STATE OF THE WORLD - Our Urban Future

T H E W O R L D W AT C H I N S T I T U T E

STATE OF TH E WOR LDSTATE OF TH E WOR LD2 0 0 72 0 0 7

Our Urban FutureOur Urban Future

STATE OF THE WORLD2 0 0 7

Our Urban Future

D I G I T A L E D I T I O N

Please look for the symbol above throughout the chapters for live links to locations in Google Maps.

Also, please note that the Table of Contents is clickable, for easier navigation through this PDF.

Other Norton/Worldwatch Books

State of the World 1984 through 2006(an annual report on progress toward a sustainable society)

Vital Signs 1992 through 2003 and 2005 through 2006(a report on the trends that are shaping our future)

Saving the PlanetLester R. BrownChristopher FlavinSandra Postel

How Much Is Enough?Alan Thein Durning

Last OasisSandra Postel

Full HouseLester R. BrownHal Kane

Power SurgeChristopher FlavinNicholas Lenssen

Who Will Feed China?Lester R. Brown

Tough ChoicesLester R. Brown

Fighting for SurvivalMichael Renner

The Natural Wealth of NationsDavid Malin Roodman

Life Out of BoundsChris Bright

Beyond MalthusLester R. BrownGary GardnerBrian Halweil

Pillar of SandSandra Postel

Vanishing BordersHilary French

Eat HereBrian Halweil

Inspiring ProgressGary T. Gardner

Molly O’Meara Sheehan, Project Director

W . W . N O R T O N & C O M P A N YN E W Y O R K L O N D O N

A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society

STATE OF THE WORLD

Zoë ChafeChristopher Flavin

Brian HalweilKristen HughesJeff Kenworthy

Kai LeeLisa Mastny

Gordon McGranahanPeter Newman

Danielle NierenbergJanice PerlmanMark Roseland

David SatterthwaiteJanet SawinLena SootsPeter Stair

Carolyn Stephens

Linda Starke, Editor

2 0 0 7

Our Urban Future

Copyright © 2007 by Worldwatch Institute1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20036www.worldwatch.org

All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

The STATE OF THE WORLD and WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE trademarks are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff; or of its funders.

The text of this book is composed in Galliard, with the display set in Gill Sans. Book design by Elizabeth Doherty;cover design and composition by Lyle Rosbotham; manufacturing by Victor Graphics.

First EditionISBN 0-393-06557-XISBN 0-393-32923-2 (pbk)

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110www.wwnorton.com

W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., Castle House, 75/76 Wells Street, London W1T 3QT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

This book is printed on recycled paper.

Worldwatch Institute Board of Directors

Øystein DahleChairmanNORWAY

Thomas CrainVice Chairman and TreasurerUNITED STATES

Larry MinearSecretaryUNITED STATES

Geeta B. AiyerUNITED STATES

Adam AlbrightUNITED STATES

L. Russell BennettUNITED STATES

Cathy CrainUNITED STATES

James DehlsenUNITED STATES

Christopher FlavinUNITED STATES

Robert FrieseUNITED STATES

Lynne GallagherUNITED STATES

Satu HassiFINLAND

Jerre HitzUNITED STATES

Nancy HitzUNITED STATES

John McBrideUNITED STATES

Akio MorishimaJAPAN

Izaak van MelleTHE NETHERLANDS

Wren WirthUNITED STATES

Emeritus:

Abderrahman KheneALGERIA

Andrew E. RiceUNITED STATES

Worldwatch Institute Staff

Erik AssadourianResearch Associate

Courtney BernerFriends of WorldwatchProgram Manager

Zoë ChafeStaff Researcher

Steve ConklinWeb Manager

Barbara FallinDirector of Finance andAdministration

Christopher FlavinPresident

Hilary FrenchSenior Advisor for Programs

Gary GardnerDirector of Research

Joseph GravelyPublications Fulfillment

Brian HalweilSenior Researcher

Alana HerroStaff Writer

Suzanne HuntBiofuels Program Manager

Stephanie KungResearch Assistant

Ling LiChina Fellow

Yingling LiuChina Program Manager

Lisa MastnySenior Editor

Danielle NierenbergResearch Associate

Laura ParrDevelopment AssistantAssistant to the President

Tom PrughEditor, World Watch

Darcey RakestrawCommunications Manager

Mary RedfernFoundations Manager

Michael RennerSenior Researcher

Lyle RosbothamArt Director

Janet SawinSenior Researcher

Molly O’Meara SheehanSenior Researcher

Patricia ShyneDirector of Publications and Marketing

Georgia SullivanVice President

Andrew WilkinsAdministrative Assistant

Worldwatch Fellows

Molly AeckSenior Fellow

Chris BrightSenior Fellow

Seth DunnSenior Fellow

Eric MartinotSenior Fellow

Mia McDonaldSenior Fellow

Sandra PostelSenior Fellow

Payal SampatSenior Fellow

Victor VovkSenior Fellow

vii

The Worldwatch Institute could not assem-ble a book as ambitious as State of the World2007: Our Urban Future without an amaz-ing global network. Over the past year, as wehave sought to understand the disparate real-ities of our rapidly urbanizing world, wehave relied on guidance and insights fromevery continent.

We owe much to the tremendous supportand leadership of our Board of Directors.This group consists of Chairman ØysteinDahle, Vice Chair and Treasurer Tom Crain,Secretary Larry Minear, President ChristopherFlavin, Geeta B. Aiyer, Adam Albright, L.Russell Bennett, Cathy Crain, James Dehlsen,Robert Friese, Lynne Gallagher, Satu Hassi,Jerre Hitz, Nancy Hitz, John McBride, AkioMorishima, Izaak van Melle, Wren Wirth,and Emeritus members Abderrahman Kheneand Andrew E. Rice. In 2006, the World-watch Board of Directors named World-watch’s conference room for Andy Rice for hisyears of thoughtful leadership.

State of the World would not exist were itnot for the generous financial contributionsof our many supporters. More than 3,500Friends of Worldwatch fund nearly one thirdof the Institute’s operating budget.

This State of the World report is part of alarger Worldwatch project analyzing the his-toric transition to a world in which mostpeople live in urban areas. We greatly appre-ciate the funds provided for this venture by

the United Nations Population Fund andthe Winslow Foundation.

In addition, Worldwatch’s research pro-gram is backed by a roster of organizations. Wethank the following for their generous supportover the last year: Blue Moon Fund, ChicagoCommunity Trust, Energy Future Coalitionand Better World Fund, Ford Foundation,Goldman Environmental Prize, W. K. Kel-logg Foundation, Marianists of the USA,Noble Venture Gift Fund of the CommunityFoundation Serving Boulder County, Nat-ural Resources Defense Council, PrenticeFoundation, V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation,Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shared EarthFoundation, Shenandoah Foundation, WallaceGenetic Foundation, Wallace Global Fund,The Johanette Wallerstein Institute, and theGovernments of Germany and Norway.

We are also indebted to our internationalnetwork of publishing partners, who bringState of the World to a global audience. Theyprovide advice, translation, outreach, and dis-tribution assistance. We give special thanksto Univeridade da Mata Atlântica in Brazil;Global Environmental Institute in China; OyYliopistokustannus University Press in Fin-land; Germanwatch, Heinrich Böll Founda-tion, and Westfälisches Dampfboot inGermany; Evonymos Ecological Library inGreece; Earth Day Foundation in Hungary;Winrock International in India; World WideFund for Nature and Edizioni Ambiente in

Acknowledgments

Italy; Worldwatch Japan; Worldwatch Nordenat IVL Swedish Environmental Research Insti-tute in Scandinavia; Center of TheoreticalAnalysis of Environmental Problems andInternational Independent University of Envi-ronmental and Political Sciences in Russia;Korean Federation for Environmental Move-ment in South Korea; Politika Newspapersin Serbia; Centre UNESCO de Catalunya forthe Catalan version and Fundacion Hogardel Empleado and Editorial Icaria for theCastilian version in Spain; L’État De LaPlanète in Switzerland, which also connects usto France and French-speaking Canada; Tai-wanwatch; Turkiye Erozyonla Mucadele, Aga-clandima ve Dogal Varliklari Koruma Vakfi(TEMA) in Turkey; and Earthscan/James &James in the United Kingdom.

Worldwatch’s longest publishing relation-ship is with W. W. Norton & Company inNew York. Thanks to their team—especiallyAmy Cherry, Leo Wiegman, Nancy Palmquist,Lydia Fitzpatrick, and Anna Oler—State of theWorld, Vital Signs, and other Worldwatchbooks make it into bookstores and classroomsacross the United States.

Authors of this year’s State of the Worldbenefited from a distinguished internationalpanel of reviewers who took time from hec-tic schedules to read draft chapters. For theirpenetrating comments, we thank DonaldAitken, Madhavi Malalgoda Ariyabandu, Xue-mei Bai, John Byrne, Anne Carlin, OlufunkeCofie, Jason Corburn, Rob de Jong, PayDrechsel, Sandro Galea, Peter V. Hall, Wal-ter Hook, Paul Kerz, Peter Kimm, GünterLangergraber, Kai Lee, Michael Levenston,Jan Lundqvist, Sean Markey, Eric Martinot,Barjor Mehta, Michaela Oldfield, MarkPelling, Kami Pothukuchi, Susan Roaf, TomRoper, David Satterthwaite, Alan Silberman,Jac Smit, Eva Sternfeld, John Twigg, TimeyinUwejamomere, Christine Wamsler, and sev-eral anonymous reviewers.

viii

STATE OF THE WORLD 2007

Acknowledgments

Contributors to State of the World alsoappreciate the information and guidance givenby prominent and knowledgeable individualsfrom around the world. We were fortunate toreceive help from Sarika Agrawal, Eva Anisko,Eduardo Athayde, Carine Barbier, SheridanBartlett, Timothy Beatley, Marc Berthold,Susan Blaustein, Sarah Brachle, Jeb Brug-gman, Yves Cabannes, Majora Carter, KiranChhokar, Toshiko Chiba, Billy Cobbett,Penny Cuff, Glenn D’Alessio, Carlton Eley,Gordon Feller, Greg Franta, Dan Goodman,Rajat Gupta, William Holmberg, Tim Honey,Dan Hoornweg, Me’An Ignacio, TetsunariIida, Min Jin, Dan Kammen, Gavin Killip,Bowdin King, Mike Kossey, Benoit Lambert,Frannie Léautier, Peter Marcotullio, DaleMedearis, Richard Munson, Nguyen LeQuang, Yoshi Nojima, Soki Oda, DavidPainter, Scott Paul, Richard Perez, BlairRuble, Mona Serageldin, Jutta Schmieder,Parin Shah, Jacob Songsore, Freyr Sverrisson,Kaarin Taipale, Carmelle J. Terborgh, ThiLe Thi Minh, Ibrahim Togola, John Tom-linson, Masami Toyofuku, John Waugh, MarcWeiss, Elizabeth Westrate, Jorge Wilheim,Angelika Wirtz, and Kurt Yeager.

We are particularly grateful for overallproject support volunteered by Jill Greaney,a former lawyer and student of urban plan-ning with keen analytical skills and a passionfor the urban environment. In addition tocarefully reviewing the first draft of the man-uscript, Jill scoured major newspapers and theInternet to find relevant articles, drafted texton urban development, and translated doc-uments from French.

For this edition of State of the World, weenlisted a record number of gifted scholarsand leading thinkers on urban issues fromoutside the Institute. Kai Lee of WilliamsCollege in Massachusetts wrote and revisedour introductory chapter with alacrity andalso helped focus the wide-ranging discussions

of other chapters. David Satterthwaite of theInternational Institute for Environment andDevelopment in London gave welcome guid-ance to the project as a whole, and with hiscolleague Gordon McGranahan contributedthe chapter on water and sanitation. PeterNewman of Murdoch University in Australiaendured late-night conference calls thatbridged a 12-hour time difference to discussthe chapter on transportation he preparedwith colleague Jeff Kenworthy. KristenHughes at the University of Delaware wrotepart of the chapter on energy. CarolynStephens, who teaches at the London Schoolof Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and theFederal University of Paraná in Brazil, con-tributed the chapter on public health. Hercoauthor Peter Stair, a former MAP Fellow atWorldwatch, is now at the University of Cal-ifornia in Berkeley. Mark Roseland of SimonFraser University in Vancouver, with the assis-tance of Lena Soots, contributed the chapteron local economies and helped organize adiscussion at the World Urban Forum in Van-couver in June 2006, where State of the Worldauthors received feedback on their outlinesfrom an international audience. Janice Perl-man, founder and president of the Mega-Cities Project in New York, took time awayfrom writing a book on Rio de Janeiro to pre-pare the chapter on urban poverty.

We thank the wonderful group of acade-mics, journalists, and urbanists who con-tributed the two-page stories on individualcities that appear between each chapter. Char-lie Benjamin of Williams College collabo-rated with colleagues in Mali, Aly Bocoum ofthe Near East Foundation and Aly BachaKonaté of Réseau GDRN5, to write the Tim-buktu piece. The Lagos story was contributedby Ayodeji Olukoju of the University ofLagos. Rob Crauderueff of Sustainable SouthBronx wrote about Loja, Ecuador, where heonce lived. Thomas Winnebah of Njala Uni-

ix


Acknowledgments

versity in Sierra Leone and Olufunke Cofie ofthe International Water Management Institutein Accra, Ghana, put together the article onFreetown. Dana Cuff of the University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles wrote about herhometown. Xuemei Bai of the Common-wealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganization in Australia prepared the storyabout Rizhao, China. Tom Roper, a formerMinister in the Victoria Government in Aus-tralia, wrote the Melbourne piece. IvanaKildsgaard of IVL Swedish EnvironmentalResearch Institute gave us the Malmö story.Biko Nagara of Stanford University wroteabout Jakarta, the city of his birth. KalpanaSharma, Deputy Editor of The Hindu, cor-responded from Mumbai. Architect EvaStanková of the Vankovka Civic Associationsent us the story about Brno. Dana Firas, aJordanian author on sustainable develop-ment, wrote about Petra. And Rasna Warah,a freelance writer in Kenya and editor of UN-HABITAT’s State of the World’s Cities2006/07, sent us the story from Nairobi.

During the summer of 2006, the State ofthe World team was fortified by a crew ofexceptionally talented research assistants andinterns. Kai Lee, author of Chapter 1,recruited Paaven Thaker to become one ofWorldwatch’s youngest and most enthusias-tic interns. His assistant at Williams College,Fathimath Musthaq, found additional data forthe first chapter. Biko Nagara helped researchChapter 2 and commissioned the Brno story.Dana Artz lent some of her prodigious energyto Chapter 3. Monideepa Talukdar, work-ing from her university in Louisiana, aided theAustralia-based authors of Chapter 4. HannaVovk tracked down information for Chapter5, as did Stephanie Kung, who joined World-watch as a Stanford MAP Fellow in 2006.Angela Choe ferreted out books and datafor Chapter 6. Corey Tazzara used his inti-mate knowledge of Georgetown University

x


Acknowledgments

Library to bolster Chapter 7 and the Year inReview timeline. Working from Canada, Can-dace Bonfield helped with Chapter 8. Chap-ter 9 owes much to the dedication and speedywork of Kenro Kawarazaki, whose thoroughresearch also turned up useful information forChapters 1 and 4. Matt Friese jumpstartedresearch for the timeline, and Mark Frieseassisted with our Campus Greening Initiative.

In the fall of 2006, more interns enlistedto fine-tune the electronic version of thisbook as well as the companion website,www.worldwatch.org/urban. Patrick CyrusGilman and Semiha Caliskan took time outfrom their studies to locate satellite imagesof many of the cities featured in this book onGoogle Earth and other online sources.Neelam Singh, who aided us with the pre-vious edition, returned to help us produceweb content.

