fact, the Department of Energy
confirms energy production is the second highest water user in the country,
exceeded only by agriculture. As global warming worsens and droughts becomes
more common, our existing power plants may not be able to secure enough water
to support energy production.

The “ ne w e ne r g y e c ono m y ” is s e e n a s the solut ion t o the pr oblem. The re f or e , the
organization in involved in the green economy dialogue through the environmental
benefits of economic growth in this area. (http://www.cleanwateraction.org)
Second, the Massachusetts Energy Consumers Alliance is a nonprofit membership
organization aimed at reducing energy costs as a cooperative. The organization was
started in 1982 in order to provide discount heating oil services. The organization claims
that members save 15-30 cents per gallon and limit prices that deals can charge. The
Alliance currently boasts 17,000 members and negotiates better pricing on their behalf.
Members work with a local representative, who facilitates the transaction. Through this
process, the organization aims to provide energy efficiency at lower costs, making
improvements accessible to communities. (http://www.massenergy.org/about)
Ta ke n to g e the r, this coa li ti on is br oa dl y r e p re se nt a ti ve of the “ g r e e n - c oll a re d” jobs effort in Boston. No other competing organizations were identified within the City of
Boston. What appears to bring these organizations together is a common emphasis on
equity considerations. The coalition is representative of environmental, labor, and
374
economic equity issues. Rather than the environment or economic growth, equity
consideration appears to cross over nearly all of the included groups within this coalition.
Another strong common theme is the significant number of community-based
organizations. Several labor organizations were multi-state organizations. However,
many of these organizations have a local focus and are relatively small sized. Despite
this, many of these groups also appear to be strongly rooted in coalition work, having
worked together previously. Many of these groups express this commitment prominently
in their mission statement, and throughout their literature. Given this, it is unsurprising
that these or g a niz a ti ons would be w e ll posi ti one d to j oin a “ g r e e n - c oll a r e d ’ jobs c oa li ti on
of this type.
What appears to be lacking in the group is business and university affiliations.
Unlike clean tech efforts or other climate change effort, no businesses were directly
include d in t he c oa li ti on. Or g a niz a ti ons t ha t m a y b roa dl y re pr e se nt “ e c ono mi c ” g o a ls ,
were either labor organizations, or economic development-oriented organizations that
appear to be broadly oriented around equity considerations.

b. Climate Action Plan
Given the strong nexus between climate action planning, and the remaining
environmental measures pertinent to the green economy, it may also be crucial to
understand the key stakeholders related to climate change mitigation, or climate action,
within the City of Boston and its environs. This can be most readily understood by
describing the stakeholders most engaged within the climate action planning process
375
within the City of Boston. Stakeholders are described below and categorized into a
number of ke y “ t y p e s,” a s done in prior se c ti ons.

Environmental and/or Social Justice Based Organizations
Relatively few organizations described above overlap with stakeholders included
within the green-collared jobs coalition listed above. However, two groups are included
in both processes. First, Alternatives for Community and Environment included and
represents a locally-based environmental justice organization. Second, the Boston
Climate Action network is included as a small climate-change organization.
Several other environmental and/or social justice based community-based
organizations are included within the process. These organizations tend to be smaller,
community based organizations that are guided by quality of life issues.
First, the Hyde Square Task Force is a neighborhood coalition in the Hyde-
Jackson Square neighborhood. Founded in 1980s, the task force began as a public safety
effort and later became a 501©3 organization. Their mission is broadly oriented around
improving the quality of life fo r r e sidents. The y st a te tha t “our mi ssi on is to deve lop t he skills of youth and their families so that they are empowered to enhance their own lives
a nd buil d a strong a nd vi br a nt urba n c omm unit y .” (http://www.hydesquare.org/about_us/mission.html)
Second, the Ten Points Coalition is a long-standing community based group
focused on crime issues in Boston. The coalition is a faith-based group focused around
mobilizing Black and Latino youth. They focus specifically on high-risk youth to provide
376
a range of services. They also specifically work with other groups in coalitions. They
spec ifica ll y note tha t t he y “ a re uniqu e be c a use th e y … Ope r a te in c oll a bor a ti on with ot he r
community-based, governmental, and private sector institutions that are committed to the
revitalization of the families and communities in which our youth are raised. By working
with ot he r insti tut ions, w e r e duc e dupli c a ti on of e f for ts”
(http://www.bostontenpoint.org/)
Third and finally, the Youth Climate Action Network is composed of eight
climate action youth groups in Massachusetts. Groups originate in schools or
communities and groups commit to engaging in efforts around climate change. The
Youth Climate Action Network has been working with students in Boston Massachusetts
since 2007. The effort is broadly oriented on the idea of consolidating networks around
students, around these issues. The group specifically engages around a number of issues
and projects. Through these efforts, they specifically partner with community-based
organizations including the Boston Climate Action Network.

Labor Unions and Organizations
The only labor union included with the Massachusetts Building Trade Council.
The Massachusetts Building Trades Council (MBTC) is a union broadly related to
construction and the building trades. The union is well established and boasts a 91 year
long history. The union is composed of 74 member locales and represents over 75,000
workers. The union provides training and benefits to employees. Additionally, the union
conducts outreach efforts to women and minorities. The union incorporates 78 locales
377
and 11 district councils. Examples of included councils include: The International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers incorporates all workers in the electrical industry.
Construction and residential electricians are included. The International Association of
Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers applies to workers who apply insulation
to pipes, tanks, boilers, ducts, refrigeration equipment and other surfaces requiring
thermal control of temperatures. The International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers represents workers who assemble and erect
steel framework and other metal parts in buildings and on bridges, dams, skyscrapers,
factories and other steel structures. They raise, place and join steel griders and columns to
form structural. The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association included sheet metal
workers engaged across industries, including HVAC/R service providers. The
International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a diverse union that covers the construction
industry. Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the
United States and Canada incorporates skilled plasterers, cement masons, and shophands
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry of the United States and Canada incorporates represents plumbers and pipe,
sprinkler, and refrigerator fitters, as well as service technicians. International Union of
Elevator Constructors covers elevator constructors who assemble, install and replace
elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters, moving walkways and other similar equipment on
buildings. They additionally provide maintenance to equipment. International Union of
378
Painters and Allied Trades cover several crafts including painting, wallpaper hanging,
glazing (glass work), drywall and taping, floor covering, and sign and display work.
(http://massbuildingtrades.org/node)

Environmental Nonprofit Organizations
Likewise, the only environmental organization included within the coalition is the
Union of Concerned Scientists. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a large, national
environmental nonprofit organization. Dating back to 1969, the organization includes
over 250,000 citizen and scientists. The organization se e ks t o “ e nsur e that a ll pe ople ha ve clean air, energy, transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable
manne r.” Th e or g a niz a ti on pr ovides sc ientific r e s e a rc h a nd a dvo c a tes f o r c ha nge s in
government and policy around environmental considerations.
(http://www.ucsusa.org/about/)

University Involvement
Two university stakeholders were included in the Coalition. First, the Boston
Architectural College is a c oll e g e loc a ted in B ost on’s B a c k Ba y . F ound e d in 1889, t he college boasts 1100 students and offer undergraduate and graduate programs. Programs
focus on practice-based professional education. Degree programs are offered in
architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, and design studies. The college also
focuses broadly around sustainability. Resources include a Landscape Institute and a
Sustainable Design Institute. (http://www.the-bac.edu)
379
Second, the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy is located at
Northeastern University in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs. The center was
founded in 1999, t he c e nt e r is “ thi nk a nd do tank, t he Duka kis C e nter ’s c oll a bora ti ve research and problem-solving model applies powerful data analysis, multidisciplinary
research and evaluation techniques, and a policy-driven perspective to address a wide
range of issues facing cities, towns, and suburbs, with a particular emphasis on the
g r e a te r B oston r e g ion.” As suc h, the c e nt e r is c o mm it tee to bot h de ve lopi ng a ppli e d
policy projects and implementing the policies identified through these research efforts.
Research addresses a range of urban and regional policy areas and is also involved in
capacity building with nonprofit organizations.
(http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/index.php)

