On Sustainable Cities Collective we've had some discussion lately about the need to train the next generation of urban leaders in sustainability. Margaret Robertson has just written an excellent university textbook that aims to help achieve this goal.

Called Sustainability Principles and Practice, it covers everything from from marketing to life cycle costing to the latest science on climate change. Margaret herself is a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, a Sustainability Fellow in the Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium, and runs the Sustainability Coordinator degree program at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon. She's here to discuss some of the ideas in her book. Hello, Margaret.

You're an advocate of Smart Growth and New Urbanism. Do you see this exciting idea being implemented in many places?

If some aspects of this practice result in higher property values, do you have an idea of how market-based approaches can be encouraged that will benefit the disadvantaged sectors of a community where for instance there is little greenspace, high density, poor public transport?

I'm interested in some trends you identify for example that LEED standard for energy efficiency in buildings is being superceded by the Living Building Challenge a rating system which you say is regenerative. Can you say what you mean by this?

You make reference to Jevons' paradox, that maing things more efficient encourages people to use more of them, which is not sustainable. How can sustainability practitioners transcend this paradox?

Do you advocate the use of a green revolving fund, an internal fund that uses cost savings from sustainability projects to finance other projects?

You advocate making processes including stormwater, food provision, and energy visible. What do you mean by this?

How do you connect people to the green fabric across the city?

You clearly believe that people and interpersonal relations are key to promoting sustainabiity and behaviour or attitude change. People act irrationally and from habit. How should an agent of change acccommodate this fact to be successful?

The biggest indicator of unsustainability or having a high ecological footprint is income, or wealth. Does this mean that agents of change are bound to be seen to be left wing by the wealthy; and that the wealthy will be the hardest to bring onside?