Buoyed by these marvelous funders, advis-ers, volunteers, and colleagues, the World-watch staff brings dedication to State of theWorld. The Institute would not be able tofunction without Director of Finance andAdministration Barbara Fallin, who has keptthe office running smoothly for nearly 18years. Like Barbara, Joseph Gravely joined theInstitute in 1989 and quickly became integralto its daily operation, taking charge of mailand publication fulfillment. After many yearsof keeping information flowing betweenWorldwatch and the world, Joseph retiredin December 2006. Among the other notablechanges on the Worldwatch staff this year,Librarian Lori Brown left to work full-time onher organic farm after 13 years of unearthingmuch of the data used in the State of theWorld series.

Early discussions of this book wereenriched by the participation of many staffmembers, including Vice President GeorgiaSullivan, who has inspired the Institute withher vigorous leadership. Patricia Shyne, Direc-

tor of Publications and Marketing, movedswiftly to put authors in touch with World-watch’s international partners. Tom Prugh,editor of World Watch magazine, weighed inon Chapters 4 and 5. Amid many other activ-ities, Darcey Rakestraw, CommunicationsManager, helped organize a roundtable dis-cussion with UN-HABITAT Executive Direc-tor Anna Tibaijuka. Research Associate ErikAssadourian not only secured the Interna-tional Student House in Washington, D.C.,for meetings that included discussion of thisbook, he also played a role in recruitinginterns and linking the Institute to interna-tional partners.

Our development team, which maintainsWorldwatch’s ties to its supporters, alsoactively shaped this book. We welcomed thecreativity of Mary Redfern, Manager of Foun-dation Relations. Courtney Berner, Friends ofWorldwatch Program Manager, researchedthe achievements of local governments led byforward-thinking mayors. We were alsoboosted by Laura Parr, Development Assis-tant and Assistant to Worldwatch’s President,and Drew Wilkins, Administrative Assistantand jack of all trades. Before leaving in thesummer of 2006, Director of DevelopmentJohn Holman helped build the Institute’sbase of support.

New staff members lifted morale. AlanaHerro joined us as the Staff Writer for e2(eye on the earth), our news service launchedin 2006. Just as this book was going to press,we welcomed Ling Li as Worldwatch’s newChina Fellow and Ali Jost as interim Com-munications Manager.

This edition of State of the World owesmuch to Research Director Gary Gardner.Although Gary’s recent book, InspiringProgress, kept him from writing a chapter inthis volume—a first in his 12 years at theInstitute—he provided careful reviews of manychapters, Spanish translation when needed,

and even some last-minute research assistance. Other researchers pitched in to improve

the book. Hilary French, Senior Advisor forPrograms, shared thoughts on the project,reviewed several chapters, and forged part-nerships with reviewers and other experts.Senior Researcher Michael Renner’s prob-ing questions strengthened Chapters 4, 6,8, and 9. Yingling Liu, China Program Man-ager, commented on chapters and connectedus to Chinese sources of information, as didChina Fellow Zijung Li, who joined theWorld Bank when she completed her fellow-ship in September 2006. Suzanne Hunt, Bio-fuels Program Manager, sharpened authors’arguments with her incisive comments onChapters 4 and 5. Before leaving in the fall forthe International Resources Group, BiofuelsProject Assistant Lauren Sorkin shared hercontacts in European cities. Lisa Mastny tooktime away from editing World Watch Maga-zine and other projects to compile the time-line in this book.

Beyond contributing research and writingto Chapter 7, Research Assistant Peter Stairbolstered the entire book by recruiting interns,organizing discussions with urban experts,and working with Web Manager Steve Conklin to create an in-house Web site forauthors to share information. Peter, whojoined Worldwatch as a MAP Fellow in 2005,is now pursuing his interests in urban planningand public health in Berkeley.

As always, we are indebted to indepen-dent editor Linda Starke, who cleaned upthe rough drafts of our far-flung correspon-dents with breathtaking speed. Since 1983,

Linda has devoted her autumn days—andnights and weekends—to State of the World.Matching Linda’s pace was Worldwatch’s ArtDirector Lyle Rosbotham, who rapidly turnedthe manuscript into eye-catching page proofs.

For many years, Worldwatch was aided byMagnar Norderhaug who founded and ledour Scandinavian affiliate Worldwatch Nor-den. He crafted Worldwatch research intoop-eds, letters to the editor, and articles, skill-fully linking Institute research to the issues ofthe day, and helping to make WorldwatchNorden an authoritative voice on environ-mental sustainability in Scandinavia. Magnarpassed away this year after a long illness. Wewill miss him greatly.

The circle of life teaches us that loss is notthe last word. Last year, we noted the arrivalof Finnían Freyson Sawin, whom we thank forthe joy he has brought us during visits tothe office and the sacrifices he endured so hismother could contribute to this book. Wenow welcome Amel Rakestraw Benhamouda,born in September 2006 to Darcey Rakestrawand Atef Benhamouda. Her tiny face remindsus of our hopes for a healthy, peaceful, andequitable future.

Molly O’Meara SheehanProject Director

Worldwatch Institute1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.Washington, DC [email protected]

xi


Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments vii

List of Boxes, Tables, and Figures xiv

ForewordsAnna TibaijukaExecutive Director, UN-HABITAT xvii

Jaime LernerFormer Governor of Paraná, Brazil, and former Mayor of Curitiba xx

PrefaceChristopher FlavinPresident, Worldwatch Institute xxiii

State of the World: xxviiA Year in ReviewLisa Mastny

1 An Urbanizing World 3Kai N. Lee

TIMBUKTU: Greening the Hinterlands 22

LOJA: Ecological and Healthy City 24

2 Providing Clean Water and Sanitation 26David Satterthwaite and GordonMcGranahan

LAGOS: Collapsing Infrastructure 46

3 Farming the Cities 48Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg

FREETOWN: Urban Farms After a War 64

4 Greening Urban Transportation 66Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy

LOS ANGELES: End of Sprawl 86

MELBOURNE: Reducing a City’s Carbon Emissions 88

5 Energizing Cities 90Janet L. Sawin and Kristen Hughes

RIZHAO: Solar-Powered City 108

MALMÖ: Building a Green Future 110

6 Reducing Natural DisasterRisk in Cities 112Zoë Chafe

JAKARTA: River Management 130

MUMBAI: Policing by the People 132

7 Charting a New Course for Urban Public Health 134Carolyn Stephens and Peter Stair

NAIROBI: Life in Kibera 148

PETRA: Managing Tourism 150

8 Strengthening Local Economies 152Mark Roseland with Lena Soots

BRNO: Brownfield Redevelopment 170

9 Fighting Poverty and Environmental Injustice in Cities 172Janice E. Perlman with Molly O’Meara Sheehan

Notes 191Index 241

Contents

xiii

xiv

Boxes1 An Urbanizing World1–1 Transitions of Modernity 51–2 Circular Urban Metabolism in Stockholm 191–3 The Mayors’ Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit 20

2 Providing Clean Water and Sanitation2–1 Toilet Blocks in India Designed and Managed by the Community 37

3 Farming the Cities3–1 Urban Agriculture and Wastewater Use 543–2 Mining Organic Waste 573–3 Bees and Worms: A City’s Smallest Livestock 58

4 Greening Urban Transportation4–1 Is the Motorization of Chinese Cities a Threat to the World? 714–2 Bus Rapid Transit: The Unfolding Story 804–3 São Paulo Bicycle Refuge 82

5 Energizing Cities5–1 Reducing Construction’s Environmental Impact 925–2 “Greening” Special Events 100

6 Reducing Natural Disaster Risk in Cities6–1 Defining Disasters 1146–2 Hazards, Vulnerabilities, and Risk Management 1156–3 Banda Aceh and the Tsunami 1186–4 Selected Examples of Disaster Prevention Projects 1236–5 Coping Strategies in Urban Slums 124

7 Charting a New Course for Urban Public Health7–1 The Struggle to Collect Good Data on Health in Cities 1357–2 Cities Out of Balance 136

8 Strengthening Local Economies8–1 Emilia Romagna—A Cooperative Economy 1578–2 International Co-operative Alliance Principles for Co-ops 1588–3 The Power of Microcredit—A Personal Story 1618–4 Vancity Credit Union, Vancouver, Canada 162

List of Boxes,Tables, and Figures

xv



8–5 A Women’s Fair Trade Sewing Cooperative in Nicaragua 164

9 Fighting Poverty and Environmental Injustice in Cities9–1 Violence in Rio: Undermining the Urban Poor 1759–2 The Spread of Participatory Budgeting 1819–3 Circular Technologies in Johannesburg, South Africa 1869–4 Planning for the Public Interest in São Paulo, Brazil 187

Tables1 An Urbanizing World1–1 Urban Populations by Region, 1950–2000, with Projection for 2010 71–2 Sustainability Indicators for Ghana, Mexico, Singapore, Accra, and Tijuana 121–3 Cost of 100 Liters of Water in Accra and East Africa from Different Sources 16

2 Providing Clean Water and Sanitation2–1 Number and Share of Urban Dwellers Lacking Adequate Provision of Water

and Sanitation, by Region, 2000 272–2 Ladder of Water Supply Improvement Options for Households 332–3 Different Sanitation Options and Costs 35

3 Farming the Cities3–1 Multiple Uses and Benefits of Urban Agriculture 55

4 Greening Urban Transportation4–1 Problems in Cities Related to Cars 734–2 Average Fuel Efficiency and Occupancy by Mode in 32 Cities, 1990 734–3 Freeways in 84 Cities, Summary by Country or Region, 1995 75

5 Energizing Cities5–1 Selected Municipal Energy Targets 1035–2 Roadmaps for Powering Cities Locally 106

6 Reducing Natural Disaster Risk in Cities6–1 Ten Most Populous Cities in 2005 and Associated Disaster Risk 1166–2 Selected Urban Disasters, 1906–2006 117

7 Charting a New Course for Urban Public Health7–1 Air Pollution Types and Effects and Urban Pollution Hotspots 138

8 Strengthening Local Economies8–1 General Sales of Fair Trade Labeled Products 163

Figures1 An Urbanizing World1–1 Urban Agglomerations Projected to Exceed 10 Million Population by 2015 81–2 Urban Population by Size Class of Settlement 9

xvi



1–3 Challenges to Urban Sustainability in Relation to Wealth 14

4 Greening Urban Transportation4–1 Private Passenger Transport Energy Use in 15 Cities, 1995 694–2 Proportion of Motorized Passenger-kilometers on Public Transport in

15 Cities, 1995 694–3 Proportion of Total Daily Trips by Nonmotorized Modes in 15 Cities, 1995 704–4 Urban Density in 15 Cities, 1995 704–5 Urban Density versus Private Transport Energy Use in 58 Higher-Income

Cities, 1995 724–6 Urban Density versus Private Transport Energy Use in Local Government

Areas in Sydney, 2002 724–7 Average Road Traffic Speed versus Private Transport Energy Use in

58 Higher-income Cities, 1995 75

6 Reducing Natural Disaster Risk in Cities6–1 People Affected or Killed by Natural Disasters Worldwide, 1986–2005 113

7 Charting a New Course for Urban Public Health7–1 The Urban Double Burden of Disease in Kolkata, India 139

Units of measure throughout this book are metric unless common usage dictates otherwise.

ForewordAnna Tibaijuka

Executive Director, UN-HABITAT

When I first came to UN-HABITAT with abackground in agricultural economics andinternational trade negotiations, I brought myown set of professional and personal preju-dices. Like many other development theorists,I felt that although urban development wasimportant, rural development was the first pri-ority. Like many people of my generation inAfrica and around the world, I thought ofurban areas as a necessary evil. Though theywere economic centers, cities led to over-crowding, pollution, and, inevitably, slums.

I had given little thought to the possibil-ities, even less to the problems and process ofurbanization. However, in the years since Ibecame Executive Director of UN-HABI-TAT I have traveled far and wide. I haveexperienced firsthand the appalling results ofrapid chaotic urbanization.

In city after city, I have been stranded intraffic jams; I have visited men in hospitals suf-fering from preventable diseases caused byindustrial pollution; I have seen slum dwellersliving in conditions that do not bear describ-ing and met young women who were rapedon their way to the closest public toilet sharedby over 500 people; I have walked throughflattened terrain that once housed wholecommunities destroyed by floods and othernatural disasters.

Whereas in 1950 New York and Tokyowere the only cities with more than 10 mil-lion people, today there are 20 megacities,

most of which are in the developing world. Ascities sprawl, turning into unmanageablemegalopolises, their expanding footprint canbe seen from space. These hotbeds of pollu-tion are a major contributor to climatechange.

Though urbanization has stabilized in theAmericas and Europe, with about 75 percentof the population living in urban areas, Africaand Asia are in for major demographic shifts.Only about 35 percent of their populationsare urban, but it is predicted that this figurewill jump to 50 percent by 2030. The resultis already there for all to see: chaotic cities sur-rounded by slums and squatter settlements.

Of the 3 billion urban dwellers today, it isestimated that 1 billion are slum dwellers.What is worse, if we continue with businessas usual that figure is set to double by 2030.

If ever there was a time to act, it is now.Though cities are important engines ofgrowth and provide economies of scale inthe provision of services, most of them areenvironmentally unsustainable. In addition, inthis age of increasing insecurity, with morethan 50 percent of their residents living inslums without adequate shelter or basic ser-vices, many cities are rapidly becoming sociallyunsustainable.

The U.N. General Assembly first explic-itly cited its concern at the “deplorable worldhousing situation” in 1969, and it declaredhuman settlements a priority for the twenty-

xvii

fifth anniversary of the United Nations in1971. The next year, the first U.N. confer-ence on the human environment, in Stock-holm, marked a conceptual shift from globalenvironmental degradation to its causes—largely urbanization and the impact ofhuman settlements.

In 1977, the Secretary-General of the firstU.N. Human Settlements Conference (Habi-tat I), Enrique Peñalosa, asked “whetherurban growth would continue to be a spon-taneous chaotic process or be planned tomeet the needs of the community.” Yet theurban agenda never received the full attentionit deserved. For decades now, donors havegiven priority to rural development. TheHuman Settlements Foundation, establishedat the same time as UN-HABITAT to fundslum upgrading, was never financed. Perhapsthis was because in 1977, only one third of theworld lived in urban areas.

Today, urbanization is being taken increas-ingly seriously. In 1996, at Habitat II, 171countries signed the Habitat Agenda, a com-prehensive guide to inclusive and participatoryurban development. In 2000, concernedabout the number of people who were beingmarginalized by the rapidly globalizing econ-omy, world leaders committed themselves tothe Millennium Development Goals. Many ofthese address the living conditions of theurban poor, in particular Targets 9 and 11within Goal 7 on environmental sustainabil-ity. In 2001, the General Assembly passed aresolution that promoted UN-HABITATfrom a center into a full-fledged U.N. pro-gram and called on UN-HABITAT to estab-lish the World Urban Forum as a think tankon all things urban.

With more than 10,000 delegates, thethird session of the World Urban Forum, inVancouver in 2006, proved that people areincreasingly concerned about the future ofhuman settlements. Ministers and mayors,

xviii

industrialists and slum dwellers, all recog-nized that their combined efforts are requiredto overcome the urban crisis.

As we struggle to change our cities, authorsand journalists are ever more critical. CharlesDickens, Emile Zola, Jacob Riis, and EdwardMayhew were instrumental in improving theurban policies of their day. Today, researchersand authors of reports like this State of theWorld 2007 help sensitize the larger public tothe major issues of our time.

Surprisingly, there was no commonlyagreed-upon definition of slums until 2003,when the United Nations published GlobalReport on Human Settlements: The Challengeof Slums. Where there was a lack of informa-tion about urban indicators, there is now a net-work of Global Urban Observatories. TheWorld Bank, with UN-HABITAT, has estab-lished the Cities Alliance that coordinatesdonor activity in urban areas, particularly inslum upgrading. The United Nations has alsolaunched major campaigns to promote secu-rity of tenure and better urban governance.