Business Community
Finally, the business community had a leading role in the coalition. The business
community was represented by a number of included stakeholders. First, A Better City is
a nonprofit membership organization oriented around business leadership. The advocacy
group focuses largely on transportation, land use development, and public infrastructure
im pr ove ments. The ir mi ssi on st a tes tha t: “ A B e tt e r Cit y ( A B C ) is a n indep e nde nt,
membership-based organization that improves the economic competitiveness and quality
of life of the Boston region by advancing significant transportation, land development
and environmental policies, projects and initiatives. ABC works to anticipate the
380
challenges facing the region today and into the future. ” Thus the y a im to “ mobilize the
business community and work together with both civic and government sectors to take
a c ti on.” More ov e r, A B C c laims to have a “ lon g -established, working partnership at the
loca l, st a te a nd f e de r a l l e ve ls.” Me mber ship i s dra wn f rom the bu siness c o mm unit y . Th e Board of Directors is composed of over 100 business leaders representing a range of
industries including financial services, real estate, legal services, construction, higher
education, cultural institutions, life sciences, hospitality, and utility. They feel that
diversity of industries well- posi ti ons t he g roup, no ti ng that “ he div e rsit y o f indus tries a nd
expertise represented in our membership enables ABC to lend valuable private sector
support, a dvice , a nd p rov ide a ba sis f or indus tr y a c ti on a nd lea de rship.” The organization
encourages member businesses to integrate environmental practices into their business
model. Specifically, the Better City Transportation Management Association (ABC
TMA) is a nonpr of it or ga niz a ti on that wor ks wit h busi ne sses to “ma int a in t he e c onomi c vitality of downtown Boston and the Back Bay by reducing traffic congestion and
improving air quality through the creation and provision of services and materials that
pr omot e tra nsporta ti on o pti ons a nd a lt e rna ti ve to t he sing le o c c upa n c y ve hi c le.” The or ga niz a ti on a lso ho sts a “ c ha ll e n ge f or sust a inabil it y ” pro gr a m for m e mber busi ne sses.
Additionally, the organization actively participates in the Sustainable Business Leader
Program. Formed in 2008, the partnership between the Department of Environmental
Protection and the Boston Redevelopment Authority has worked with over 60 businesses
in t he B oston a re a a roun d g r e e n pr a c ti c e s. W it hin the Ma y o r’ s C l imate Action
381
Leadership Committee, they specifically serve on the transportation and building sub-
committees.(http://www.abettercity.org/index.html)
Additionally, several niche businesses were included and can be summarized as
follows:
The Energy Network Operations Center (EnerNoc) is a private company aimed at
energy efficiency. The company concentrates on energy management systems for
commercial, institutional, and industrial organizations. The programs include:
DemandSMART, EfficiencySMART, SupplySMART, and CarbonSMART. Their
customers span the United States and Great Brittan.
(http://www.abettercity.org/index.html)
Boston Properties is a large private company founded in Boston that acquires,
de ve lops, a nd mana ge s p rope rties. T he y op e ra t e a s “a self -administered and self-managed
real estate investment trust, is one of the largest owners, managers, and developers of
first-class office properties in the United States, with a significant presence in four core
mar ke ts: B oston , W a shing ton, D.C ., Mi dtown Ma nha tt a n a nd S a n F ra nc is c o.” (http://www.bostonproperties.com/site/about/index.aspx)
Similarly, Rockport Partners is an investment firm that invests in sustainability-
related industry. Specifically, they invest in five segments: energy and power, resource
efficiency, transportation, advanced materials, and green building. They invest in
companies at all stages of development and invest between $500,000 and $25 million in
each selected company. There history is routed in the energy sector.
(http://www.rockportcap.com/our-approach)
382
Nitsch Engineering is a small engineering firm focused on energy efficiency to
building/site development and infrastructure clients. They operate offices in
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Their clients include civil and
transportation engineers, land surveyors, planners, and GIS specialists. They are
specifically oriented around sustainability, with expertise in stormwater master planning,
sustainable site design, and green/LEED. (http://www.nitscheng.com)
And finally, a large mainstream business, Staples is a large company providing
of fic e suppl ies. The c om pa n y ’ s main ar e a s of s a le s include: of fic e suppl ies, tec hnolog y ,
furniture, copy and print services, and cleaning and breakroom supplies. Staples was
founded in 1986, has annual sales of $25 billion, and employees approximately 90,000
indi viduals g loball y . An i nter na ti ona l cor po ra ti on, S taple s’ r e a c h include s o ve r 26
countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
(www.staples.com)

c. Green Business Associations
Additionally, several groups are emerging around the green economy with a
strong business origin. Many of these organizations have a strong nexus with niche
markets around environmental goods and services. The three leading groups in Boston
include the local chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Sustainable
Business Network of Greater Boston as the local BALLE organization.
First, the U.S. Green Building Council has a local chapter in Massachusetts. Local
chapters provide opportunities for advocacy and networking for individuals involved in
383
any aspect of green building. The organization is broadly focused on the business
community. Acc or din g to t he c ounc il , “ USGBC's Chapter network is highly organized
and international in scope. The Massachusetts Chapter is growing quickly and even as a
start up organization has succeeded in bringing important programming and education to
our community. Become involved and join our wonderful community of passionate green
building professionals from all industries. Also, as a member or sponsor, you can gain
unique leadership opportunities locally and nationally, event discount benefits, voting
rights, op portunit ies to pa rtne r a nd c oll a bor a te on pr ojec ts and muc h mor e . ” The organization operates a number of committees including policy advocacy and
communications committee. (http://www.usgbcma.org)
Second, the Sustainable Business Network is the local chapter of the BALLE
national organizations and appears to have a relatively well-developed alliance and
program. Founded in 1988, the organization is business-driven. Membership focuses on
local businesses, many of whom are smaller green goods and service providers operating
withi n a niche mar ke t. T he ir mi ssi on is to eng a g e “ busi ne ss and c omm unit y le a de rs in
buil ding e c onomi e s that a re g r e e n loc a l and f a ir.” The or g a niz a ti on c ha n ge d their na me
from the Responsible Business Association to the SBN in order to highlight
e nvironmen tal iss ue s. Th e y not e s that “SB N c ha n g e d it s name in 2006 t o r e fle c t t he growing consensus that, in order to survive and thrive, businesses must minimize the
impact that their activities have on the earths natural systems. (http://sbnboston.org/)
The Sustainable Business Network view themselves as a part of the broader
movement around the green economy. Their specific focus is on the development of a
384
local green economy and much of their effort is aimed at the local scale. They note, for
e x a mpl e , that “ , There is a movement growing in communities across the nation.
Building strong local economies is really just a return to something that has worked for
people in the past. By supporting local and independent businesses with our dollars, they
support us wit h their c omm unit y p a rtne rship.” Ad voc a c y e ff or ts fo c us on r e c o g niz ing a nd
supporting local businesses that are somehow identified to be a part of the green
economy. They specifically focus on building alliances between the business community
a nd other stake hold e rs. T he y not e , f or e x a mpl e , that “ S B N h a s ove r 20 y e a r s of
experience in bringing together business leaders and others interest in topics such as
business ethics, local economy building, environmental sustainability, social and
e nvironmen tal jus ti c e , a n d loca l food to shar e in fo rma ti on a nd take a c ti on.”
(http://sbnboston.org/)
Their most well developed program is the Sustainable Business Leader program.
The program provides technical assistance and guidance to local business owners in order
to improve their environmental practices. Environmental considerations include: energy
efficiency, water conservation, waste management, pollution prevention and safe
alternatives, transportation, local purchasing and local good, and sustainability
management most broadly. Businesses that participate in the program can be come
c e rtifie d a s “su staina ble busi ne ss l e a de rs. ” (http://sbnboston.org/)
The program is administered with strong municipal partnership and support. The
program is funded by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
and the Boston Air Pollution Control Commission. The effort originated from a series of
385
bi- mont hl y sum mi t m e e ti ng s c a ll e d “ B usiness S umm it s for a S ustaina ble B oston ” organized by the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Boston throughout 2006 to
2007. I n 2007, th e Ma y o r pr e se nted “ Gr e e n B us in e ss Awa rds. ” The c ur r e nt ef for t i s
done in partnership with the Boston Redevelopment Agency. Specifically, the
S ustaina ble B usiness Ne t wor k notes tha t, “Th e B o ston R e de ve lopm e nt Authorit y a nd
S B N w a nted to r e a c h out t o a nd a ssi st bus inesse s that we re n ’t aware of how to reduce
their waste generation rate, lower their energy and water consumption, and purchase
g r e e n pro du c ts produc e d fr om l oc a l and r e g ional manuf a c tur e rs.”
(http://sbnboston.org/)
Finally, Northeastern Environmental Entrepreneurs operates as affiliated with the
Natural Resources Defense Council, a large mainstream environmental organization. The
organization represents the business community and environmental interests throughout
New England. They state that, “ E2 N e w En g land ha s dra matic a ll y r a ised it s prof il e in
Massachusetts, becoming widely recognized as an important player on Beacon Hill and a
strong business voice to support environmental initiatives. With 80 members, E2 New
England has helped to make inroads on state policy dealing with energy and global
warming, strongly supporting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and
working actively to ensure Massachusetts would join the pact and auction 100 percent of
the pollution permits. E2 New England continues to advocate for policies to support the
New England clean energy economy, advance the preservation of a healthy ocean
ecosystem, and raise the importance of global warming as an economic as well as
386
e nvironmen tal iss ue .” Th us, t he e n g a g e in a numb e r of e nvironm e nta l efforts through a
network of affiliated businesses. (http://e2.org/jsp/controller?docId=17221&issue=ne)