The political machinery is finally beginningto recognize urbanization. In 2006, theUnited States Senate held it first hearing onAfrican urbanization, while the British Par-liament held its first debate on urbanizationin developing countries. United Cities andLocal Governments, founded in 2004, hasbecome a legitimate partner in the interna-tional arena.

These kinds of international, regional, andlocal political institutions help create legiti-macy for change; more important, they pro-vide a locus for interventions. If ourcampaigns of advocacy and awareness do nottranslate into action, we will have failed.

There are signs of hope. There are moreand more best practices showing what mea-sures can be taken to improve housing con-ditions for the urban poor while enforcingenvironmental laws. Many cities in Southeast


Foreword

and South Asia, in particular, are beginningto reduce the share of their people living inurban poverty. Though all Habitat Agendapartners have contributed to this improve-ment, it has been spearheaded by centralgovernments and local authorities. Theirpolitical will has spurred increased invest-ment in making cities and towns sustainable.

As an African, living in the world’s fastesturbanizing continent, I am aware that weneed to persuade everyone—from presidentsto ordinary policymakers—of the urgency ofurban issues. The Commission for Africa, ofwhich I was a member, highlighted urban-ization as the second greatest challenge con-fronting the continent after HIV/AIDS. As wemove into the urban age, we have to changehow we see the world, how we describe it, andhow we act in it.

Fortunately, the leaders of Africa havetaken note. At the Maputo Summit in 2003,the African Heads of State adopted Deci-sion 29 reiterating their commitment to sus-tainable urbanization, an agenda that wassubsequently encouraged by JoaquimChissano during his term as President of theAfrican Union. In Nigeria, concerned aboutthe country’s urban problems, PresidentOlusegun Obasanjo personally set up theMinistry of Housing and Urban Develop-ment. In his inaugural address in 2006, Pres-ident Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania emphasizedthe need for well-managed cities as a basis fornational development. To coordinate urbanissues at the regional level, African ministers

recently established the African MinisterialConference on Housing and Development.At the same time, AFRICITIES has been atthe forefront of organizing local authoritieson the continent.

This is just the beginning. As I walkthrough the slums of Africa, I find it hard towitness children suffering under what canonly be described as an urban penalty. I amastonished at how women manage to raisetheir families under such appalling circum-stances, without water or a decent toilet. Thepromise of independence has given way to theharsh realities of urban living mainly becausetoo many of us were ill prepared for oururban future. Many cities are confrontingnot only the problems of urban poverty, butthe very worst of environmental pollution.From Banda Aceh to New Orleans, wholecommunities are being wiped out through nofault of the innocent victims.

We will, all of us, bear the responsibility ofa world gone wrong. If we continue as usual,a disastrous future beckons: whole citiesswamped by slums, whole societies destroyedby climate change.

Working at UN-HABITAT and with otheragencies worldwide, I hope that together wecan correct the past failures of urban planning.I hope that the work of organizations like theWorldwatch Institute will motivate more peo-ple to take up the cause of environmentallyand socially sustainable cities. We are warned,it cannot be business as usual.

xix


Foreword

xx

The twentieth century was, par excellence, thecentury of urbanization. Around the world thesupremacy of rural populations over urbanones was reversed and cities experienced anaccelerated growth, often beyond the desir-able. They have been through unthinkabletransformations, which left a fantastic array ofchallenges and possibilities as a legacy.

If the last century was the century ofurbanization, the twenty-first will be thecentury of cities. It is in the cities that deci-sive battles for the quality of life will befought, and their outcomes will have a defin-ing effect on the planet’s environment andon human relations.

Therefore, what can we expect from anurban planet? What will the cities of the futurebe like? There are those who portray an urbanworld in apocalyptic colors, who depict citiesas hopeless places where a person cannotbreathe, move, or live properly due to excesspopulation and automobiles. I, however, donot share these views. My professional expe-rience has taught me that cities are not prob-lems, they are solutions. So I can face an urbanworld only with optimism.

My strongest hope resides in the speed oftransformation. For instance, the demographicprojections based on the high birth rates of20–30 years ago have not been confirmed,allowing us a more encouraging view on thegrowth of cities for the next years and decades.

Renewable energy sources, less-polluting

automobiles, new forms of public trans-portation, and communication technologiesthat reduce the need for travel are all push-ing away the chaos that was predicted forlarge urban centers. The evolution of tech-nology and its democratization are present-ing new perspectives for cities of all sizesand shapes.

In terms of physical configuration, thecities of the future will not differ significantlyfrom the ones of yesterday and today. Whatwill differentiate the good city will be itscapacity for reconciling its residents withnature. Socially just and environmentallysound cities—that is the quest!

By having to deal directly with economicand environmental issues, this quest will fos-ter an increasingly positive synergy betweencities, regions, and countries. As a conse-quence, it will motivate new planetary pactsfocused on human development.

Still, a certain sense of urgency is vital topositively transform our cities. The idea thataction should only be taken after having all theanswers and all the resources is a sure recipefor paralysis. The lack of resources cannotbe an excuse not to act. The planning of a cityis a process that allows for corrections, always.It is supremely arrogant to believe that plan-ning can be done only after figuring out everypossible variable.

To innovate is to start! Hence, it is neces-sary to begin the process. Imagine the ideal,

ForewordThe Honorable Jaime Lerner

Former Governor of Paraná, Brazil, and former Mayor of Curitiba

but do what is possible today. Solutions for20, 30 years ahead are pointless, because bythen the problems will probably be different.Therefore we need urban policies that cangenerate change beginning now, that willnot need decades to show results. The presentbelongs to us and it is our responsibility toopen paths.

In the roots of a big transformation thereis a small transformation. Start creating fromsimple elements, easy to be implemented,and those will be the embryos of a morecomplex system in the future. Although weare living a phase of our history when eventshappen at a galloping pace, and informationtravels in the blink of an eye, the decisionsregarding urban problems are postponed dueto a systematic lack of synchrony with thespeed of the events.

The world demands increasingly fast solu-tions, and it is the local level that can providethe quickest replies. But it is necessary toplan to make it happen. Plan for the peopleand not for centralized and centralizingbureaucratic structures.

Those responsible for managing thisurban world must have their eyes on thefuture, but their feet firmly on the groundin the present. Those who only focus onthe daily needs of people will jeopardize thefuture of their city. On the other hand, thosewho think only about the future, disregard-ing the daily demands, will lose the essentialsupport of their constituents and will notaccomplish anything.

It is necessary then not to lose track of theessence of things; to discern within the amaz-ing variety of today’s available informationwhat is fundamental and what is important,the strategic from the daily demands. A clearperspective on future objectives is the bestguide for present action—that is, to bind thepresent with a future idea.

There are three crucial issues that need to

be addressed: mobility, sustainability, andidentity.

For mobility, the future is on the surface.Entire generations cannot be sacrificed wait-ing for a subway line while in less than twoyears complete networks of surface trans-portation can be set up. In Curitiba, startingin 1974 we gave priority to public buses car-rying 25,000 passengers a day in exclusivelanes on a north-south axis. Today, the net-work carries 2 million passengers throughoutthe metro area with a single fare.

The key to mobility is the combination andintegration of all systems: subway, bus, taxi,cars, and bikes. But these systems cannotcompete in the same space. People will selectthe most convenient combination accordingto their own needs and travel with a “mobil-ity card.” Operators of each transportationmode will be partners in the system.

Regarding sustainability, the main idea isto focus on what we know instead of what wedon’t know. And, above all, to transfer thisknowledge to the children, who will thenteach their parents. Curitiba’s Garbage ThatIs Not Garbage Program encouraged sepa-ration of recyclable waste in households; chil-dren learned about the program at schooland helped mobilize their parents.

Simple things from the day-by-day routineof cities can be decoded for children: forinstance, how each person can help by reduc-ing the use of the automobile, living closer towork or bringing the work closer to home,giving multiple functions during the 24 hoursof the day to urban infrastructure, saving themaximum and wasting the minimum.

Sustainability is an equation between whatis saved and what is wasted. Therefore, if sus-tainability=saving/wasting, when wasting is“zero,” sustainability tends to infinity. Wasteis the most abundant source of energy.

A sustainable city cannot afford the luxuryof leaving districts and streets with good

xxi


Foreword

infrastructure and services vacant. Its down-town area cannot remain idle during greatportions of the day. It is necessary to fill it upwith the functions that are missing. The “24hours city” and multiple-use equipment areessential for sustainability.

Finally, identity. Identity is a major factorin the quality of life; it represents the synthesisof the relationship between the individualand his or her city. Identity, self-esteem, a feel-ing of belonging—all of them are closelyconnected to the points of reference thatpeople have about their own city.

Rivers, for instance, are important refer-ences. Instead of hiding them from view orburying them in concrete, cities should estab-lish riverbanks as valuable territories. Byrespecting the natural drainage characteristics,cities can make sure the preserved areas pro-vide necessary episodic flooding relief chan-nels and are still used most of the time forrecreation in an economic and environmen-tally friendly way. Parks can work within a sim-ilar logic, providing areas that people canrelate to and interact with.

Historic districts are also major referencepoints, closely related to each city since itsinception. But these areas often suffer aprocess of devaluation and degradation. Find-ing ways to keep these districts alive by con-necting identity elements, recycling outdateduses, and hosting a mix of functions is vital.In Curitiba, a deactivated gunpowder storage

facility was transformed into one of the city’smost cherished theaters—Teatro do Paiol.

A city is a collective dream. To build thisdream is vital. Without it, there will not bethe essential involvement of its inhabitants.Therefore, those responsible for the des-tinies of the city need to draw scenariosclearly—scenarios that are desired by themajority, capable of motivating the efforts ofan entire generation.

A city is a structure of change even morethan it is a model of planning, an instrumentof economic policies, a nucleus of social polar-ization. The soul of a city—the strength thatmakes it breathe, exist, and progress—residesin each one of its residents.

Cities are the refuge of solidarity. Theycan be the safeguards of the inhumane con-sequences of the globalization process. Theycan defend us from extraterritoriality and thelack of identity.

On the other hand, the fiercest wars arehappening in cities, in their marginalizedperipheries, in the clash between wealthyenclaves and deprived ghettos. The heaviestenvironmental burdens are being generatedthere too, due to our lack of empathy for pre-sent and future generations. And this is exactlywhy it is in our cities that we can make themost progress toward a more peaceful andbalanced planet, so we can look at an urbanworld with optimism instead of fear.

xxii


Foreword

xxiii

Sometime in 2008, the world will cross aninvisible but momentous milestone: the pointat which more than half the people on theplanet—roughly 3.2 billion human beings—live in cities. The combined impact of agrowing population and an unprecedentedwave of migration from the countrysidemeans that over 50 million people—equiv-alent to the population of France—are nowadded to the world’s cities and suburbs eachyear. More than at any time in history, thefuture of humanity, our economy, and theplanet that supports us will be determined inthe world’s cities.

Urban centers are hubs simultaneously ofbreathtaking artistic innovation and some ofthe world’s most abject and disgracefulpoverty. They are the dynamos of the worldeconomy but also the breeding grounds foralienation, religious extremism, and othersources of local and global insecurity. Citiesare now both pioneers of groundbreakingenvironmental policies and the direct or indi-rect source of most of the world’s resourcedestruction and pollution.

This modern “tale of two cities,” to bor-row the title of Charles Dickens’ famouslygrim book about nineteenth-century Lon-don, is something that every policymakerand citizen needs to understand. The battlesagainst our greatest global problems, fromunemployment and HIV infections to watershortages, terrorism, and climate change, will

be largely won—or lost—in the world’s cities.Although our species existed for over

100,000 years before the first small citieswere built between the Tigris and EuphratesRivers around 4000 BC, the growing domi-nance of cities is one of the most dramaticchanges we have experienced and one forwhich we are poorly equipped. As recently asthe early twentieth century, the vast majorityof the world’s people lived in the countrysideand practiced subsistence farming. Even today,the electoral systems of many predominantlyurban countries—Japan is a good example—give disproportionate political influence torural citizens. And the international devel-opment community often neglects cities whenallocating its aid.

In 1950, only New York and Tokyo hadpopulations of more than 10 million. Todaythere are 20 of these so-called megacities,the bulk of them in Asia and Latin America.But most of the growth in the decades aheadwill come in smaller cities. By 2015, demog-raphers project there will be 59 cities withpopulations between 1 million and 5 millionin Africa, 65 such cities in Latin America andthe Caribbean, and 253 in Asia. As early as2030, four out of five of the world’s urbanresidents will be in what we now call the“developing” world.

The demographic and political impacts ofthis transformation will test us. In China, forexample, millions of people are moving to

PrefaceChristopher Flavin

President, Worldwatch Institute

cities each year, and while that nation hasdone better than most in meeting the needsof new urban residents, the social strains areshowing. And Africa, the least urban conti-nent today, is the area that is urbanizing thefastest—a trend that will undoubtedly putadditional social, economic, and political pres-sure on this already stressed part of the world.

The great majority of the populationgrowth in the new urban centers of Africa andAsia is in the unplanned and underservedsettlements commonly known as slums. Overone quarter of urban residents in the devel-oping world—more than half a billion peo-ple—lack clean water and sanitation, and 1.6million die each year as a result. The face oftwenty-first century cities is often that of asmall, malnourished child living in a vast slumin a city such as Abidjan, Kolkata, or MexicoCity, not far from the newly built operahouses, gleaming office buildings, and auto-mobile-choked highways that are now com-mon even in poor countries.

This child frequently lacks electricity, cleanwater, or even a nearby toilet. While air qual-ity has improved markedly in many Euro-pean and American cities in recent years, it hasbecome far worse in most cities in the devel-oping world; China alone has 16 of theworld’s most polluted cities. For that child inthe slum, pollution-related sickness and vio-lence are daily threats, while education andhealth care are a distant hope.

Our ability to meet the needs of the urbanpoor is one of the greatest humanitarian chal-lenges of this century. It is also going toshape key global developments—from thesecurity of those who live in nearby luxuryapartments to the stability of Arctic ice sheetsnear the planet’s poles. It is particularly ironicthat the battle to save the world’s remaininghealthy ecosystems will be won or lost not inthe tropical forests or coral reefs that arethreatened but on the streets of the most

xxiv


Preface

unnatural landscapes on the planet.At stake is the ability of those ecosystems

to provide the food, fiber, fresh water, and cli-mate stability that all cities depend on. Nearlytwo thirds of these “ecosystem services” havealready been degraded, according to the lat-est scientific estimates. Our challenge is toavoid the fate of the great Mayan cities thatlie in ruins in the jungles of southern Mexicoand Guatemala—cities that were abandonednot just because of forces at work withintheir borders but because of the collapse ofthe surrounding agricultural lands and waterresources after centuries of overexploitation.

The task of saving the world’s moderncities might seem equally hopeless—exceptthat it is already happening. This book doc-uments the problems facing the world’s cities,but also a remarkable array of promisingadvances that have begun to mushroom overthe past few years. Particularly striking is theself-reliance being demonstrated by both richand poor communities that have stepped into fill gaps left by governments. Even neces-sities such as food and energy are increas-ingly being produced by urban pioneers insidecity limits.

In Accra, at least 1,000 urban farmersgrow food in backyard plots, in empty lots,along roadsides, and in abandoned dumps,fertilizing their crops with “greywater” fromkitchens and bathrooms. In Barcelona, overhalf the new and refurbished buildings nowhave solar hot water. In Karachi, the urbanpoor have organized themselves to providesewer services by having the inhabitants takeresponsibility for planning, building, andmanaging the local piping system. In Bogotá,many residents move easily around on thespiffy new bus rapid transit system. On anisland in the Yangtze River near Shanghai, anew ecological city is being built from scratch.And in Johannesburg, cooperative businesseshave been formed to sell eco-friendly con-

struction materials while creating hundreds ofnew jobs for city residents.