3. Conclusion: Linking Industries, Occupations, and Policies in Boston-Cambridge-
Quincy
The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy offers a district area of opportunity around the
green economy. Cluster by cluster, a range of opportunities exist around the pursuit of
sustainability values for the relatively high-income area located in the Northeastern
United States.
The “ g r e e n buil ding a nd c onst ruc ti on c lust e r” h a s a n a bunda n c e of e mpl o y ment
and establishments. The potential total employment in this cluster is 194,536. Boston-
Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area may boast a total of 23027
establishments. Out of the total employment or establishments in the MSA, this amounts
to 8.6% and 18.8% respectively. Industries with the highest amount of employment
include: specialty trade contractors (including electrical contractors); plumbing, heating,
and air conditioning contractors; engineering services; construction of buildings;
electrical contractors and other wiring installation contractors. Several occupations also
exhibited high local quotients. Indicated occupations include: architects, electrical
engineers, and landscape engineers.
The “ tra nspo rta ti on a nd a lt e rna ti ve f ue l vehi c le c lu ster ” r e p re se nts a small a mount of employment within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. The
387
potential employment in this cluster is 89829. The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area may boast a total of 7432 establishments. Out of the total
employment or establishments in the MSA, this amounts to 3.99% and 6.01%
respectively. Industries with the highest amount of employment include: transportation
equipment manufacturing, general freight tucking, automotive, mechanical and electrical
repair and maintenance, and automobile dealers. No occupations exhibited a high
location quotient with the MSA.
The “ wa st e , wa ste ma n a ge ment, r e c y c li ng” c lust e r r e pr e s e nts an a r e a o f like l y little opportunity for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Potential total employment in this sector is 39567, or 1.77% out of the total employment
in the MSA. There are 2425 potential green establishments, representing 2% of total
establishments within the MSA. Industries with the highest number of employment
include: testing laboratories, environmental consulting services, solid waste collection,
other scientific and technical consulting services, and engineering services.
The “ e nvironm e ntal c om pli a nc e , sust a inabili t y , pl a nning a nd poll uti on
pr e ve nti on” c lust e r c omp oses the r e lativel y small portion of the gr een economy, with an
abundance of occupations. Total employment in this sector within the Boston-
Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area is 8180. There are 782 total
establishments within this cluster in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Out of the total employment or establishments in the MSA, this cluster
represents .4% and .64 % of total economic activity respectively. Industries with the
highest level of employment include: survey and mapping services, testing laboratories,
388
environmental consulting services, and other scientific and consulting services. Despite
low aggregate numbers, a rich number of occupations includes: construction manager,
green marketers, marketing managers, logistic managers, architecture/engineering
manager, financial analysts, electrical engineers, robotics engineers, environmental
engineering technicians, industrial engineering technologists, chemists, and materials
scientists.
The “ e n e r g y g e n e ra ti on, re ne w a ble e n e r g y , a nd e n e r g y stora g e ” c lust e r. Total
employment in this sector within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical
Area is 31898. There are 1289 total establishments within this cluster in the Boston-
Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area. This represents 1.42% of total
employment and 1.05% of total establishments within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Industries with the highest number of employment include:
engineering services, other scientific and technical consulting services, electric power
distribution, electric power generation. Occupations were indicated as having a high
location quotient within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Table 44:
Linking Industries, Occupations and Policies Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA
Green
Economy
Cluster
Sample Policies
by Green
Economy
Cluster
Prevalent Occupations
Employment Establishments
Industries with
Highest
Employment
Green Building
and
Construction
Cluster
Boston Zoning
Code
Requirement
Cool Roofs
Green Lease (in
development)
Energy Rating
(in
development)
Energy
Efficiency
Retrofit
Ordinance
Boston Green
Contractor
Training
Institute
Architects
 Electrical engineers
 Landscape engineers

Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 194536 23027
Specialty Trade
Contractors
(incl. Electrical
Contractors)
Plumbing,
Heating and
Air-
Conditioning
Contractors
Engineering
Services
Construction of
Buildings
Electrical
Contractors and
Other Wiring
Installation
Contractors
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0864 0.1880

389
Table 44, Continued

Transportation
and Alternative
Fuel Vehicle
EVBoston
Fleet Purchases
of Alternative
Fuel Vehicles
None Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster
89829 7432
Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing
General Freight
Trucking
Automotive
Mechanical and
Electrical
Repair and
Maintenance
Automobile
dealers [Service
departments.]
Engineering
Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0399 0.0607
Waste, Waste
Management,
Recycling
Integrated
Waste
Management
Plan
None Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 39867 2454
Testing
Laboratories
Environmental
Consulting
Services
Solid Waste
Collection
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
Engineering
Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0177 0.0200
Environmental
Compliance,
Sustainability
Planning, and
Pollution
Prevention
Boston Buying
Power
Green Lease (in
development)
Energy Rating
(in
development)
 Construction manager
 Green marketers
 Marketing managers
 Logistics managers
 Architecture/eng.
Manager
 Financial analysts
 Electrical engineers
 Robotics engineers
 Environmental eng.
Technicians
 Industrial eng.
Technologists
 Chemists
 Materials scientist
Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 8180 782
Survey and
Mapping
Services
Testing
Laboratories
Environmental
Consulting
Services
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0036 0.0064
Energy
Generation,
Renewable
Energy, Energy
Storage
Newmarket
Eco-Industrial
Project
Boston
Innovation
District
Greentech
Boston
Ordinance
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas
Solar Boston
Global
Warming
Solutions Act
Green
Communities
Act
Climate
Commission
Renew Boston
Renewable
Portfolio
Standard
 Biofules production
managers
 Civil engineers

Total Green
Employment/Establishments
in Cluster 31898 1289
Engineering
Services
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
Electric Power
Distribution
Electric Power
Generation,
Transmission &
Distribution
[Energy
conservation
planning &
consulting.]
Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
Out of Total
Employment/Establishments
in MSA
0.0142 0.0105

390
How might the employment reality within the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Metropolitan Statistical Area relate to the institutional structure within the metropolitan
statistical area? In total, the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy appears to be an area of strong
environmental measures. As such, the abundant range of green employment can be
expected.
Cluster-particular opportunities may also emerge, logically linked with the range
of policies in this regard. Most apparently, opportunities are concentrated in the green
building cluster with relatively high proportion of green employment in this vein. Such an
abundance of opportunities might be attributable to strong policies in this regard. Policies
that might matter in this regard include: City of Boston Zoning Code Requirement, Cool
Roof Program, Energy Efficiency Retrofit Ordinance, the Boston Green Contractors
Initiative. The innovative Green Lease Program and Energy Rating Program are in
de ve lopm e nt as a p a rt of the c it y ’s c li mate a c ti on plan, a nd ma y be a re a s of c onti n ued
future opportunity.