As these examples suggest, State of theWorld 2007 covers a topically and geo-graphically diverse urban landscape as weexplore the many ways in which cities are keyto both human progress and ecological sus-tainability. My colleague Molly O’MearaSheehan, who directed this year’s State of theWorld project, has assembled an inspiredteam of Institute researchers and outsideexperts to write this volume. It includes in-depth discussions of many of the challengesfacing today’s cities as well as exciting storiesabout the innovators who are finding newways to address these problems, often in thepoorest corners of the developing world.The short “Cityscape” stories that appearbetween the chapters were prepared by peo-ple who know firsthand what is happening inthese cities.

We are particularly pleased that two ofthe world’s great leaders on urban issues—

both from the global South—have writteneloquent Forewords to State of the World2007. Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Directorof UN-HABITAT, the U.N. body devoted tothe well-being of human settlements, hasbrought the plight of urban slum dwellers tothe attention of world leaders. As a womanwho grew up in rural Tanzania and studiedagricultural economics at university, AnnaTibaijuka provides the perspective of a per-son who has professionally and personallystraddled the rural-urban divide.

Jaime Lerner, former mayor of Curitiba inBrazil and former governor of Paraná, whodeveloped the bus rapid transit system thatinspired Bogotá’s system and is now beingreplicated in cities such as Los Angeles andBeijing, wrote our second Foreword. In con-trast to those who portray today’s cities ashopeless and apocalyptic places, Jaime Lernerviews cities as exciting laboratories of change.That sense of optimism is central to the futureof cities—and the world itself.

xxv


Preface

xxvii

Timeline events were selected to increaseawareness of the connections between peo-ple and the environment. An online versionof the timeline with links to Internetresources is available at www.worldwatch.org/features/timeline.

State of the World:A Year in Review

This timeline covers some significantannouncements and reports from October2005 through September 2006. It is a mix ofprogress, setbacks, and missed steps aroundthe world that are affecting environmentalquality and social welfare.

Compiled by Lisa Mastny

xxviii


State of the World: A Year in Review

O C T O B E R

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

N O V E M B E R D E C E M B E R

2005 S T A T E O F T H E W O R L D : A Y E A R I N R E V I E W

POPULATIONUN experts predict thatby 2010, as many as 50million people will be

environmental refugees,fleeing the effects of

worsening environmentalconditions.

TOXICSExplosion at a Chinese

petrochemical plantreleases 100 tons of

benzene and other toxinsinto the Songhua River,forcing disruptions indrinking water supply.

ECOSYSTEMSMexico designates the

Sierra del Carmen mountains Latin America’s

first “wilderness area,”creating a transnational

park with Big BendNational Park in Texas.

CLIMATEReport warns that halfthe world’s coral reefs

may die within 40 yearsunless urgent action istaken to protect themfrom climate change.

BIODIVERSITYTwelve West Africancountries sign pact toimprove cross-border

cooperation to conserveelephant populations

and their habitats.

AGRICULTUREWTO members

approve a declarationagreeing to end trade-distorting

agricultural export subsidies by 2013.

SECURITY Rioters in Paris suburbs,

mainly second-generationimmigrant youths, ignite

unrest across France, drawingattention to unemployment

and discrimination.

FORESTSFAO reveals that net forest loss worldwide has slowed somewhat

over the past five years, to 7.3 millionhectares annually.

NATURAL DISASTERSEarthquake of 7.2

magnitude strikes northwestPakistan, killing more than73,000 people by early

November.

MARINE SYSTEMSFijian chiefs establish

marine protected areas inthe Great Sea Reef, theworld’s third largest reefsystem, aiming to expandsystem coverage to 30

percent by 2020.

CLIMATE Scientists project that as much as 90 percent

of the near-surface permafrost area in the Arctic could

disappear by 2021.

GOVERNANCESeven states in the USNortheast agree to thenation’s first mandatory

plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

from power plants.

xxix



20062 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

J A N U A R Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

F E B R U A R Y M A R C H

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

CLIMATEAustralia, China, India,

Japan, South Korea, andthe United States form a market-based “cleanenergy” partnership as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol.

AGRICULTUREWTO rules against

European restrictions on genetically modified(GM) corn, soybeans,

and cotton in a victory for global GM

food advocates.

DESERTIFICATIONUN proclaims 2006 the International Year

of Deserts and Desertification to drawattention to the human

and environmental consequences of climate

change in arid lands.

CLIMATE US scientists report that 2005 was the

warmest year in over a century, followed

by 1998, 2002,2003, and 2004.

NATURALDISASTERS

Weeks of heavy rain trigger mudslides in the

Philippines, killing up to 1,500 people and

destroying entire villages.

SECURITYUS agrees to recognize Indiaas a nuclear power and topromote civilian nucleartransfers in exchange for

minimal oversight of India’snuclear weapons program.

HEALTHAt a high-levelconference in

Beijing, the world’s governments pledge$1.85 billion to fight

avian influenza.

ECOSYSTEMSBrazil adds 150,000

hectares to its AmazonNational Park and creates seven new protected areas in western Pará state.

FORESTSEnvironmental groups

report that more than a quarter of the Peruvian Amazon—

nearly 22 millionhectares—is now zonedfor oil and gas activities.

TOXICSThe European

Commission adopts strict limits for dioxin and polychlorinated

biphenyl levels in foodand animal feed.

BIODIVERSITYScientists report that a waterborne fungus is responsible for thedecline of more than 40 amphibian species

in Central America and 93 such species

worldwide.

CLIMATEMost comprehensive survey of Greenland

and Antarctic ice sheetsever reports a net

loss of polar ice from1992–2002 as ice

shelves and edges thin.

GOVERNANCEThe 1996 Protocol to theLondon Convention onmarine pollution entersinto effect, strengtheningrules on ocean dumping

and enshrining the“polluter pays” principle.

FORESTSReport finds that US and EU imports of

wood products fromChina have increased

nearly 900 percent since1998, fueling forest

destruction and illegallogging worldwide.

xxx



A P R I L

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

M A Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

J U N E

2006 S T A T E O F T H E W O R L D : A Y E A R I N R E V I E W

NATURAL DISASTERSEurope’s Danube Riverreaches a historic high,overflowing its banks and forcing more than10,000 people to flee

for higher ground.

ENERGYBrazil opens its firsturanium-enrichment

facility for the development of

civilian nuclear energy.

ENERGYTokyo’s government

sets target of powering20 percent of the city on renewable energy by 2020, up from 2.7

percent today.

GOVERNANCEInstitutional investorsfrom 16 countries,

representing more than$2 trillion in assets,sign on to the UN’s new Principles for

Responsible Investment.

WATERChina removes final

temporary wall at theThree Gorges Dam,

releasing Yangtze Riverwaters behind the

world’s largesthydropower project.

MARINE SYSTEMSInternational WhalingCommission rejects

Japanese bid to reintroduce commercialwhaling, in one of the

closest votes ever on the issue.

ECONOMICSWorld Bank approves

initiative to providemore than $37 billion in debt relief to 17 of the world’s poorest

countries over 40 years.

CLIMATE Al Gore’s documentary

An Inconvenient Truthopens in Los Angeles and New York, raisingawareness about thedangers and causes of

climate change.

HEALTHUN report links

wetland losses to thespread of avian flu, aswild birds come intogreater contact withdomesticated fowl.

BIODIVERSITYHippos and polar bearsare added to the globalRed List of threatened

species for the first time,reflecting widespreadpopulation declines.

HUMAN RIGHTS Shortly after a “peaceagreement” is signed in

Darfur, new fightingworsens a conflict thathas killed hundreds ofthousands since 2003.

FORESTSIn Central Africa’s firstdebt-for-nature deal,Cameroon agrees to

spend up to $25 millionto preserve its rainforests

in exchange for debtrelief from France.

URBANIZATIONDelegates gather at the

Third World UrbanForum in Vancouver todiscuss ways to improveslum dwellers’ access to

basic shelter and services.

xxxi



30

J U L Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 30

A U G U S T S E P T E M B E R

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 282 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

See page 191 for sources.

ENERGYG8 energy plan outlines

members’ intentions to secure fossil fuel

supplies while promotingmarket-led developmentof nuclear and renewable

energy sources.

CLIMATECalifornia approves billestablishing the strictest

controls on carbon dioxide in the United

States, pledging to cut emissions 25 percent by 2020.

BIODIVERSITYTaiwanese customs

authorities seize morethan five tons of illegally

harvested elephant ivory in three days,

the equivalent of 614dead elephants.

TOXICSToxic waste from a

Dutch ship is dumped in Abidjan slums in

Côte d’Ivoire, sickeningthousands and killing

at least 10.

MARINE ECOSYSTEMSAs overfishing continues,

fisheries experts saybluefin tuna catches in thewestern Mediterranean

are just 15 percent of what they were a

decade ago.

CLIMATEStudy links temperature

increases caused byhuman greenhouse gasemissions to stronger

hurricane intensity in theAtlantic and Pacific Oceans.

AGRICULTUREJapan agrees to lift import ban on US

beef imposed in 2003after the discovery ofthe first US case of mad cow disease.

BIODIVERSITYScientists announce the

discovery of the first newbird species in India in

more than 50 years—amulticolored babbler.

SECURITYIn the deadliest fighting in Lebanon since 1982,Israeli air strikes on a

power plant spew oil intothe Mediterranean Sea,affecting 200 kilometers

of coastline.

WATERExperts convene for

World Water Week inStockholm to address

corruption in the waterindustry and the need foruniversal access to safe

water by 2015.

HEALTHUS government warnsconsumers not to eat

fresh spinach following adeadly E. coli outbreakthat eventually kills atleast one person andsickens more than 180

in 26 states.

HEALTHUN says global coverage

of safe drinking water rosefrom 78 to 83 percent

between 1990 and 2004,although two fifths of thepopulation still lacks access

to basic sanitation.

STATE OF THE WORLD2 0 0 7

Our Urban Future

In 2007, engineers and construction workersare to begin transforming rural ChongmingIsland, in the Yangtze River near Shanghai,into a city. Arup, the firm preparing the mas-ter plan for this new development, calledDongtan, touts it as “the world’s first sus-tainable city.” Plans call for a city of 50,000by 2010, with the population expected toreach 500,000 by 2040. The developmentwill cover 4,600 hectares, less than a fifth ofthe entire island. Windmills will dominatethe skyline, and turf, vegetation, and solarpanels will cover the roofs. Some 80 percentof solid waste will be recycled, while organicwaste will be composted or burned to supplyheat and power. The only motorized vehiclesallowed on the streets will be powered byelectricity or fuel cells.1

In theory, Dongtan will be self-sufficientin energy, food, and water, with close to zerocarbon emissions from transportation. If this

is accomplished, each person living in Dong-tan will exert much less pressure on naturethan a New Yorker does today. AlthoughNew York City’s density of settlement is sim-ilar to that envisioned for Dongtan, the Amer-ican city relies on electricity that is virtually allgenerated by fossil fuels and nuclear fission,and its wastes are carried by truck to landfillsup to 650 kilometers away. New York’s recy-cling rate is less than 20 percent.2

The Dongtan eco-city project is one ofthe latest attempts to design an urban formthat brings the needs of people into line withthe needs of the environment. A century ago,Ebenezer Howard, a British reformer, advo-cated “garden cities,” self-contained towns ofroughly 30,000 people living on 1,000 acres(405 hectares) surrounded by greenbelts.Within these new towns, zoning was to sep-arate houses and gardens from factories andfarms. The first garden city, Letchworth, was

C H A P T E R 1

3

Kai N. Lee

An Urbanizing World

Kai N. Lee is Rosenburg Professor of Environmental Studies at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass-achusetts. He gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Molly O’Meara Sheehan, who also wrote partsof this chapter.

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/dongtan

founded some 60 kilometers from London in1902, and the idea spread to other coun-tries, including the Netherlands and Japan.But the new towns did not create their ownworkplaces, as planned, and were insteadabsorbed into the regional growth of thecities they surrounded.3

Dongtan has yet to be built and tested.Like utopian projects before it, there are sureto be negative consequences. Some may beexpected, such as the possible displacement offarmers now living on the island or the poten-tial disruption of the protected wetlands thathouse a bird sanctuary, while others have yetto surface. Nonetheless, this project comes ata time when humanity needs new models forurban development.4

The Global Challenge of Urbanization

Thanks to rapid urban growth not only inChina but elsewhere in Asia and Africa, sometime in the coming year the population of theworld will become mostly urban. By 2005,the world’s urban population of 3.18 billionpeople constituted 49 percent of the totalpopulation of 6.46 billion. Very soon, and forthe first time in the history of our species,more humans will live in urban areas thanrural places.5

This is a significant milestone on the longroad of civilization. Ten thousand years ago,humans were hunter-gatherers who movedwith their food sources. With the discoveryof agriculture came permanent settlementsand, in time, the imperial cities of the ancientworld. More than two centuries ago, improve-ments in agriculture in northwest Europemade it possible for a smaller fraction of thepopulation to feed everyone. In 1740 abouttwo thirds of the labor force in England andWales worked in agriculture. By 1840 this haddropped to less than a quarter, even though

the English exported food throughout thatcentury. On the heels of this increase in agri-cultural productivity came the invention ofmachines that could transform the heat ofburning coal or wood into useful work. TheIndustrial Revolution spread from Europeto North America and then Japan, and citiesgrew to house and serve the new factoryworkers, many of whom had left farms wheretheir labor was no longer needed. By 1900humanity stood on the threshold of moder-nity: a new way of life anchored in cities thatwould rewrite the conditions of human life.(See Box 1–1.)6

In parallel, human activity has emerged asan environmental force of planetary pro-portions: replumbing watercourses, exter-minating species, and altering the globalclimate. These changes have broughtunprecedented material gains to our species,particularly in the high-income nations.Whether these gains can be shared with allof humanity, and whether they can be sus-tained, are questions that now seem increas-ingly urgent, as the impact of humans on thenatural world can no longer be considerednegligible. These are also matters that will bedecided by urban inhabitants, becausealthough human population growth maywell cease in this century, cities and theirenvironmental pressures are continuing toexpand through economic growth, migra-tion, natural increase, and the transformationof rural areas into urban settlements.7

U.N. projections suggest that nearly allof the world’s population growth in the com-ing generation will be in cities in low- andmedium-income nations. Asia and Africa, themost rural continents today, are expected todouble their urban populations to about 3.4billion in 2030. Already, about 1 billion urbandwellers live in “slums” or informal settle-ments—areas where people live without oneor more of life’s basic necessities: clean water,


4

An Urbanizing World

sanitation, sufficient living space, durablehousing, or secure tenure, which includesfreedom from forced eviction.8

Urbanization thus presents a global chal-lenge of human development and humanrights. The shift in where we live brings to thefore the question of how we live—the chal-lenge of sustainable development, defined ina widely quoted form 20 years ago as meet-ing the needs of the present without com-

promising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs.9

Many scientists agree that the global econ-omy is not on a path toward sustainable devel-opment. More than a decade ago, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changefound that the burning of fossil fuels wasaltering the composition and heat balance ofthe atmosphere; the group has since docu-mented signs of a changing climate, from


5

An Urbanizing World

The cities made possible and necessary byindustrialization have incubated a mutuallyreinforcing set of transitions that haveredrawn the outlines of material existence.What we now think of as globalization is thelatest phase in a set of linked transitions inpopulation, health, economy, politics, socialrelations, and environment.

Families have grown smaller all over theworld, led by the high-income countries and byChina’s surprisingly successful one-child policy.This demographic transition seems likely toresult in the end of human population growthbefore the end of the twenty-first century. Sta-bilization of population has not been imposedby disease, famine, or war.With the exceptionof African countries hard hit by AIDS, healthhas improved almost everywhere over the past century, with declines in child mortality,decreases in infectious illness, and longer lifespans, especially in high-income countries.Thisepidemiological transition had an importantconsequence for cities: just over a century ago,cities had so much disease that urban popula-tions declined unless people moved into them.That urban penalty was erased by improve-ments in sanitation and clean water—althoughthe poor public health conditions of slums stillsicken and kill on a large scale.

Industrialization has brought an unprece-dented economic transition, one still unfoldingin the process of globalization.Average per

capita income has grown, with interruptions,since the early nineteenth century. But wealthand the indirect benefits of prosperity have beenshared unequally, even as the output of the worldeconomy has grown enormously. Economicpower has been rooted in cities; the purchasesof urban people, who cannot live off the land,form the foundation of national economies.Technological changes allowed cities to becomelarger and to spread further; steel-framed build-ings made skyscrapers possible, while fastertransportation brought people to and fromjobs in high-density downtowns even as theycame to live in distant, low-density suburbs.

As dramatic as the economic transforma-tions of the past two centuries has been theuneven but unmistakable rise of democracy.The fraction of the world’s people ruled bydemocratic governments rose from about 4percent in 1840 to about 12 percent in 1900,and crossed 50 percent around 2000.Thisremarkable transition reflects the end of colo-nialism, which added India and many othermedium- and low-income countries to the listof democracies.The widening reach of compet-itive elections has given city dwellers a chanceto demand accountability for the conditions ofurban life, and governments are now consid-ered responsible for matters ranging from edu-cation to parks to women’s rights that weresimply not on the agenda of feudal societies.

SOURCE: See endnote 6.

Box 1–1. Transitions of Modernity

shrinking glaciers to the decline of some plantand animal populations. An internationalanalysis of the world’s ecosystems, writtenby more than 1,300 scientists, found that 60percent of the services of nature—includingthose provided by farmlands, fisheries, andforests—are being degraded or used unsus-tainably. This Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment warned in 2005 that “these problems,unless addressed, will substantially diminishthe benefits that future generations obtainfrom ecosystems.”10

This chapter reviews the state of theworld’s urban areas, highlighting the way inwhich urbanization and sustainable develop-ment are linked. At first sight, cities seem tobe the problem rather than the solution: thenumber of people living in slums has steadilyincreased, and industrial pollution in rapidlygrowing economies fouls water and air. Yetthe flow of people toward cities seems unlikelyto stop or even slow, in part because lifechances and economic opportunities are oftenbetter in cities, even for many of the poor.11

From that perspective, urbanization pro-vides a crucial opportunity: to create livingpatterns harmonized with nature’s rhythms aspeople continue to create urban habitat. Citiesoffer economies of scale for recycling waterand materials, for instance, and for usingenergy efficiently. Yet today’s high-incomecities use resources unsustainably, and thehigh-consumption approach is plainly unaf-fordable for slum dwellers. Finding ways tocreate better urban settlements in all soci-eties is central to sustainable development.

A city may be thought of as a physicaland social mechanism to acquire and deliveressential natural services, such as clean water,to a concentrated human population. Thephysical part of this mechanism is often calledinfrastructure, while the social part includesmarkets, government, and community orga-nizations. Cities vary tremendously, but

thinking of urban areas as linked to naturereveals an important pattern: the environ-mental problems of low-income cities aredifferent in kind and in scale from the prob-lems facing industrializing, medium-incomecities. And the challenges brought by rapidindustrialization in Guangzhou, China, or bypoverty in Cochabamba, Bolivia, differ fromthose found in high-income cities likePhoenix or Turin.

Cities are tied to nature through mar-kets and technology. Virtually all cities relyon food, fuels, and materials from elsewhere,and all cities are marketplaces. Thus, “sus-tainable” does not mean self-sufficient.Rather, a city moving toward sustainabilityimproves public health and well-being, low-ers its environmental impacts, increasinglyrecycles its materials, and uses energy withgrowing efficiency. Note the word “toward”:it is unrealistic for a human economy tohave no impacts on the natural world, butclearly it is necessary for the human economyto share its wealth more equitably and inways that enable our species to endure on afinite planet.

Urban Areas TodayWhile the trend of urbanization is clear, themeasurement of what is urban is not. Whenthe United Nations projects that the world’spopulation will become predominantly urbanin 2008, it is drawing upon information pro-vided by member nations, who define “urban”differently. More than two dozen nations donot document their definitions at all. Urbanpopulations can be identified using at leastthree different ideas: the number of people liv-ing within the jurisdictional boundaries of acity; those living in areas with a high densityof residential structures (urban agglomera-tion); and those linked by direct economic tiesto a city center (metropolitan area).


6

An Urbanizing World

These definitions yield quite different pic-tures of the “city.” The U.S. National ResearchCouncil remarked in 2003 that “cities such asBuenos Aires, Mexico City, London, andTokyo can correctly be said to be declining orexpanding in population, depending on howtheir boundaries are defined.” Moreover,about two dozen low-income countries havenot had a census in more than a decade, andthe populations attributed to them are pro-jections. Then there is the matter of howlarge a settlement must be to count as urban.India, for example, would change from beingmostly rural to being mostly urban if itadopted the definition of urban area used inSweden. Despite these weaknesses, the datapublished by the United Nations are widelyused (as they are throughout this book) forlack of better estimates.12

In the second half of the twentieth century,according to the United Nations, the urbanpopulation of the world increased nearly four-fold, from 732 million in 1950 to 2.8 billionin 2000 and to more than 3.2 billion in 2006.As shown in Table 1–1, growth has beenrapid in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, butmuch slower in Europe and North America,where more than half the population alreadylived in urban areas by 1950. Only40 percent of the urban popula-tion lived in low- and middle-income nations in 1950, but thatfraction will reach three quartersshortly after 2010.13

Since 1975, more than 200urban agglomerations in low- andmedium-income nations havegrown past 1 million inhabitants.Their local governments are facedwith the sanitation, housing,transportation, water, energy, andhealth needs of more than a mil-lion constituents—a striking newchallenge that arose in a single

generation. Many municipal governmentstrying to cope with these matters lack trainedworkers, the budgets to pay them, and tra-ditions of civic governance on a mass scale.14

The trends of the past generation are pro-jected to continue into the coming one. Moreimportant, as noted earlier, the overwhelm-ing majority of net additions to the humanpopulation—88 percent of the growth from2000 to 2030—will be urban dwellers inlow- and medium-income countries. Already,Africa has 350 million urban dwellers, morethan the populations of Canada and theUnited States combined. In terms of absolutenumbers of inhabitants, urban growth isunprecedented and will continue to be so. Butin percentage terms, the rate at which nationalpopulations are becoming urban lies withinthe historical range experienced by the high-income countries.15

The rapid swelling of urban populationsis due to both migration into cities and nat-ural increase of the people already there.Although policymakers tend to emphasizethe role of migration, which is high com-pared with historical levels in the placeswhere rapid growth is taking place, naturalincrease actually accounts for over half of


7

An Urbanizing World

Table 1–1. Urban Populations by Region, 1950–2000,with Projection for 2010

Region 1950 1970 1990 2000 2010

(million inhabitants)Africa 33 85 203 294 408Asia 234 485 1,011 1,363 1,755Latin America and

the Caribbean 70 163 315 394 474Europe 277 411 509 522 529North America 110 171 214 249 284Oceania 8 14 19 22 25

World 732 1,329 2,271 2,845 3,475

Note: Columns may not add up to world total due to rounding.SOURCE: See endnote 13.

the rise in urban population.16

Perhaps the most visible aspect of globalurbanization has been the rise of megacities,large urban agglomerations with more than10 million inhabitants. (See Figure 1–1.)These cities only account, however, for about9 percent of total urban population. Just overhalf of the world’s city dwellers live in settle-ments with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants.(See Figure 1–2.)17

The rapid urbanization of the world’s pop-ulation is unfolding in distinctive ways in dif-ferent parts of the world. Latin America, at 77percent urban, has already gone through anurban demographic transition like those ofNorth America and Europe, with nationalpopulation growth rates declining since the1960s. Growth in the region’s megacitieshas slowed considerably, as the costs of con-gestion have made smaller urban areas moreattractive. Yet thanks to the world’s highestlevels of economic and social inequality, LatinAmerican cities have large slum populationsthat continue to grow.18

In Africa, where some 38 percent of thepopulation lives in urban areas, urbaniza-tion is more recent and more rapid in pro-portional terms because of higher populationgrowth rates, rural poverty due to low agri-cultural productivity, and wars that drivepeople into cities. The spatial and economicstructure of African cities reflects choicesmade by Europeans in the colonial era, whentrading centers for agricultural products and natural resources produced for interna-tional export replaced an older network ofmarket settlements serving an agrarian pop-ulation. The colonial cities were designedby Europeans with small enclaves for them-selves; adjoining indigenous districts werebuilt with little attention to water and sani-tation, roads, transportation, or energy sup-ply. The lack of infrastructure for the poor,followed by rapid urban growth, has pro-duced large slum populations living at highlevels of risk from disease and environmen-tal hazards like flooding.19

Poor macroeconomic performance in sub-


8

An Urbanizing World

10 million+ 5–10 million 1–5 million 0.5–1 million <0.5 millionSize of Settlement

Increasing WealthPoor Settlements Wealthy Settlements

Perc

ent

of U

rban

Pop

ulat

ion

Incr

easin

g Se

verit

y of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Bur

den

Local(e.g., sanitation)

City-Regional(e.g., ambient air)

Global(e.g., carbon emissions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1975

1985

199520

0520

15

Toky

o

Mumba

i

Mexico

City

São

Paulo

New Y

ork

Delhi

Shan

ghai

Kolka

ta

Dhaka

Jakart

aLa

gos

Karac

hi

Buen

os A

ires

Cairo

Los A

ngele

s

Manila

Beijin

g

Rio de

Jane

iroO

saka

Istan

bul

Mosco

w

Guang

zhou

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

n)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2015

2005

1990

1950

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Source: United Nations


Figure 1–1. Urban Agglomerations Projected to Exceed 10 Million Population by 2015

Saharan Africa since independence, nearlyhalf a century ago, has led to urbaneconomies dominated by informal work suchas food hawking and small-scale commerce,but little industrial employment. More thanthree quarters of nonagricultural employ-ment is in the informal sector, yet it accountsfor only 41 percent of economic output,because nearly all its jobs are in low-wage andlow-profit activities. African economies arelittle integrated into the global economy,and they still depend on exports of naturalresources and agricultural products in orderto import manufactured products—as incolonial times.20

Asia, the world’s most populous region, isroughly 40 percent urban, with a varied urbanlandscape. Pacific Asia—the coastal regionsfrom Japan to Southeast Asia—has undergonea remarkable economic transformation overthe past generation as China and the newlyindustrializing countries of East Asia haverapidly increased incomes and levels of urban-ization. China is now home to 16 of theworld’s 20 most polluted cities, as rapid eco-

nomic changes havepressed the ability ofgovernments to pro-tect and improve pub-lic health. In westernChina, South Asia, andinterior Asia, urbaniza-tion is also rapid, buteconomic growth hasnot been so meteoric,and poverty burdensnearly a third of India’surban population. Pop-ulation growth ratesremain high in Bang-ladesh and Pakistan,although they aredeclining. Urban pop-ulations shrank or grew

slowly in Central Asia in the severe economicand political disruptions that followed thecollapse of the Soviet Union.21

Beyond these regional generalizations,each city has a history and a population thatwill lead the city in its own direction. Citiesattract settlers and retain residents becausethey offer opportunities for employment, formeeting and being with people, for becom-ing someone different. As migrants to everyslum will affirm, they are there because theywant to be. Seizing the opportunities andtaking the risks of city life, some will fail andothers succeed. Often, people will do thingsthey could not have done in rural settings, andsometimes they will push the urban commu-nity and economy in a new direction alto-gether, whether this involves opening up anew kind of business like an organic foodmarket, or making new links to distant com-munities by sending earnings back home, ordisrupting the community by committing acrime or contracting a previously unknowndisease like avian flu.

The dynamism of cities makes each urban


9

An Urbanizing World



Perc

ent

of U

rban

Pop

ulat

ion

Incr

easin

g Se

verit

y of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Bur

den




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1975

1985

199520

0520

15

Toky

o

Mumba

i

Mexico

City

São

Paulo

New Y

ork

Delhi

Shan

ghai

Kolka

ta

Dhaka

Jakart

aLa

gos

Karac

hi

Buen

os A

ires

Cairo

Los A

ngele

s

Manila

Beijin

g

Rio de

Jane

iroO

saka

Istan

bul

Mosco

w

Guang

zhou

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

n)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2015

2005

1990

1950




Figure 1–2. Urban Population by Size Class of Settlement

area a place, a distinctive social and environ-mental setting around which loyalties andantipathies can form.

Dark AlleysThat each city is different has an importantimplication for policy: sensible support of orinvestment in an urban area requires knowl-edge of its relevant characteristics. Yet ourunderstanding of cities is strikingly limited,and this constrains the ability of internationalinstitutions, governments, and nongovern-mental organizations to act intelligently. Oneresult is that there is no simple model of howto spur economic growth—not to mentionsustainability—in cities. By comparison, it isan axiom of rural development that raisingagricultural productivity is an ingredient ofeconomic growth.

A basic limitation lies in the paucity ofinformation collected on cities. Urban pop-ulation is tabulated by the United Nations,but the variables that provide a picture ofsustainability—human well-being, environ-mental conditions, and economic data—aremeasured mostly at the national level, withscant coverage in the cities of the develop-ing world, where the most rapid urbaniza-tion is occurring.22

As noted earlier, the delineation of citiesvaries from country to country. Drawing aboundary between rural and urban spacesimplies a sharp separation between country-side and built-up area that simply does notexist in most places. Many families depend onboth urban and rural settings to make a liv-ing. Cecilia Tacoli of the International Insti-tute for Environment and Developmentpoints to studies that estimate the share ofrural households’ incomes from nonfarmsources, including migrants’ remittances, at 40percent in Latin America, 60 percent in SouthAsia, and 30–50 percent in sub-Saharan

Africa, reaching as much as 80–90 percent inSouthern Africa. In addition, the changes inland use at the fuzzy edges of urban agglom-erations are complicated, rapid in comparisonto the reaction time of local government,and often difficult to control. Municipal gov-ernments do not often take responsibility forslums outside their boundaries.23

Another challenge for policy is our unclearview of population growth. The urban pop-ulation projections of the United Nationsare not quite what they seem: they are purelydemographic projections, showing the pop-ulation trajectories if parameters observedand estimated now were to unfold in futureyears. They do not include the effect of eco-nomic, social, or environmental factors thatmight alter, for instance, birth or migrationrates. Although the assumptions behind themare spelled out in U.N. documents, theseprojections are commonly taken to be pre-dictions incorporating the best understand-ing of all the forces at play. Yet, studies ofdemographic projections have shown thatU.N. estimates have tended to overestimateurban growth in developing countries byabout 19 percent for estimates made 20 yearsearlier. Thus the projections of rapid urban-ization in sub-Saharan Africa may prove to behigh in the future if the economies in thosecountries remain weak.24

A further limitation arises from the lack ofdata about variations within cities. Wealthydistricts and slums occupy areas well knownto a city’s residents, but little information isavailable to analysts about how housing oremployment conditions vary between them.Even accurate maps—essential for planning,building, and maintaining streets or sewers—are missing in many developing countries,especially for informal settlements that wereoccupied without authorization or recordedland transactions. This lack of knowledgecompounds the difficulties arising from mul-


10

An Urbanizing World

tiple, conflicting sets of property rights. InGhana, as in many other former colonies,one system of property is rooted in precolo-nial family claims while another is inheritedfrom the colonial legal system. Sorting theseout, without maps or records of the traditionalproperty claims, clogs courts and hinders thedevelopment of housing and businesses toaccommodate rising urban populations.25

Geographic information systems (GIS)that use computers to assemble data fromdifferent sources and to overlay them onmaps are beginning to make a substantialcontribution. Building on studies of specificcities that find that slum dwellers may haveworse health conditions than people in ruralareas, GIS analyses of conditions in Accra inGhana and Tijuana in Mexico, among otherplaces, are showing how poverty is muchmore than a lack of money. It includes higherprevalence of disease, exposure to flooding,and other adversities.26