391
3. Los Angles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Case Study
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area provides
another view of the green economy from the perspective of the State of California. As
indicated in the case study selection above, it appears to be home to a relative prevalence
of green employment by a range of measures and projections. What might account for
the high prevalence of green employment within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Metropolitan Statistical Area? The metr opoli tan a re a a nd incor po ra ted c it ies’ ba sic
characteristics, as described in the first section, suggests that this area would have mixed
success in terms of developing opportunities in the green economy.
How might green employment, in aggregate, be distributed through this
metropolitan statistical area? How might the prevalence of green economic activities and
opportunities vary within metropolitan statistical areas? Given a regional perspective,
how might areas of opportunities within the region be identified and examined. Data was
ascertained at a city level (as of 2009) through the database at the National Center for
Charitable Statistics (NCCS). The cities included are those that are identified as
“ pr incipa l c it ies” b a se d u pon the c e nsus bur e a u’ s de finiti ons of me tropoli tan statist ica l
areas. Based upon the institutional factors identified, I see differing levels of probable
green employment within these cities based upon institutional factors. Data is included
and listed in table 46 below.

392
Table 45:
Green Economy Indicators Across Cities in
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
City
Total
Population
Median Income
Level
Number of Environmental
Organizations
S u st a i n e l a n e “ T o p ci t y ”
1=Yes
Los Angeles 3,694,834 36,687 68 0
Long Beach 461,381 37,270 9 0
Santa Ana 337,512 43,412 7 0
Anaheim 327,357 47,122 1 0
Irvine 143,034 72,057 13 0
Glendale 195,047 41,805 5 0
Pomona 149,644 40,021 2 0
Pasadena 33,871 46,012 16 0
Torrance 137,933 56,489 5 0
Orange 128,438 58,994 5 0
Fullerton 126,246 50,269 5 0
Costa Mesa 108,785 50,732 2 0
Burbank 100,316 47,467 12 0
Compton 93,226 31,819 0 0
Carson 89,549 52,284 1 0
Santa Monica 84,084 50,714 16 0
Newport
Beach 70,022 83,455 6 0
Tustin 67,551 55,985 1 0
Montebello 61,960 38,805 0 0
Monterey Park 59,933 40,724 0 0
Gardena 57,818 38,988 1 0
Arcadia 52,951 56,100 3 0
Paramount 55,319 36,749 0 0
Fountain
Valley 54,995 69,734 0 0
Cerritos 51,507 73,030 0 0

393
1. Economic Development Analysis
a. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Occupational Analysis
What green occupations are prevalent within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area? Occupational analysis of the Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area can identify and indicate points of
comparative advantage and economic activity broadly around the green economy. Such
an approach enables a more detailed examination of areas of green economic
opportunities and areas of potential comparative advantage in the wide array of
occupations and corollary industries that could be a subset of the broad concept of a
green economy.
First, understating the distribution of occupations within the metropolitan
statistical area provides a contextual background through which to understand the green
economy. Table 46 shows those occupations that have a 1.5 or higher location quotient,
organized by 2- digit SOC codes with definitions of the sectors. Additionally, I only keep
those 2-digit categories with more than 4 categories as a start, enabling me to eliminate
areas where there is not a clear agglomeration of economic activity, and therefore not a
clear indication of potential competitive advantage within this spectrum of occupations.
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area, as
indicated below, has several agglomerations of groups or clustering of occupations. The
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area boasts a multitude of
opportunities in lower-skilled areas. A large cluster emerges around personal care and
services operations, sales and related occupations, and office administrative and support
394
operations. Additionally, a large cluster emerges in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa
Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area has a large clustering of education, training and library
occupations. Such opportunities are often broadly linked to the arts. A variety of
occupations also fall in the production category —indicating a very different economic
base than that of the San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont Metropolitan Statistical Area and
the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Table 46:
Occupational Clusters Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
Occupation
Code Occupation Title
Total
Employment
Location
Quotient
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 7,180 1.877
19-2011 Astronomers 230 3.032
19-2012 Physicists 1,100 1.598
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners 2,420 1.522
Legal Occupations
25-1051
Atmospheric, Earth, Marine, and Space Sciences Teachers,
Postsecondary 870 1.998
25-1069 Social Sciences Teachers, Postsecondary, All Other 520 1.698
25-1121 Art, Drama, and Music Teachers, Postsecondary 6,770 1.908
25-1199 Postsecondary Teachers, All Other 11,650 1.557
Education, Training, and Library Occupations
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 153,530 2.189
27-1011 Art Directors 3,440 2.837
27-1013 Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators 2,310 5.481
27-1014 Multimedia Artists and Animators 4,970 4.575
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other 500 1.597
27-1022 Fashion Designers 3,140 5.107
27-1024 Graphic Designers 12,570 1.601
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers 4,200 1.598
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers 1,250 3.774
27-1029 Designers, All Other 550 1.559
27-2011 Actors 16,700 7.467
27-2012 Producers and Directors 16,010 4.693
395
Table 46, Continued
27-2032 Choreographers 1,070 2.113
27-2042 Musicians and Singers 4,210 2.381
27-3043 Writers and Authors 3,770 2.251
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other 5,530 5.707
27-4011 Audio and Video Equipment Technicians 4,670 2.405
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians 2,530 2.024
27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians 2,650 4.143
27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Motion Picture 2,140 3.124
27-4032 Film and Video Editors 4,870 5.976
27-4099 Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other 3,840 5.585
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
29-1023 Orthodontists 470 2.050
29-1063 Internists, General 3,420 1.670
29-1065 Pediatricians, General 2,120 1.723
29-1066 Psychiatrists 1,470 1.586
29-1128 Therapists, All Other* 1,000 1.517
Sales and Related Occupations
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks 28,660 1.692
41-3041 Travel Agents 5,110 1.765
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters 5,480 1.771
41-9012 Models 100 2.360
41-9031 Sales Engineers 4,210 1.560
41-9091 Door-to-Door Sales Workers, News and Street Vendors, and Related Workers 510 1.641
41-9799 Sales and Related Workers, All Other* 10,480 1.696
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4151 Order Clerks 14,220 1.647
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents 7,490 2.253
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers 6,660 1.905
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks 17,450 1.605
43-5111 Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping 4,810 1.772
43-6013 Medical Secretaries 31,200 1.544
43-9022 Word Processors and Typists 9,960 2.404
43-9071 Office Machine Operators, Except Computer 4,220 1.552
43-9081 Proofreaders and Copy Markers 810 1.553
43-9799 Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other* 26,460 2.559
Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2041 Carpet Installers 2,010 1.923
47-2053 Terrazzo Workers and Finishers 370 2.516

396
Table 46, Continued
47-
2081 Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers 6,460
1.92
2
47-
2161 Plasterers and Stucco Masons 2,440
2.26
1
47-
3014 Helpers--Painters, Paperhangers, Plasterers, and Stucco Masons 910
1.81
6
Production Occupations
51-
2093 Timing Device Assemblers and Adjusters 100
1.63
1
51-
3092 Food Batchmakers 6,270
1.57
9
51-
4022 Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 1,390
1.53
5
51-
4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic 4,990
1.74
2
51-
4193 Plating and Coating Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 2,250
1.80
0
51-
6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials 3,980
1.72
0
51-
6031 Sewing Machine Operators
27,60
0
4.59
5
51-
6041 Shoe and Leather Workers and Repairers 390
1.60
8
51-
6051 Sewers, Hand 1,310
5.55
3
51-
6061 Textile Bleaching and Dyeing Machine Operators and Tenders 3,540
6.82
6
51-
6062 Textile Cutting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 2,570
4.19
3
51-
6092 Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers 2,330
9.42
0
51-
6093 Upholsterers 1,960
1.58
6
51-
6099 Textile, Apparel, and Furnishings Workers, All Other 1,040
1.91
1
51-
7021 Furniture Finishers 1,190
1.89
8
51-
7099 Woodworkers, All Other 700
1.99
3
51-
9022 Grinding and Polishing Workers, Hand 2,140
1.91
0
51-
9031 Cutters and Trimmers, Hand 1,740
2.45
1
51-
9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers 1,400
1.59
6
Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations
53-
1011 Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors 520
2.06
3
53-
3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other 4,240
1.69
6
53-
6021 Parking Lot Attendants
12,45
0
2.44
7
53-
7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
18,14
0
1.54
2