Why do these limitations of understandingmatter? There is about $150 billion spenteach year on physical infrastructure in devel-oping countries. The United Nations Mil-lennium Project estimates that meeting theMillennium Development Goal of improvingthe lives of 100 million slum dwellers wouldcost $830 billion over the next 17 years.These expenditures could help move poorpeople toward sustainable living and decentlives, but only if the donor agencies and gov-ernments allocating these substantial sumsare able to target spending sensibly. Mostdevelopment assistance has been aimed atrural poverty on the assumption that urbanpoverty is a transitory phenomenon for thosemigrating into cities. Yet with more than halfof urban growth due to natural increase, it isfar from clear when slum dwellers will escapeor be able to improve their dwellings andneighborhoods. Development that movespeople toward sustainable patterns will surely

need investments based on understandingwho lives where in growing cities and howthey earn their living.27

Research and learning are accordingly prac-tical necessities. UN-HABITAT has been col-lecting a large set of indicators in its GlobalUrban Observatory, and the important 2003study Cities Transformed undertook analysesof the international Demographic and HealthSurvey in order to illuminate urban health andsocial conditions. Another noteworthy effortis led by economist Stephen Sheppard andurban planner Shlomo Angel. They chose120 cities of various sizes from all regions ofthe inhabited world and developed a fast-track protocol to assess a wide range of vari-ables in each city, ranging from housing pricesto air pollution to urban planning policies.The protocol is designed so that a studentwho is a native speaker of the language cancollect information on several hundred indi-cators in about a week. The project includesremote-sensing analyses of the 120 cities,using satellite images from 1990 and 2000.This study, supported by the World Bankand the U.S. National Science Foundation, isbuilding a database for analysts worldwidein order to investigate social, environmental,and economic changes over a decade for alarge sample of cities.28

As important as research is learning fromexperience, translating failures and surprisesinto better choices going forward. This hasproved to be a challenge in both developmentand environmental management. Although


11

An Urbanizing World

Development that moves people toward sustainable patterns will need investments based on understanding who lives where in growing cities and how they earn their living.

surprises happen so often in social interven-tions that they should be expected, it is rarefor those implementing a plan even to con-sider unexpected results. Merely stating goalsclearly enough that failures can be identifiedis risky for politicians. Systematic methodsfor learning from policy implementation havebeen developed and tried out at a small scale,but uneven learning hangs like fog over thepath to urban sustainability.29

Wealth and EnvironmentThe environmental challenges of cities varywith their level of economic activity. To over-simplify, poor city dwellers face direct, every-day environmental problems, while thewealthiest urban residents cause environ-

mental problems that they do not experiencein their daily lives. A child in Soweto, SouthAfrica, risks dying from waterborne illnessesthat his distant cousin in Birmingham, Eng-land, will not be exposed to. A factory workerin Wuhan, China, may suffer from asthmatriggered by air pollution, while her coun-terpart in Nagoya, Japan, is less likely toencounter pollutants in the air she breathes.The college student in Denver, Colorado,contributes more to global warming as he dri-ves to the campus each day than does some-one riding a bus to classes at the Universidadde los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia.

These stories of individual experiences correspond to statistical differences amonglow-, medium-, and high-income cities.Table 1–2 compares indicators for threecities drawn from these three categories,


12

An Urbanizing World

Table 1–2. Sustainability Indicators for Ghana, Mexico, Singapore, Accra, and Tijuana

Indicator Ghana Mexico Singapore

Population 21.2 million (2003) 104.3 million (2003) 4.37 million (2005)

Share of population urban, 2003 45.4 percent 75.5 percent 100 percent

GDP per capita (in purchasing power parity), 2003 $2,238 $9,168 $24,481

Human Development Index rank,out of 177, in 2005 138 53 25

Life expectancy at birth, 2003 56.8 years 75.1 years 78.7 years

Probability of dying before age 5 (male/female) per 1,000 population, 2001 107/100 31/25 4/3

Health expenditure per capita (in purchasing power parity), 2002 $73 $550 $1,105

Energy use (oil equivalent per capita), 2003 400 kg per year 1,564 kg per year 5,359 kg per year

Accra Tijuana Singapore

Population (2005) 1.97 million 1.57 million 4.37 million

Share of population without access to “improved” sanitation 48 percent (1991–92) 17 percent (2000) 0 percent (2002)

Share of population without access to an “improved” water source 46 percent (1991–92) 29 percent (2000) 0 percent (2002)


showing economic and health indicators atthe national level together with indicators ofthe cities’ environmental conditions; energyuse, a national statistic, is used as an indica-tor of carbon emissions. National statistics donot accurately represent conditions in cities,and variations within cities can also be large.The economic and health indicators areincluded here to show the divergence in thenational contexts of low-, medium-, andhigh-income cities.30

These numbers illustrate a pattern of spa-tial, environmental, and economic variation.A low-income city like Accra faces directthreats to health: water contaminated withhuman waste, housing infested with insect androdent pests, streets and neighborhoods thatflood in the rainy season. Each person andfamily must cope with these environmentalproblems in daily life. An industrializing citylike Tijuana may face additional environ-mental problems from polluting factories andtoxins from manufacturing processes. Therapid rise of energy use during industrializa-tion, often in inefficient foundries and fur-naces, imposes a large burden of air pollutionon workers and residents, with substantialpublic health consequences. But industrial-ization also generates earnings that can beinvested in environmental controls and pub-lic health measures, as the data on Tijuana andSingapore indicate.31

With the transition to economies domi-nated by service industries, high-income citiescompeted with one another on quality oflife, seeking to attract the professional talentto staff service firms such as software engi-neering or finance. Good environmental con-ditions and amenities help create the clean,interesting places that draw and keep highlymobile people in cities like Singapore. The ris-ing economies of wealthy cities also poweredincreasing energy consumption and exploita-tion of forests, oceans, and other natural

resources—with effects that were often farremoved from the comfortable offices andhomes of those living there.

High- and medium-income cities todayare caught in the paradox of losing sight ofnature just as they become more dependenton it through increasing consumption and theglobalization of production. The paradoxitself is a gift of markets of ever greater reach:if a coffee crop fails in Indonesia, the supplyfrom Guatemala or Kenya will smoothly fillthe cup in Rouen or Buenos Aires. A disas-ter for rural growers is an unnoticed blip forthe urban coffee drinker. But there is anotherparadox of planetary-scale markets. Cities areplaces. Yet as cities become wealthier, theirresidents buy goods from around the worldand invest in global companies. The widen-ing spatial range of urban economies has fre-quently eroded a city’s distinctiveness. Thisprocess is accelerating. Industrialization tookmore than a century to unfold in Europe, theUnited States, and Japan. The spread ofindustrial production to the once-poor landsof Asia has transformed economies in a fewdecades. And the rise of the information-intensive service economy brings change mea-sured in years.32

The variations among low-, medium-, andhigh-income cities have been discussed interms of a curious empirical pattern known asthe environmental Kuznets curve, named forAmerican Nobel laureate in economics SimonKuznets. (See Figure 1–3.) Drawing togethera wide array of data, analysts have framed ageneralized scenario of urban environmentaldevelopment: local environmental problemsthat pose an immediate threat, such as lack ofsanitation, tend to improve with increasingwealth, while global ones such as carbonemissions worsen, slowly undermining large-scale life-support systems such as climate.And as a city industrializes, environmentalproblems at the scale of the city and metro-


13

An Urbanizing World

politan region first worsen, as pollutionincreases, and then improve, as resources forengineered controls and regulation becameavailable. In some cases, those regulations,combined with economic changes, force pol-luting activities to other locations.33

This pattern does not mean that environ-mental problems automatically improve withgreater wealth, as has sometimes been sug-gested. Yet the fact that there are differenttypes of environmental challenges at differentincome levels does have significant implica-tions for sustainable development. The ideaof meeting the needs of the present has asharply different meaning for someone livingin a slum than for someone with a high-income lifestyle. Similarly, the obligation notto compromise the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own needs has a differentresonance for the poor and the rich.

Sorting cities by income alone is a drasticoversimplification, of course. A key differenceis the range of inequality in different cities,something that is missed by focusing only onaverage income. The poorest residents of

Tijuana or Accra facemore difficult environ-mental conditions thanthose at the high endof the income scale inthese cities, while theexposure to health andenvironmental riskvaries less in Singapore.Poverty does not nec-essarily translate intohigh risks to health andpoor environmentalconditions, however, ashas been demonstratedby the success of com-munity-level organiza-tions within a smallnumber of slums. (See

Chapter 8.) And transportation patterns varywidely among high-income cities, with largeeffects on energy use, air quality, and landuse. (See Chapter 4.)34

Despite the complex circumstances of indi-vidual cities, however, it is useful to under-stand overall trends. The rapidly growingcities of India, China, and other industrializ-ing nations need to organize and pay fortheir environmental cleanups. In rich nations’cities, reducing consumption of fossil fuels andother finite resources and redirecting invest-ment toward sustainably managed indus-tries—from renewable energy to sustainablyharvested wood to well-managed fisheries—are critical to managing global threats to bio-diversity, climate, and renewable resources.Poor cities whose populations are also grow-ing rapidly must deal with worsening envi-ronmental and health conditions, in manycases without comparable increases in locallygenerated income. They might not be able toafford high-cost, long-term solutions suchas expensive drinking-water purification plantsand citywide pipelines.


14

An Urbanizing World



Perc

ent

of U

rban

Pop

ulat

ion

Incr

easin

g Se

verit

y of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Bur

den




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1975

1985

199520

0520

15

Toky

o

Mumba

i

Mexico

City

São

Paulo

New Y

ork

Delhi

Shan

ghai

Kolka

ta

Dhaka

Jakart

aLa

gos

Karac

hi

Buen

os A

ires

Cairo

Los A

ngele

s

Manila

Beijin

g

Rio de

Jane

iroO

saka

Istan

bul

Mosco

w

Guang

zhou

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

n)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2015

2005

1990

1950




Figure 1–3. Challenges to Urban Sustainability in Relation to Wealth

Nature: Still Essential toHuman Well-being

All humans rely on the natural world: watercomes from wells and streams; food fromfarms and fisheries; and wastes are returnedto nature. Some ancient civilizations mayhave been weakened by degrading the naturalresources they needed to keep their citiesoperating. Archaeological evidence suggeststhat although Sumerians had figured out by3500 BC how to draw water from the Tigrisand Euphrates Rivers to their fields to growwheat and barley, their irrigation systems didnot drain well, so salts built up in the soil andcaused wheat production to cease by 1700 BC.Overuse of resources is also implicated in thefall of the Mayan cities of Central America.35

Today, we still need trees and wetlands toprotect us from floods and storms, and we relyon nature for the raw materials of everyday life.These ecosystem services are essential to lifeand well-being. Securing necessary ecosys-tem services is a daily preoccupation of hunter-gatherer societies and a seasonal reality tofarmers and fishers today. But it is barelyglimpsed amid the hustle and cacophony ofcity life, at least until disaster strikes in the formof supply disruptions, skyrocketing prices, ora “natural” disaster for which engineeringproves inadequate. As noted earlier, a city canbe thought of as a mechanism to provide itsinhabitants with ecosystem services; this is alarge task, performed imperfectly for manyurban dwellers around the world.

In the early 1990s, William Rees andMathis Wackernagel devised the ecologicalfootprint to measure human communities’reliance on nature. The footprint is an estimateof “how much land and water area a humanpopulation requires to produce the resourcesit consumes and to absorb its wastes underprevailing technology.” The appealing notionof a footprint evokes the picture of a prein-

dustrial city, drawing its sustenance from thefarmlands around it. The ecological footprintattempts to adapt this picture to cities andnations deeply enmeshed in a global economy.Using this approach, the per capita footprintof high-income countries is eight times aslarge as that of low-income countries.36

Perhaps as important as the magnitude ofhumans’ reliance on nature is how peopletake care of the ecosystems that supply ser-vices. There are pastures in the Alps and irri-gation systems in Bali that have been used forcenturies with no diminution of their pro-ductive capability. In many other cases, ecosys-tems have been overused with disastrouseconomic and social consequences, particu-larly when the social institutions to govern usewere absent or ineffective. Many ocean fish-eries are now suffering this fate. Or considerlitter: no one owns it, and few want to pickit up—so government refuse collectors haveto be hired. There is a broader pattern here:when human responsibility does not matchthe cycles and patterns of nature, irresponsi-bility is likely to flourish. This is a problem ofhuman institutions, including markets, gov-ernments, and concepts of property. Thesemismatches between nature’s logic and therules and incentives that shape human behav-ior are called problems of the commons.37

In cities, the high intensity of human activ-ities leads often to problems where individ-ual interests are at odds with the commongood. The central task of urban sustainabil-ity is effectively managing commons problemsin the ecosystems that sustain cities.

During the Industrial Revolution, pollu-tion in cities of North America and WesternEurope spurred a renegotiation of the rela-tionship between humans and the environ-ment as more people came to live at muchhigher densities than in rural areas. As indus-trialization drew workers to cities, water fromwells was supplanted by piped water. The


15

An Urbanizing World

availability of large quantities of relativelyinexpensive water, in turn, spurred rapidgrowth in use. Between 1856 and 1882, forexample, water consumption in Chicago rosefrom 125 to 545 liters per day per person.38

For poor people in low-income citiestoday, nature’s services are both expensiveand arduous to obtain, as illustrated by thecost of water. Water free of disease-causinggerms is available to a small and sinking shareof residents of low-income cities. An assess-ment of 116 cities by the World HealthOrganization in 2000 estimated that only43 percent of urban dwellers in Africa hadaccess to piped water. The fraction is declin-ing as more people settle in urbanizing areaswithout water service and as the existingdelivery systems falter from inadequate main-tenance, corruption, and the exhaustion oftheir sources from growing demand. Yetpeople still require water for drinking, cook-ing, washing, and bathing.39

Where water is not available by pipe, thecosts can be steep. (See Table 1–3.) In twoinformal settlements in Accra, Ghana, abucket of water from a standpipe costs about5¢, a price that seems modest to someonefrom Houston who readily pays more than$1 for 500 milliliters of bottled “spring”water. But water can command more than 10percent of a poor family’s budget. In AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, the poorest fifth of the

population spends roughly a sixth of itshousehold income on water. Moreover,water sold by private vendors in small quan-tities is far more expensive than water froma pipe: 37 times more expensive in Accra,nearly twice as high in a study done in EastAfrica. Water that is costly is used sparingly:usually, hygiene suffers and disease is moreprevalent. These problems have become sowidespread that they affect families that arenot poor. One scientist in an Accra researchinstitute rises before dawn each day to fetchwater for his family to bathe, carrying buck-ets up four flights of stairs. He lives in thetony district among diplomatic compoundsin his nation’s capital.40

Infrastructure andGovernance

The economies of scale possible with high-den-sity settlement in urban areas may offer the bestchance to bring decent conditions to all of theworld’s poor and to conserve the resources onwhich we all depend. Health, education, andother measures of human development arehighest in countries with mostly urban popu-lations. Our need to build at least as muchurban habitat as exists today, with its attendantinfrastructure and governance systems, is thecentral hope for sustainable development—if we can learn the lessons of the world we are


16

An Urbanizing World

Table 1–3. Cost of 100 Liters of Water in Accra and East Africa from Different Sources

Accra, East Africa,Water Source 2006 1997 Users

Sachet (500 milliliters) $8.01 General public for street drinking30-pack (sachets) $4.45 General public for household drinkingBucket from kiosk $1.87 18¢ Households relying on shared standpipeCommunity shower $1.33 (bathing only) Informal settlement dwellersVendor 27¢ 45¢ Mixed-income neighborhood without piped waterWater pipe 5¢ 10¢ Households with pipe connection


now modifying apace.41

Human life in cities is structured by infra-structure: water and food supply, sewers,transportation and communications networks,technologies to improve air quality, and build-ings to house people and production. Phys-ical infrastructure is largely inflexible. Streetsand water pipes are expensive, long-termcommitments, shaping urban form fordecades to come. A decision against masstransit locks in a commitment to buses andautos. If a power plant is built to burn coal,that implies a stream of greenhouse gases fortwo generations.

A good deal of the infrastructure in high-income nations, built in response to the healththreats in industrializing cities of the nine-teenth century, spawned new problems. Engi-neers built dams and aqueducts to boosturban water supplies, but the environment hassuffered. A study of 292 large river systems inthe United States, Canada, Europe, and theformer Soviet Union concluded that 42 per-cent of the ecosystems drained by thesestreams were strongly affected by impound-ments and diversions, putting at risk habitatsfor a wide range of plant and animal speciesin the rivers and their watersheds.42

Systems designed to channel waste awayfrom people as quickly as possible have alsoimproved human health while damaging theenvironment in other ways. When rainwaterruns off pavement and into drains and sew-ers, the rivers at the end of the pipes floodmore often and more severely than would bethe case if plants, soil, and wetlands soaked upsome of the deluge. Much as storm drainsshort-circuit the water cycle, urban waste dis-posal systems disrupt the nutrient cycle.Roughly half of the food brought into NewYork City is transformed into human energy;the other half is shunted to sewers or truckedto increasingly remote landfills. Yet organicwaste is a valuable resource if composted into

a product that invigorates agricultural soils.(See Chapter 3.)43

Twentieth-century transportation infra-structure has allowed urban food and energysupply lines to stretch to new lengths, as pro-duction has become ever larger and morecentralized. Although large farms and powerplants excel at producing more food and elec-tricity with fewer employees, they generatepollution and require complex distributionroutes, with use occurring far from the site ofproduction. And despite gains in productiv-ity, some 852 million people remain hungry,and roughly 1.6 billion lack electricity.44

Infrastructure is largely invisible—pipesare usually underground and water, sewer,electricity, and telecommunications servicesare widely taken for granted. But it is not inex-pensive. When it is financed and maintainedfrom the public purse, governments take ondebt that usually can be repaid only if thereis economic growth. In the decades ahead,access to capital to build infrastructure willplay a central role in the quality of life incities, particularly for poor people.

As the large costs of physical infrastructuresuggest, the social institutions needed tobuild, maintain, and pay for cities’ connec-tions to nature are also complex and varied.Foremost among them is the market, whichaffords access to ecosystem services to thosewho pay. The magnitude of poverty in rapidlygrowing low-income cities thus poses a starkdilemma. People who cannot afford reliableaccess to vital ecosystem services suffer risksto health and well-being. Yet many govern-ments are so poor and so overwhelmed bythe pace of urban settlement that they can-not afford to build the infrastructure thatwould, in many cases, bring down the cost ofwater, sanitation, and other services. Theproblem of creating a business model that canbring affordable and clean water to residentsof low-income cities has beset corporations


17

An Urbanizing World

and governments experimenting with priva-tization of water supply over the past 20years. (See Chapter 2.)45

In short, markets are not a complete solu-tion for provision of nature’s services to urbaninhabitants, especially where there are com-mons problems. The institutions that com-plement and substitute for markets rangefrom bureaucracies to assure control ofecosystem interactions, such as public healthand environmental protection agencies, totraditions such as informal harvest limita-tions in some fishing communities. Many ofthese social arrangements can be costly,requiring educated workers and durable orga-nizations. As with physical infrastructure, sus-taining formal organizations requires steadyrevenues and effective management.

The concepts of development and invest-ment in infrastructure implicitly assumearrangements found in rich nations: publicinstitutions that are largely free of corrup-tion, economic activity that takes place in aformal economy, and per capita incomeshigh enough that water, food, shelter, andtransportation become settled matters formost people rather than persistent crises ofdaily living.

In low-income cities, however, these con-ditions are not present for many people, par-ticularly those living in slums and in aninformal economy. Yet people cope andmostly survive. Safe drinking water, secureclaim to a dwelling, protection from criminals,and much else may not come from govern-ment at all. In these circumstances, commu-nity-level organizations have sometimes beenable to supply some social and public ser-vices. (See Chapter 8.) Urban initiatives suchas the Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi havedemonstrated that very poor people neednot live without sanitation or clean water.(See Chapter 2.)46

Recognizing that potential and linking it

to development assistance have risen higheron the agenda of international donors overthe past decade. Major efforts to decentral-ize government have been instituted fromMexico to Mali to Thailand with notablesuccess. Decentralization has channeled moreresources to municipal governments, andinnovations such as participatory budgetinghave in turn given poor communities a voicein allocating public funds. There is still a longway to go, however, in realizing the self-helppotential of slum dwellers and other poorpeople in meeting their needs for nature’s ser-vices. (See Chapter 9.)47

Circular MetabolismGiving the poor a voice in solving local envi-ronmental problems would be a big steptoward meeting the needs of the present,one of the two criteria of sustainable devel-opment. But for sustainability in the longterm, more is needed: to move institutionsand infrastructure toward forms that alsoprotect the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs. In this arena there areideas that cut across income groups. Whilethere have been some promising beginnings,particularly in high-income nations, here toothere is much work to do.

A key conceptual step is to reconsider infra-structure. In theory, much of the waste fromthe water, food, fuels, and materials that courseinto cities could be reused or recycled. Her-bert Girardet called for substituting a “circu-lar metabolism,” in which wastes are reused,for the linear metabolism of a city that simplyconverts resources into wastes. The notion ofclosing nutrient loops in a way parallel to theoperation of natural ecosystems can be pur-sued at different scales, ranging from an indi-vidual building to the design of a metropolitanarea. (See Box 1–2.)48

“Green architecture” is the name of an


18

An Urbanizing World

approach to building design that movestoward circular metabolism by using tech-nologies that reuse water and generate elec-tricity. (See Chapter 5.) Vegetation planted ona building’s exterior captures water that wouldotherwise be wasted, for instance, whilereducing the energy needed for cooling. The15-story IBM headquarters in Kuala Lumpurdesigned by Ken Yeang is a good example ofthis. In New York City, photovoltaic cellsembedded in the south and east facades of theCondé Nast building in Times Square, com-bined with two fuel cells, provide enoughelectricity to operate the building at night.49

A well-known example of a circular designon a larger scale is the eco-industrial park inKalundborg, Denmark, where waste gasesfrom an oil refinery are burned by a powerplant, waste heat from the plant warms com-mercial fish ponds, and other companies use

byproducts of combustion to make wallboardand concrete.50

The concept of green infrastructure isgaining adherents in Europe and America.This is a planning idea for a whole metro-politan region, applicable also to rural areasfacing strong development pressures. Bythinking at a regional level, planners identifynatural areas and corridors that can sustain theecological fabric of the area, allowing plantsand wildlife to continue ecological functionssuch as migration and seed dispersal, even asland is converted to urban uses. The net-work of green spaces also provides flood con-trol, clean air and water, and recreationalservices to the urban residents.51

Cities in low-income countries could, intheory, leapfrog directly to twenty-first-cen-tury technologies, and many ideas are beingtried in industrializing economies, such as


19

An Urbanizing World

Stockholm’s new urban ecological district Ham-marby Sjöstad is the best demonstration todate of putting circular urban metabolism intopractice through creative design and building ina new, dense neighborhood. From the outset,planners tried to think holistically—to under-stand the resources that would be required byresidents and the wastes that would result andcould be used productively. For instance, about1,000 apartments are equipped with stoves that use biogas extracted from the community’swastewater. Biogas also provides fuel for busesthat serve the area.

People in the neighborhood put their solidwaste into a vacuum-based underground col-lection system, which allows efficient separa-tion of recyclables and organic and otherwastes. Combustible waste is burned andreturned to the neighborhood in the form ofelectricity and hot water, with the latter deliv-

ered through a district heating grid.Stormwater from streets is directed into a

purification and filtration system, and stormwa-ter from buildings is guided to greenroofs andwetlands. Both streams of water are kept apartfrom wastewater, which is treated separately.

Carbon emissions from residents’ transpor-tation are minimized, as the neighborhood isclose to central Stockholm, with a high-frequencylight rail system, the Tvärbanan, and an exten-sive pedestrian and bicycle network.There arealso 30 car-sharing cars distributed throughoutthe neighborhood.

While not a perfect example, Hammarbyrepresents a new and valuable way of seeingcity buildings, and it requires a degree of inter-disciplinary and intersectoral collaboration thatis unusual in most cities.

—Timothy Beatley, University of Virginia


Box 1–2. Circular Urban Metabolism in Stockholm

Which Urbanizing World?As most humans come to call an urban envi-ronment home in this century, we are learn-ing from the determined inhabitants of citieslike Accra. In the long-established slum ofNima, a member of the municipal assemblyhas organized his neighbors to manage themountain of refuse that emerges each dayfrom Nima’s numerous small businesses andmarkets, helping an overtaxed city deal withthe garbage that clogs drains and worsens

the large-scale adoption of solar energy inRizhao, China. Already, many cities haveskipped directly to wireless phone systems,and a number of projects are under way totest the viability of water recycling anddecentralized renewable energy in medium-income countries. A key element of leapfroginnovation is making it possible for munic-ipal governments to benefit politically fromsolving problems in new ways. One effort todo this in the rapidly urbanizing landscapesof Asia is described in Box 1–3.52


20

An Urbanizing World

In May 2006, mayors and other local govern-ment officials from 49 cities in 17 countriesaround the Pacific Rim gathered in Melbourne,Australia, at the fourth Mayors’ Asia-PacificEnvironmental Summit (MAPES), a conferencefirst held in 1999. Of 47 municipal leaders atthe 2003 meeting who pledged to meet specificenvironmental goals within two years, 7 receivedawards for doing so in 2006.Their achieve-ments ranged from building new compostingplants for municipal wastes in Nonthaburi,Thai-land, to extending water pipes to 4,000 poorhouseholds in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, andinstalling a new sewage-disposal system in Male,the capital of the Maldives.

Once a mayor makes a commitment, thesummit organizers provide technical supportand help line up funding. In 2006, each city thatreceived a MAPES award also won a scholar-ship for a resident of the city to study at theRoyal Institute of Technology in Stockholm in aprogram leading to a master’s degree in urbansustainable technology.The American softwarepublisher ESRI also offered assistance to citiesthat wanted to adopt geographic informationsystems in municipal management.

The brainchild of Jeremy Harris, formermayor of Honolulu, and Karl Hausker, an econ-omist who worked at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, MAPES is funded by the AsiaDevelopment Bank and the U.S.Agency forInternational Development.

“We know how to build sustainable cities,”Harris says,“but it is still hard to marshal thepolitical will to do so.” With an eye on Asia’srapidly growing cities, he and Hausker devisedMAPES to give mayors political rewards formoving toward sustainability, together withtechnical resources and the chance to learnfrom one another.

Other attempts to transfer sustainabledevelopment projects from one city to anotherhave shown that lasting change is difficult toachieve. Even within a city, environmentalreforms can be started and stopped with thechanging of administrations. In Honolulu,energy-efficient lightbulbs in City Hall and awater recycling facility seem likely to lastbeyond Harris’s tenure. However, his successorhas ripped out some street trees, arguing thatHarris was fiscally irresponsible and that thecity could not afford the cost of maintaining thetrees.Whether MAPES, with its focus on politi-cal leaders, will be able to facilitate environ-mentally responsible development that is alsosustainable in a governmental sense is animportant question.


Box 1–3. The Mayors’ Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit

flooding in the rainy season.53

We are seeing cities with rapidly growingeconomies like Tijuana experiment withreforms that have streamlined municipalfinance, enabling the city to support residents’self-initiated upgrading of their housing.54

We have seen the transformation of Sin-gapore in only one generation from a strug-gling, newly independent city-state to amodern postindustrial city prospering in aglobal economy through financial services,manufacturing, and a major port. Singapore’sslums were replaced with modern housing,most of it built by a competent, incorruptiblegovernment. With its mass transit system andcompact urban design, Singapore also enjoysa high standard of living with lower energy useper person than in the United States.55

None of these cities is sustainable yet.Low-income cities stagger under their grow-ing populations’ unmet needs. Industrializ-ing cities’ demands for energy and materials

compound the demands already placed onnature by high-income urban and suburbanconsumers. All cities depend on many ecosys-tems. There are few cases now in which thatdependence would be durable over the longrun, even if population and consumptionwere to stabilize.

The urbanizing world must coexist withthe natural world if both are to endure. Theextraordinary diversity of human experienceand human enterprise provides ample evi-dence of the threat of wider irreversible dam-age to ecosystems but also promising pathstoward a sustainable future. Urbanization,perhaps surprisingly, is leading us to rediscovernature and the ecosystem services on whichall humans rely. Creating urban habitats thatdeliver the bounty of nature in a sustainablefashion to the inhabitants of cities in all soci-eties is an opportunity within our reach, aswell as a cardinal test of our humanity.


21

An Urbanizing World


As an ancient trading center at the Sahara’sedge and an early center of culture and learn-ing, Timbuktu occupies a unique place inpopular imagination. More recently, the city captured attention during the Saheliandroughts of 1968–74, when famine led to the deaths of 100,000 people and millions oflivestock, and 1984–85. Many survivors fromnorthern Mali migrated to Timbuktu, whichgrew from 8,000 people in the mid-1960s to 32,000 in 1998. They found work in ricefields and market gardens, in the handicraftsindustry, and in tourism and small enterprise.Timbuktu remains an active commercial cen-ter for trans-Saharan trade.1

Since the late 1960s, increasingly arid con-ditions have led to the dramatic contraction ofwoodlands and flood pastures around the city.Drought devastated several critical species,including bourgou, an aquatic grass that pro-vides important dry-season pasture for live-stock, and the doum palm, a slow-growing treewhose trunk is widely used in construction.

Yet Timbuktu’s growth has created incen-tives for rural people to invest in naturalresource management. Along the banks ofthe Niger River near the city, eucalyptuswoodlots and bourgou pastures have takenroot on once barren and fissured land. Overthe past two decades, rural people have beenplanting these species to supply the city withconstruction materials and fuel. Bourgou and eucalyptus provide significant money in a region where the average per capita incomeis $240 per year and 77 percent of the popu-lation lives in poverty.2

Aguissa Bilal Touré, mayor of Bourem-Inaly, a village of 8,700 people that is 35kilometers from Timbuktu, has been at thecutting edge of this trend. Through carefulmanagement, he earns about $1,335 a yearfrom his five-hectare eucalyptus forest along

the Niger River. Touré explains: “Since westarted planting eucalyptus, we have not hadto buy wood to cook or to build our houses.With the sale of its wood, we can buy every-thing we need—grain, dry goods, livestock,clothing, motorbikes. It is with this incomethat we pay our taxes, purchase medicine andschool supplies for our children, and evensave money. People continue to plant ricehere, because it’s our tradition. But everyonehere has a woodlot.” 3

Eucalyptus was first introduced by theMalian forest service in the late 1980s withprojects supported by the U.N. CapitalDevelopment Fund and the InternationalLabour Organization that mobilized commu-nity groups to plant trees along irrigated ricefields as windbreaks and for fuelwood. Devel-opment projects supported associations ofindividual producers by providing hand toolsand shared motor pumps to irrigate saplings.One such effort, the Projet de Lutte Contrel’Ensablement, worked with 124 associationsand 54 individuals before closing in 2001.4

A hectare of eucalyptus yields about 10.6cubic meters per year in this region. The netvalue of construction wood from a hectareafter five years is about $1,335 on the localmarket. Coppiced trees can be harvested upto three times, every five years, before theymust be replanted.5

By the early part of this decade, accordingto the regional director of the Forest Service,people were planting trees so quickly thatforesters could not keep track. By then theeucalyptus forest stretched along the Nigerfor 50 kilometers on either side of Timbuktu.Some producers have begun making char-coal, and others are negotiating with process-ing facilities to sell eucalyptus leaves for usein insecticides.6

In nearby Hondo Bomo Koyna, villagers

22

Greening the Hinterlands

CITYSCAPE:

------------

----TIMBUKTU

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/timbuktu

plant bourgou flood pastures, whichthey cut to sell for fodder in Tim-buktu. A single hectare of well-managed bourgou yields an averageincome of $800 per year. AmadouMahamane, the village chief,explains: “Bourgou is more inter-esting for us than rice. After pay-ing for fertilizer and water fees,we earn around $180 per hectarefrom rice. We sometimes even useour income from bourgou to payour water fees for growing rice.” 7

Bourgou was introduced in 1985 by theFrench nongovernmental group VétérinairesSans Frontières (VSF) to rehabilitate floodpastures damaged by drought. From 1985 to1989, VSF worked with 24 nomadic groupsand 19 villages. Hondo Bomo Koyna was thefirst to ask for help; the number of individualscultivating bourgou there climbed from zeroto over 150, and they planted about 1,200hectares. Villagers soon discovered demandfor bourgou in Timbuktu, where people wereincreasingly investing in home livestock. As aresult, they nearly doubled the area planted in bourgou.8

The woodlots and flood pastures aroundTimbuktu are unintended outcomes of pro-jects intended to improve the natural resourcebase of rural production systems. For hun-dreds of people like Touré and Mahamane, a healthier natural resource base has meantincreased income and reduced vulnerability to drought. The income from these productsprovides rural people with a few more choices.They are not forced into cities as environ-mental refugees. A young man in HondoBomo Koyna explains: “Last year, my brotherwho lives in Senegal called me to help withhis business. I responded that I couldn’t comeuntil after the bourgou had been harvested.