397
How does this occupational distribution specifically relate to activities within the
green economy? I now engage in green occupational research through the methodology
identifie d a bove in ord e r to deve lop a pic ture o f a “ gr e e n o c c up a ti ona l clust e r” f o r the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area. Occupations
identified by 6-digit level SOC codes with high location quotients identified above, can
be matched to the potential green occupations that have been identified and included
within the potential green occupational framework developed in the prior section. Green
occupations within the MSA that can be identified through this method are further
de sc ribe d b y the tr a ini ng leve l def ined a s eithe r “ incr e a s e d de mand o c c up a ti ons” “ gr e e n
e nha nc e d ski ll s” or “ Ne w a nd Eme r g in g ” The distribution of potential green occupations,
or the ide nti fie d “ g r e e n o c c upa ti ona l clust e r” is l ist e d i n Table 47.
A surprisingly small number of green occupations are linked to large location
quotients exhibited within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan
Statistical Area. As indicated by the table below, indicated occupations include: urban
and regional planers, cargo and freight agents, and production Planning and expediting
clerks.

398

Table 47:
Green Occupations Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
Occupation
Code Occupation Title Increased Demand
Green Enhanced
Skills
New
and
Emergin
g
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners
19-3051.00
Urban and Regional
Planners

Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents
43-
5011.01
Freight
Forward
ers
43-5061
Production, Planning, and
Expediting Clerks
43-5061.00
Production, Planning and
Expediting Clerks

In conclusion, the above examination sought to provide an occupational analysis
of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area. The analysis
broadly sought to identify opportunities in occupations that may be connected to the
green economy, and the broader desire to provide employment opportunities locally in
environmentally preservative occupations. In order to identify such opportunities, the
location quotient was utilized as an indication of areas of opportunity and then linked to
corollary 6-digit SOC codes specifically relevant to the green economy. First, the overall
occupational makeup of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical
Area was identified. Second, a framework was employed in order to identify
opportunities particular to the green economy. The following section utilizes industry —
based analysis to further identify green economic activity within the metropolitan
statistical area.

399
b. Industry Analysis for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
Building on the occupational analysis above, industry-based analysis provides
another critical point of analysis within a green economic framework. Industry analysis
utilizes County Business Patterns data to understand the distribution of employment in
the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area. Through this
approach, I identify areas of potential comparative advantage through the identification of
clusters within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) taxonomy.
First, table 48 summarizes all industry categories by 2-digit NAICS codes. Table
48 provides both the total number of establishments, as well as the total annual payroll as
an indicator of magnitude of different types of industry sub-sectors.

400
Table 48:
County Business Patterns Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
2009 MSA Business Patterns
Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Major Industry
Industry Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay
period including March 12
First-quarter
payroll
($1,000)
Annual
payroll
($1,000)
Total
establishm
ents
------ 'Total' 5039574 59289067 240949946 333006
11----
'Forestry, fishing, hunting,
and agriculture support' 857 5353 22345 142
21---- 'Mining' 2628 62672 225469 175
22---- 'Utilities' J D D 305
23---- 'Construction' 217316 2682188 10615820 20202
31---- 'Manufacturing' 575669 7316634 29346181 18637
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 369342 5102395 20507805 30569
44---- 'Retail trade' 533419 3477090 14272715 37903
48----
'Transportation &
warehousing' 174910 1906023 7646592 7785
51---- 'Information' 248303 4697894 18331906 10568
52---- 'Finance & insurance' 254732 5761110 20921076 19260
53----
'Real estate & rental &
leasing' 120641 1530564 5873693 17599
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 462318 7677810 33161895 44741
55----
'Management of companies
& enterprises' 114446 2887779 10395550 1968
56----
'Admin, support, waste
mgt, remediation services' 361470 2787785 11369106 15075
61---- 'Educational services' 152932 1226082 5134735 4409
62----
'Health care and social
assistance' 616212 6854304 29200385 38713
71----
'Arts, entertainment &
recreation' 120258 1307533 7777099 12507
72----
'Accommodation & food
services' 480426 2044073 8448642 26292
81----
'Other services (except
public administration)' 212058 1433655 5811930 25301
99----
'Unclassified
establishments' 1036 5198 44604 855

Table 50 summarizes those industry codes at the 2-digit NAICS level with a
location quotient greater than 1. Again, such location quotients indicate NAICS codes
where there are higher concentrations of one particular industry. Those with location
quotients greater than 1.5 demonstrate an even higher threshold of clustering or a higher
agglomeration potential. As indicated by the table, several areas may be of particular
401
interest to the green economy. Particularly promising areas of opportunity may include:
manufacturing with a location quotient of 1.12; wholesale trade with a location quotient
of 1.44; information with a location quotient of 1.72; real estate and rental and leasing
with a location quotient of 1.34; professional, scientific, and technical services with a
location quotient of 1.34; educational services with a location quotient of 1.09; and arts,
entertainment and recreation with a location quotient of 1.36.

Table 49:
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA Location Quotients Greater Than 1

2009 MSA Business Patterns
Industry
Code Industry Code Description
Paid employees for pay period
including March 12
United States Total Paid
Employees
Location
Quotient
------ 'Total' 5039574 114509626
31---- 'Manufacturing' 575669 11632956 1.124426124
42---- 'Wholesale trade' 369342 5827769 1.440039939
51---- 'Information' 248303 3288109 1.715868219
53---- 'Real estate & rental & leasing' 120641 2036590 1.345982741
54----
'Professional, scientific &
technical services' 462318 7839965 1.339907594
61---- 'Educational services' 152932 3200553 1.085729191
71----
'Arts, entertainment &
recreation' 120258 2010339 1.359229678

How can green industries be identified within the existing NAICS taxonomy? As
discusse d a bove , the re is no si ng le “ indus tr y ” th a t enc a psul a tes th e “ g r e e n e c onom y , ” or
the overarching desire by governments and nonprofit organizations to foster green jobs
wi thi n c omm unit ies. D ra wing to g e the r a “ gr e e n e c onom y indus tr y c lust e r” r e quire s
strategic integration of diverse NAICS codes across industry silos that determine where
such opportunities lie within the NAICS taxonomy.
402
Table 50 summarizes the results of such a framework, developed in the
methodology section above, of potential green economic activity within the existing
NAICS Taxonomy. Information on total employment and total establishments is garnered
at the 4-digit NAICS level. Quantification of total establishment is significant in
providing the total number of firms within the locale. Quantification of total employees is
likewise important as it demonstrates the number of employment opportunities for
constituents and is therefore a critical value from a workforce development prospective.

403
Table 50:
Green Institutional Analysis Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA

Green Economy
area/sector
Industry
Sector (2-
digit NAICS)
NAIC
S
Description [notes]

Total
Employees
Total
Establishments
Green Building
and Energy
Efficiency
22 – Utilities 2211 Electric Power
Generation,
Transmission &
Distribution [Energy
conservation planning &
consulting.]
N/A 130
2212 Natural Gas
Distribution
N/A 83
23 –
Construction
236 Construction of Buildings 49934 6547
2361
15
New Single-Family
Housing Construction
(except Operative
Builders)
8129 1579
2361
16
New Multifamily
Housing Construction
(except Operative
Builders)
1970 225
2361
17
New Housing
Operative Builders
3981 293
2361
18
Residential Remodelers 12725 2843
2362
10
Industrial Building
Construction
1958 138
2362
20
Commercial and
Institutional Building
Construction
21171 1469
238 Specialty Trade
Contractors (incl.
Electrical Contractors)
145973 12747
2382
10
Electrical Contractors
and Other Wiring
Installation Contractors
24348 2519

404
Table 50, Continued

2382
20
Pluming, Heating and Air-
Conditioning Contractors
29142 2795
2383
50
Finish Carpentry Contractors 5141 709
2389
90
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors 7610 872
2389
90
Roofing Contractors 7610 872
31-33 –
Manufacturing
3334 Ventilation, Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing
2475 71
3334
14
Heating Equipment (except Warm Air
Furnaces) Manufacturing
N/A 15
3351
10
Electric Lamp Bulb/Parts Mnf 118 5
3351
21
Residential Electric Lighting Fixture
Mnf
804 43
3351
22
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Lighting Fixture Mnf
2509 56
3351
29
Other Lighting Equipment Mnf 1660 29
3353
11
Power, Distribution, and Specialty
Transformer Manufacturing
553 14
42 –
Wholesalers
4237
20
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers
4255 313
53 – Real
Estate and
Rental and
Leasing
5313
11
Residential Property Managers 25148 2096
5313
12
Nonresidential Property Managers 11577 1265

405
Table 50, Continued

54 – Bus.
Prof.
5413
10
Architectural Services 10411 1340
5413
20
Landscape Architectural Services 2249 312
5413
30
Engineering Services 38610 2620
5413
40
Drafting Services 322 84
5413
50
Building Inspection Services 936 226
5414
20
Industrial Design Services 1014 162
5416
20
Environmental Consulting Services 2998 370
92 – Public
Administration
921 Cities and Counties N/A N/A
924 Administration of Environmental Programs N/A N/A
Biofuels/Farming 11 –
Agriculture,
forestry,
fishing and
hunting
1119
98
All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming N/A N/A
1125
19
Other Aquaculture N/A N/A
1131
10
Timber Tract Operations N/A N/A
1132
10
Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest
Products
N/A N/A
1151
1
Support Activities for Crop Production 261 22
1153
10
Support Activities for Forestry N/A 1
31-33 –
Manufacturing
3112
23
Other Oilseed Processing N/A N/A
3112
25
Fats and Oils Refining and Blending N/A 5
3116
13
Rendering and Meat Byproduct
Processing
350 3
3252
21
Cellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing N/A N/A

406
Table 50, Continued

3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer,
and Other
Agricultural
Chemical
Manufacturing
N/A 22
3332
98
All Other Industrial
Machinery
Manufacturing
1069 61
54 – Bus. Prof. 5413
30
Engineering Services 38610 2620
5413
80
Testing Laboratories 5861 300
5416
20
Environmental
Consulting Services
2998 370
5416
90
Other Scientific and
Technical Consulting
Services
10433 3123
5417
11
Research and
Development in
Biotechnology
1276 124
92 – Public
Administration
9241
20
Administration of
Conservation
Programs

Transportation/
Alternative Fuel
22 – Utilities 221122 Electric Power
Distribution
N/A 110
221210 Natural Gas
Distribution
N/A 83
31-33 –
Manufacturing
334512 Automatic
Environmental
Control
Manufacturing for
Residential,
Commercial, and
Appliance Use
N/A 10
335312 Motor and
Generator
Manufacturing
616 18
336 Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing
56769 697
44 – Retail 441100 Automobile
dealers [Service
departments.]
39343 1086
447190 Other Gasoline
Stations1
3893 564
48-49 –
Transportation
and
warehousing
4841 General Freight
Trucking
21491 1968

407
Table 50, Continued

4842 Specialized
Freight Trucking
10778 935
4851 Urban Transit
Systems [Includes
commuter rail
systems.]
4911 70
4852 Interurban
and Rural Bus
Transportation
366 16
488310 Port and
Harbor
Operations
N/A 7
54 – Bus. Prof. 541330 Engineering
Services
38610 2620
541370 Survey and
Mapping
Services
713 114
541380 Testing
Laboratories
5861 300
541614 Process,
Physical
Distribution, and
Logistics
Consulting
Services [Relates
to logistics.]
2693 322
541620 Environmental
Consulting
Services
2998 370
541690 Other
Scientific and
Technical
Consulting
Services
10433 3123
81 – Other
Services
811110 Automotive
Mechanical and
Electrical Repair
and
Maintenance
12632 3521
811190 Other
Automotive
Repair and
Maintenance
12425 1209
92 – Public
Administration
925120 Administration
of Urban
Planning and
Community and
Rural
Development
N/A N/A

408

Table 50, Continued
Water,
Wastewater &
Waste
Management
22 – Utilities 22131
0
Water Supply
and Irrigation
Systems
1282 79
22132
0
Sewage
Treatment
Facilities
N/A 13
23 –
Construction
23711
0
Water and
Sewer Line and
Related
Structures
Construction
4073 169
23799
0
Other Heavy
and Civil
Engineering
Construction
[Relates to
channel
construction.]
2209 90
31-33 –
Manufacturing
33331
2
Commercial
Laundry,
Drycleaning, and
Pressing Machine
Manufacturing
N/A 2
33451
2
Automatic
Environmental
Control Mfg. for
Residential,
Commercial, &
Appliance Use
N/A 10
33522
2
Household
Refrigerator and
Home Freezer
Manufacturing
N/A 1
54 – Bus. Prof. 54133
0
Engineering
Services
38610 2620
54138
0
Testing
Laboratories
5861 300
54162
0
Environmental
Consulting
Services
2998 370
54169
0
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
10433 3123
56 –
Administrative
& waste
services
56211
1
Solid Waste
Collection
8216 186
56211
2
Hazardous
Waste Collection
400 31
56211
9
Other Waste
Collection
348 13

409

Table 50, Continued

56221
1
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
N/A 34
56221
2
Solid Waste
Landfill
224 18
56221
9
Other
Nonhazardous
Waste
Treatment and
Disposal
N/A 4
56291
0
Remediation
Services
2792 100
56292
0
Materials
Recovery
Facilities
537 35
56299
8
All Other
Miscellaneous
Waste
Management
Services
329 20
92 – Public
Administration
92411
0
Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and
Solid Waste
Management
Programs
N/A N/A
Environmental
Compliance and
Sustainability
Planning
54 – Bus. Prof. 54137
0
Survey and
Mapping
Services
713 114
54138
0
Testing
Laboratories
5861 300
54162
0
Environmental
Consulting
Services
2998 370
54169
0
Other Scientific
and Technical
Consulting
Services
10433 3123
81 – Other
Services
81331
2
Environment,
Conservation
and Wildlife
Organizations
2521 142
92 – Public
Administration
92411
0
Administration of
Air and Water
Resource and
Solid Waste
Management
Programs
N/A N/A
92412
0
Administration of
Conservation
Programs
N/A N/A
410

Table 50, Continued

92512
0
Administration of
Urban Planning
and Community
and Rural
Development
N/A N/A
92612
0
Regulation and
Administration of
Transportation
Programs
N/A N/A
92613
0
Regulation and
Administration of
Communications,
Electric, Gas,
and Other
Utilities
N/A N/A

2. Institutional Analysis for Los Angeles
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area is located
in the southern California and includes a number of counties and cities, most notably the
City of Los Angeles. The following section will detail the governance structure around
the green economy within this MSA. As the largest primary city in the Metropolitan
Statistical Area, the City of Los Angeles is a focus of the accumulation and analysis of
re leva nt dat a . L os An g e l e s’ governance structure, linked with the occupational and
industrial breakdown sketched above, is defined by demographics, nonprofit groups, and
the city structure and programs pertinent to the green economy. For the purposes of this
analysis, much of the data collection will focus on the City of Los Angeles as the largest
city within the Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Linkages can be constructed between the economic opportunities in the green
economy and the institutional reality of the metropolitan statistical area. Programs,
policies, interests, and demographics can play a role in defining areas of competitive
411
advantage and thus in defining those particular industries and occupational clusters that
would make up the particular complexion of B oston ’s green economy. Policies and
players can incentivize economic activities, and such activities may have been captured
in the industry and occupational-based analysis conducted above. Moreover, such
industries and occupations may provide an indicator of potential areas of opportunity that
could be further incentivized through the rich matrix of policies, incentives, and
significant nonprofit actors.

a.Basic Demographic Analysis
The basic demographic characteristics of the City of Los Angeles provides important
contextual background for understanding the emergence of both green jobs,
and green jobs regimes. Basic demographic statistics, taken from the 2010 census, are
summarized in Table 51 below.
The City of Los Angeles c a n be bro a dl y c ha ra c ter i z e d a s a “ Lagging Leviathan ”
when the typology developed in the prior section is applied. Such cities are defined by
being located in a metropolitan statistical area that has a large population. Such cities are
also located in metropolitan statistical areas with a relatively lower median income.
Finally, such cities have relatively poorly developed sustainability programming.
Environmental nonprofits are generally not represented in this urban type.
The City of San Francisco itself is also particularly populous. The total population, as
of 2010, is measured at 3,792,621. Median income within the City of Los Angeles is
lower than the state average is indicated at $49,138 a c c or din g to t he C e nsu s De pa rtmen t’s
412
numbers. The number of individuals falling below the poverty line is marginally higher
as compared with the Statewide average.
Additionally, several other demographic factors stand out. Compared with California,
the City has a comparatively lower home ownership rate. The City/County is also
relatively diverse compared with the state average. Educational attainment is
comparatively low in Los Angeles. Housing prices are also likewise steep.

Table 51:
City of Los Angeles Demographics
People QuickFacts Los Angeles California
Population, 2011 estimate
NA 37,691,912
Population, 2010
3,792,621 37,253,956
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010
2.6% 10.0%
Population, 2000
3,694,820 33,871,648
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010
6.6% 6.8%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010
23.1% 25.0%
Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010
10.5% 11.4%
Female persons, percent, 2010
50.2% 50.3%
White persons, percent, 2010 (a)
49.8% 57.6%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a)
9.6% 6.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 (a)
0.7% 1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a)
11.3% 13.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 (a)
0.1% 0.4%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010
4.6% 4.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b)
48.5% 37.6%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010
28.7% 40.1%
Living in same house 1 year & over, 2006-2010
85.8% 84.0%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2006-2010
39.6% 27.2%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2006-
2010 59.7% 43.0%
413
Table 51, Continued
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2006-2010
73.7% 80.7%
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2006-2010
29.1 26.9
Housing units, 2010
1,413,995 13,680,081
Homeownership rate, 2006-2010
38.9% 57.4%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2006-2010
53.7% 30.7%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2006-2010
$553,900 $458,500
Households, 2006-2010
1,314,198 12,392,852
Persons per household, 2006-2010
2.81 2.89
Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars) 2006-2010
$27,620 $29,188
Median household income 2006-2010
$49,138 $60,883
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006-2010
19.5% 13.7%
Business QuickFacts
Los
Angeles California
Total number of firms, 2007
450,108 3,425,510
Black-owned firms, percent, 2007
5.8% 4.0%
American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, percent, 2007
1.4% 1.3%
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007
13.7% 14.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms, percent,
2007
0.2% 0.3%
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007
21.0% 16.5%
Women-owned firms, percent, 2007
30.3% 30.3%
Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000)
41,805,565 491,372,092
Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000)
49,819,882 598,456,486
Retail sales, 2007 ($1000)
36,672,803 455,032,270
Retail sales per capita, 2007
$9,705 $12,561
414
Table 51, Continued
Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000)
8,271,789 80,852,787
Geography QuickFacts Los Angeles California
Land area in square miles, 2010
468.67 155,779.22
Persons per square mile, 2010
8,092.3 239.1
FIPS Code
44000 06

b. Governance Structure around the Green Economy
Ac c or din g to t he C it y ’ s c li mate a c ti on plan G R EE N L A, the c it y ha s tak e n a leadership role on the environment, despite the relatively low sustainability rankings.
They note several areas of leadership for the city. First, “ re c y c li n g 62% of soli d wa ste, a f ig ur e that e x c e e ds C a li f or nia’ s st ric t re c y c li n g goa ls and r e pr e se nts t he hi g he st di ve rsion
ra te a mon g the n a ti on’s top f ive big c it ies.” Second, “ I nve stm e nt i n re n e wa ble e ne r g y to
generate 20% of total power from clean sources by 2010 and reduce municipal co2 output
b y 17.5% b e low 1990 le ve ls.” Third, “ Holdin g waster use steady through aggressive
c onser va ti on de spit e ov e r a ll population g row th of 15% since 1990.” Forth, “ R e duc in g the
number of smoggy days from more than 200 in 1978 to 30 in 2005. F ifth, “ Mandating
green building standards for all new public buildings and providing incentives for private
green development.” Sixth, “ I nve sti n g in a f le e t of a lt e rna ti ve f u e l vehic les that include s
ne a tl y h a lf of the c it y ’ s r e fuse c oll e c ti on truc ks an d st re e t sw eepers, all 188 DASH buses,
415
and nearly 10000 hybrid passenger cars, saving more than 10 million gallons of fuel in
2006.”
How does the City of Los Angeles engage in efforts around sustainability? The
City lacks a strong reputation in terms of sustainability. Overall, according to
sustainelane.com, the City of Los Angeles ranks 28 out of 50. The city ranks as either
“ sust a inabili t y c h a ll e nge d” or “ sust a inabili t y in d a nge r” a c ross a number o f c a te g o rie s.
The City ranks 44
th
in natural disaster risk, 49
th
in air quality, 46
th
in air quality, 48th in
water quality, 46
th
in water supply, 32
nd
in green (LEED) buildings, 43
rd
in local food and
agriculture, 49
th
in housing affordability, and 35
th
in green economy. The city ranks
“ mi x e d re sult s, in p lanni ng a nd l a nd use ( 29 ). D e spit e such r e lativel y low showing s, the
City of Los Angeles ranks relatively highly at 4th in metro transit ridership, 6
th
in city
innovation, and 4
th
in solid waste diversion.

416
Figure 35:
Los Angeles Sustainability

Given the array of sustainability challenges reflected above, governmentally Los
Angeles appears to have a relatively weak institutional commitment to environmental
policy. The city previously had a small environmental affairs department and has since
eliminated it from the city infrastructure, reassigning staff to other city departments.
Although there is a lack of a coordinating department, as there is for example in the City
417
of San Francisco, there is a coordinating website listing all of the environmental policies
in the City o f L os An g e le s ca ll e d “ Environme nt LA.”
Despite the lack of a strong centralized environmental department in Los Angeles,
the City does assert considerable influence through ownership of a large municipal
utility, port complex, and airport. Several key areas of environmental activities are
summarized in the sections below.

M ayor ’s Of f ice an d G REE N LA P lan
As a n e c onomi c d e ve lop ment st ra te g y , the Ma y or ’s of fic e a ppe a rs to be providing
a leading voice in the discussion around the green economy locally, and in presenting the
city as a potential for opportunity. To a certain extent, efforts around the green economy
a ppe a r to b e a c e ntra l co mponent of the Ma y or ’s poli ti c a l rhetoric.
The Mayor appears to be pushing for a relatively comprehensive mix of policies
a nd e ff o rts a round the gr e e n e c onom y , a t l e a st i n the r he toric . Th e Ma y or ’s off ice spec ifica ll y notes, f o r e x a mpl e that, “ b y buil ding the inf ra struc tur e to su pp or t re se a rc h
and development through Clean Tech Los Angeles and the Clean Tech Corridor, Mayor
Villaraigosa is fostering a business-friendly environment for green entrepreneurs and
lar ge c ompani e s. As pa rt of it s role , the Ma y or ’s J ob Te a m wil l be de dic a te d to t he attracti on, g row th, and re tention of c ompanie s that c re a t e g re e n jobs in L os Ange les.” The Ma y or ’s o ff ic e pa rti c ular l y point to t he uti li t y , the por t, and the a irpo rt a s ke y re sourc e s. S pe c ific a ll y , t he y not e that, “ these a sse ts, combi ne d with a r e g io na l m a rke t of
more than 10 million people, make Los Angeles the perfect place to test-drive new green
418
pr oduc ts. Throu g h the D e pa rtmen t of W a ter a nd P owe r’ s ef fic ienc y pr o g r a ms, t ha t
Ma y o r’ s off i c e a ssi sts loca l busi ne sses to use mor e e nvironmen tall y -friendly
manufactur in g pr a c ti c e s that save mone y b y r e duc i ng li g hti ng c osts up to 25 per c e nt. ”
Anothe r ke y a re a of ma y or a l i nvolveme nt i s in t e rms of the Ci t y ’s c li mate a c ti on
plan entitled GREEN LA(2007) . The plan is oriented around reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Specifically, the plan states that, “ L os Ange les w il l m e e t t he g o a l of r e du c ing co2 emissions 35% below 1990 levels by increasing the generation of renewable energy,
improving energy conservation and efficiency, and changing transportation and land use
patters to re duc e de p e nde nc e on a utom obil e s.”
As in other climate action plans examined above, the climate action plan
acknowledges the need for new governance structures around environmental issues.
Climate change presents a unique challenge, and the plan offers an opportunity for
municipal leadership. Specifically, the plan notes: “ The unique c h a r a c ter ist ics of municipal government in Los Angeles offer an unprecedented opportunity to greatly
reduce GHG emissions. Ownership of the largest municipal utility in the country allows
the city to directly affect a major source of GHGs —electricity production. Emissions
from city government buildings and operations also generate substantial CO2. Including
LADWP, municipal operations account for one-third of all CO2 emissions citywide, five
times more than New Yor k Ci t y ’s municipa l C O2 output .”
Specifically, the goal of the plan indicates a connection between climate change
and the green economy. The plan states that: “ Thi s pl a n pre se nts a fr a me w or k for
419
confronting global climate change; engaging residents to create a cleaner, greener,
sustainable Los Angeles, and growing the g r e e n e c onom y .”
A specific section on the gre e n e c onom y broa dl y a im s to “c reate demand and
catalyze growt h of the gr e e n e c onom y s e c tor. ” Th e ir a ppro a c h is largely focused on
leve ra g in g e x ist ing poli c ies a nd re sou rc e s. Th e y a i m t o: “ Leverage city policy,
purchasing, and regulation, and deepen local university partnerships to promote local
research, development, and production of green technology and products. ” Within this
approach, they concentrate on bolstering markets for green goods and services. They aim
to “stre n g then g lobal e c o nomi c r e lations hips t o pro mot e investm e nt i n L os Ange les’ green sector and help local environmentally focused companies penetrate both local and
foreign markets. ” The y will a lso s pe c ifica ll y “ ide nti f y a nd p romote loc a ti o ns for g re e n
busi ne sses.” And, f inall y , the y a im to “c oll a bora t e with t he priva te se c tor to off e r
e ff e c ti ve ince nti ve s fo r t he grow th of loc a l gre e n busi ne sses.”
Additionally, they do acknowledge the need for workforce development. They
additionally aim to collaborate within the workforce development community.
S pe c ifica ll y , the y plan to “ c ollaborate with local educational institutions such as
universities, community colleges, and adult education programs to create more
curriculum that provide city residents with the skills and knowledge to work for
competitive green businesses. ” Addin g e quit y c on sider a ti ons t he y a lso aim to “d evelop
targeted programs to train residents of low and middle income communities for jobs in
the green economy .” Thus, efforts around the green economy appear to be an official part
420
of the Ma y or ’s a g e nd a . W ha t i s lac king howe v e r, is a c ompre he nsive im pl e menta ti on
plan around these efforts and a high level of specificity.

Goods Movement Policy
As the gateway to the Pacific Rim and to much of Latin America, a critical aspect
of the economic development strategy reacted to the Los Angeles area should likely
include a focus on international trad e . A c c or din g t o L AE DC’s tra de re port (2009 ) “ , the
business of international trade in Southern California has always been fraught with
concerns. The industry is not helped by the fact that this large activity is very
disorg a niz e d.” Th e r e for e , much oppor tun ity exists in further expanding economic
opportunities from the international trade sector in Los Angeles. Home to both the Port of
Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airport, the City of Los Angeles and the wider Los
Angeles region is a major bastion of goods movement for the United States.
A diverse set of goods move in and out of the City of Los Angeles and the wider
L os An ge les r e g ion. Th e top i mports out of the “ L os Ang les Cus tom s Dist ric t” in 2008
included: electrical equipment, TV electricity to the tune of $58.2 billion; computers,
machine, appliance and parts at $56.0 billion, apparel and related goods at $26.4 billion;
and oil product including natural gas at $21.4 billion. The top commodity moving out of
the Los Angeles Customs District in 208 was “ c o mput e s, per ipher a ls, m a c hiner y ,
appliances and parts with a total value of $17.3 billion, electrical equipment, T.V. and
electronic parts ranked second and valued $17.0 billion. Optical photograph and medical
surgical instruments imports were valuated a t $7. 6 bil li on.” ( L AED C , 200 9)
421
As a unique facet of the overall economic development picture, employment
opportunities in this realm may be a potential source of comparative advantage for the
City and for the wider region, and perhaps an area of potential focus in regards to the
broader green economy. In this effort, it is important to bolster economic opportunities in
a strategic, coordinated manner that ties local benefits from global and national economic
opportunity tightly to the City. Moreover and in a related vein, our understanding of the
local opportunity from their overlapping geographic spheres must be tempered by the
particularly local cost in terms of environmental hazards attributable to goods movement
operations. The perverse local impacts of global goods movement must be weighed
against any economic benefit of goods movement, and can perhaps be mediated by green
economic growth.
Much of the focus around the green economy in Los Angeles and around
environmental policy more broadly, is efforts broadly linked to goods movement. Both
the Port of Los Angeles and Los Angeles International Airport are the two leading
sources of environmental pollutants in the air basin.

Port of Los Angeles: Clean Air Action Plan
The Port of Los Angeles is a proprietary department of the City of Los Angeles.
The Executive Director and a board of commissioners manage the port. They are
appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Mayor of Los Angeles. The Port is located
at the tip of the Southbay at the end of the 710 freeway. The Port has had tremendous
economic impact on the wider region. In fact, port operations are directly responsible for
422
1.1 million jobs in California, 3.3 million jobs in the United States, $89.2 billion in
California trade value, $223 billion in U.S. trade value, $5.1 billion in state tax revenue,
and $21.5 billion in federal tax revues. Moreover, spillover effects likewise occur
attributable to POLA operations. An estimated 70% of the regional direct, indirect and
induced benefits connected to the Port occur within Los Angeles County. 16,360
estimated port industry jobs (85% in trucking and warehouse activities) are attributable to
the ports. Moreover, for every dollar spent by port industries, another 97 center is
generated in indirect and induced sales in the region. Port customers, which include retail
and other non-cargo businesses in the port, include $760 million to the local economy
and generate 6,400 jobs. Port users, which are the businesses that use the port for
importing or exporting activities, generate $12.1 billion and stimulate an additional $5.5
billion in local industry indirect sales. (POLA website. Economic Impact page) As stated
by the Los Angeles County Plan (2009) , “ the c ont inuous stre a m of goods flowing into
and out of the regions ports sustains other key segments including warehousing and
log ist ics, ma ter ials a nd m a c hiner y , a nd busi ne ss an d fina nc ial se rvi c e s.” (p g. 2)
Throughout 2008, international trade was subject to a wide array of harmful
macroeconomic impacts. Retailers increasingly moved to reduce or eliminate inventories
with anticipated declines in consumer consumption. Two important elements were the on
decline and primarily accounted for the depletion of economic benefits garnered from this
sector. First, the housing industry slump reduced the demand for importation of lumber
and furniture. Second, vehicle sales were deflated and consequently imports of vehicles
and parts were reduced. Reduced imports were seen at both the Port of Los Angeles and
423
the Port of Long Beach as a result of these factors, and compounded by a rapid increase
in the price of crude oil resulting in raises in railroad and trucker rates. However, despite
these setbacks, the Port of Los Angles remained number one in the nation in terms of
container traffic.
The institutional structure within the region, moreover, further supports the idea
of strategic community and economic development around port developments that can
effectively bolster the relevant and related industrial and occupational clusters, and
potentially expand the geographic rim of opportunities. As a proprietary department, the
P or t of L os An ge les doe s not dra w its funding fr o m t he C it y ’s ge ne ra l fund a nd pr oc ur e s
it own sources of revenue. Th is i s &n