23

Cityscape:Timbuktu

Young girl washes dishes in a bourgou plain, fish trap in the background, near the town of Bourem-Inaly

Charles Benjamin

In other words, the income from bourgou is more important than what I could haveearned abroad.” 9

Driven by urban demand for wood andfuel, this greening of Timbuktu’s hinterlandshas not only reconstituted natural resourcesbut also increased the resilience of the envi-ronment. Woodlots have stabilized the banksof the Niger River, slowing the movement of sand into the riverbed. They have slowederosion by protecting the soil from wind and rains. And the bourgou grasslands havebuffered fields from seasonal floods and pro-vided spawning grounds for fish.

Although development organizationsjump-started the process, local initiativespurred the rapid spread of bourgou and euca-lyptus. The relationship between Timbuktuand the surrounding countryside offers apowerful counterpoint to commonly heldbeliefs that rural people in the Sahel are hope-lessly trapped in a cycle of poverty and envi-ronmental degradation and that urbanizationhas exacerbated negative environmental trends.

—Charles Benjamin, Williams College,Massachusetts

—Aly Bocoum, Near East Foundation, Mali—Aly Bacha Konaté, Réseau GDRN5, Mali


When Dr. José Bolívar Castillo was electedmayor of Loja, Ecuador, in 1996, land usepolicies permitted this impoverished Andeancity of 160,000 to sprawl uncontrollably,including in precarious parts of the city.Deforestation resulted in flooded rivers,while lead-fueled buses and cars polluted theair. Garbage filled the city’s streets, pollutedrivers, overflowed collection bins, and ulti-mately filled a site across the street from theworld-renowned Podocarpus National Park.1

For Mayor Castillo, “The inspiration foran ecological city came from within Loja. Iremember when I was a child, before the citybecame so polluted.” During his eight yearsas mayor, Loja’s municipality turned the cityfrom an “average” Ecuadorian city, into aciudad ecologica y saludable—an ecologicaland healthy city—by implementing policiesthat underscore the correlation between ahealthy ecosystem, a healthy human popula-tion, and a healthy economy.2

Comprehensive land use planning and envi-ronmental policies that were carried out atthe scale of the county limited degradation ofthe land, improved public health, and facili-tated the municipality’s management of neces-sary infrastructure—all while saving materialand construction costs for important munici-pal projects, such as adding water lines to thepoorest neighborhoods. Scientist Dr. ErmelSalinas explained that the water supply wasdrinkable “because our rivers have beencleaned up, protected and are treated toUnited States Standard Method require-ments,” preventing many illnesses caused bydrinking dirty water.3

A well-enforced ordinance required realestate developers to leave 20 percent of theirland undeveloped for public open space,resulting in many popular parks. ArchitectJorge Muños Alvarado, Loja’s Director of

City Planning, explained that the greenery“acts as a sponge by retaining stormwater,which prevents the rivers from flooding,”while Dr. Humberto Tapia, Director of Pub-lic Health, noted that exercising in parksreduces preventable illnesses such as obesity,diabetes, and heart disease, which in turn canlower the death rate from these ailments.4

In addition, Wilson Jaramillo, a municipaltransportation planner, noted that air qualityimproved following what he called “a moresustainable transportation policy” by imple-menting a new rule requiring all cars to runon unleaded gas with catalytic converters and by running cleaner public buses through-out Loja.5

To handle the waste problem, the city’srecycling program required residents to sepa-rate organic from inorganic trash. Residentshave been very receptive to this program: 95percent of them separate their garbage per-fectly every day. Meanwhile, the municipalitycollected all of the city’s trash at least oncedaily and swept streets several times a day,leaving them eerily clean.6

The benefits of this program were wide-spread. Ecologically, the city recycled all organicwaste and over 50 percent of the inorganicwaste generated in the city, dumping non-recyclables and hazardous waste in a sanitarylandfill. Economically, the city earned about$50,000 a year (7 percent of the program’s$685,000 operating cost) from selling recy-cled materials, and it created more than 50related full-time jobs citywide. And in termsof health, the cleanliness of the streets low-ered the presence of rodents and vermin.7

Understanding why the recycling programworks so well can help others bring aboutenvironmental change in their own cities.Most obviously, Lojanos joined in becausethe municipality fined any household or busi-

24

CITYSCAPE:

------------

----LOJA

Ecological and Healthy City

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/loja

ness that did not com-ply with a local regulation that requiredparticipation. Furthermore, the municipalityshut off a building’s water supply if its ownerdid not pay the fine. The system’s organiza-tion also assured a high rate of participation:each collection truck met its schedule, plus or minus 10 minutes, seven days a week—andinspectors on the trucks recorded and rigor-ously enforced infractions. Fernando Mon-tesinos, Director of Sanitation, insisted thatthe program was “an investment of Lojanosin our own city.”8

Moreover, the municipality created incen-tives for participation, such as providing pipesfor water lines and materials for public parks,which were constructed through communalwork projects called mingas. Lolita Sama-niego, president of La Floresta, a women’shousing organization, explained that a mingais an obligatory event where “everyone worksfor everyone’s benefit…women provide foodand men distribute the work amongst them-selves, working from sunup to sundown.”These gestures strengthened residents’ per-ception of a direct relationship between wastemanagement, natural resources, and civicimprovement. Local leaders asserted that civicawareness and cultural solidarity were valuesthat stemmed from Loja’s indigenous past.9

Furthermore, hiring a local workforce gavecity workers a tremendous sense of ownershipand pride. One evening, Marlon Cueva andother Lojano engineers spoke of the signifi-cance of having designed Loja’s recyclingfacilities: “Designing

25

before (left) and after the improved collection and recy-cling program was implemented (right)

something I had never seen before—that’swhat it means to live….When I achieved mygoal it satisfied me and validated me as a per-son and professional, raising my confidenceand increasing my expectations of myself.”10

In addition, explained Fernando Monte-sinos, it helped that no single “recycling tax”existed. Rather, 20 percent of each house-hold’s water bill (about 20¢ per month)funded a portion of the recycling program,while smaller percentages of taxes were takenfrom the highway tax and other public funds.Thus recycling became not a project untoitself, but a small part of a greater network ofpublic works and development projects.11

The city has won three international prizesfor its efforts: the International Awards forLivable Communities’ Nations in Blooms firstprize for community involvement (endorsedby the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme), its bronze prize for a global eco-logical city (behind the Swedish citiesNorrkoping and Malmo), and Promoter ofNatural Environment’s City of the Americasfirst prize for public recreation and physicalactivity. If a poor city that has many needsbeyond the health of its environment canlearn to embrace the ecological city, then sucha concept—with appropriate cultural adjust-ments—surely can succeed elsewhere.12

—Rob CrauderueffSustainable South Bronx, New York

Cityscape: Loja


Municipality of Loja

Municipality of Loja

Trash containers at the San Sebastián market

26

Few readers of this chapter spend any time oreffort collecting water for their daily needs.We have water on demand, when we need it,24 hours a day, in kitchens, bathrooms, andtoilets. We do not have to fetch and carry itfrom a distant public tap or water tanker orfrom a polluted river. But hundreds of mil-lions of urban dwellers in low- and middle-income nations still do.

A household of five needs at least 120liters per day (24 liters per person) to meetbasic needs—for drinking, food prepara-tion, cooking and cleaning up, washing andpersonal hygiene, laundry, house cleaning.This means someone in the household (usu-ally a woman or older child) has to fetch andcarry 120 kilograms of water—the equiva-lent of six heavy suitcases—every day. Thisheavy load often needs to be carried overconsiderable distances. The water tap or theplace where a water tanker delivers is usually

more than 50 meters from people’s homes,and often much further. In many places,there are long lines at the tap or tanker,greatly increasing the time needed to getwater. The water often has to be paid for—and it costs much more per liter than waterpiped into our homes.1

Almost everyone reading this chapter hasa toilet in their home and easy access to toi-lets in their workplace, with piped water toa basin for hand washing. Hundreds of mil-lions of urban dwellers in low- and middle-income nations do not have this. They haveno toilet at all or only communal toilets thatare hard to get to or public toilets that arefar away, dirty, and expensive to use—andthese are often dangerous for women andchildren to use after dark. As a result, hun-dreds of millions of people have to defecatein the open or into waste materials theythrow away.

C H A P T E R 2

David Satterthwaite and Gordon McGranahan

Providing Clean Water and Sanitation

David Satterthwaite is a Senior Fellow at the Human Settlements Programme and Gordon McGrana-han is Director of the Human Settlements Programme at the International Institute for Environmentand Development in London.

Sanitary Revolution Still Needed

Clean, convenient water supplies for drinkingand bathing and convenient toilets onlybecame routine in the last 100–150 years. Thecities of the industrializing world in the nine-teenth century were notorious for being farless healthy than their rural surrounds, untilthe sanitary revolution provided them withpiped water and sewerage systems. Today,about a billion urban dwellers still need theirsanitary revolution.2

The health costs of inadequate provisionare very large. A million or more infants andchildren still die each year from diseasesdirectly related to inadequate provision ofwater and sanitation, and hundreds of millionsare debilitated by illness, pain, and discomfort.Their nutritional status is often compromisedby water-related diseases (especially diarrheaand intestinal worms).3

It is still common for one child in 10 to diebefore their fifth birthday in urban areas inlow-income nations, with much higher mor-tality rates among low-income urban dwellers.Such statistics are not surprising, consideringthat around half the people in Africanand Asian cities lack water and sanita-tion to a standard that is healthy andconvenient. For Latin America and theCaribbean, more than a quarter lacksuch provision. (See Table 2–1.)4

How is this possible, given that inthe mid-1970s governments and inter-national agencies committed them-selves to making safe water andsanitation accessible to all by 1990? Itmight be explained by governmentsand international agencies concentrat-ing on needs in rural areas—but pro-vision for much of the rural populationis also very inadequate. It might beexplained by disappointing interna-

tional funding levels and the low priority thatmost funding agencies give to this. But pro-vision is also poor in many cities that havereceived substantial international funding.Clearly, existing approaches are not work-ing—but what has to change?5

At first glance, the solutions seem simple:expand international funding for systems thathave worked well in high-income nations—piped water supplies and flush toilets con-nected to sewers in each home. These may bewater-intensive and poor at recycling. Butthis is hardly a reason for letting hundreds ofmillions of urban dwellers suffer the ill health,hardship, and indignity of distant, overused,or contaminated water supplies and unsani-tary living conditions.

Flush toilets and sewers are generally thesafest, most convenient, most easily main-tained forms of provision in urban areas forhomes, schools, workplaces, and public places.They provide public health advantages byreducing the risk of human contact with ex-creta and preventing groundwater contami-nation. Water and sewer pipes require verylittle space within buildings—an importantadvantage in most city contexts—and flush


27


Table 2–1. Number and Share of UrbanDwellers Lacking Adequate Provision of Water and Sanitation, by Region, 2000

Region Lacking Water Lacking Sanitation

(number of people)

Africa 100–150 million 150–180 million(35–50 percent) (50–60 percent)

Asia 500–700 million 600–800 million(35–50 percent) (45–60 percent)

Latin America and 80–120 million 100–150 millionthe Caribbean (20–30 percent) (25–40 percent)

SOURCE: See endnote 4. Note that these figures are “indica-tive estimates” because most governments do not report onthe share of their population with adequate provision ofwater and sanitation.

toilets work better than most other forms ofsanitation in multistory buildings. Their unitcosts are reduced with higher densities, insome cases making them cheaper than on-sitelatrines. And if most or all households andworkplaces have piped water supplies, sewersare needed to collect wastewater even if theydo not collect toilet wastes. This system alsoworks well in many urban centers in middle-income nations such as Brazil and Mexico,where a high proportion of the population iswell served by this model.6

But in low-income urban settings flushtoilets and sewers are rarely cost-effective,often become dysfunctional, and—where theydo function—often reach only a small elite ofurban residents. This conventional “high-income-nation” solution will not work inmost urban centers in Africa and Asia ormany in Latin America and the Caribbeanbecause there is no local capacity to providethe needed design, implementation, man-agement, and financing, as well as account-ability to residents. The effectiveness of thismodel depends almost entirely on the serviceprovider. A pit latrine may seem inadequatein most urban contexts, but it is an option thathouseholds can build and manage themselveswithout depending on an external agency. Italso works without a regular piped water sup-ply (unlike flush toilets). Most urban centersin low- and middle-income nations—includ-ing many with more than a million inhabi-tants—have no sewers at all.7

In most urban centers in low- and middle-income nations, many of the people lackingadequate water supplies and sanitation live in“slums” or informal settlements. More than900 million urban dwellers live in “slums” inlow- and middle-income nations, and this iswhere most of the deficiencies in provision areevident. Most of their housing is informal oreven illegal—on land illegally occupied orsubdivided and with a house not compliant

with building and planning regulations. Thispresents difficulties for any agency as there isno official, registered “owner” to whom theycan offer a service—and it is risky to extendpiped supplies or sewers to illegal settlementsthat the government may bulldoze. In fact, itis often illegal for official providers to do so.8

In addition, the ways in which most citieshave expanded in low-income and most mid-dle-income nations is haphazard, with mostnew developments being outside of any planor regulatory framework. Most cities haveexpanded with very inadequate provision ofland use management (including the needfor new land development, watershed pro-tection, and flood control) and basic infra-structure. New homes or enterprises sproutup in areas unserved by water and sanitationinfrastructure—and often in places that areexpensive to reach. Meanwhile, all water usersand wastewater generators seek the cheapestand most convenient means to meet theirneeds, regardless of whether it depletes orcontaminates groundwater resources or pol-lutes water for those downstream.

The larger the city and the greater thevolume of wastewater generated by house-holds and businesses, the more pressing is theneed for good wastewater management. Dif-ficulties providing this are compounded when,as is often the case, built-up areas limit waterinfiltration and channel storm water flows inways that cause or exacerbate flooding.

Measuring Deficiencies in Provision

To say that everyone needs access to waterand sanitation is not enough. No one can livewithout drinking water and defecating, so ina sense 100 percent of the population hassome form of access. But what everyoneneeds is adequate provision—provision thatis safe, affordable, and accessible. To achieve


28


this, we need to know who already has thisand, more important, who does not.

This is difficult to measure. In most low-and middle-income nations, there is no infor-mation on who has adequate water and san-itation. While a discussion of how to measurewho has adequate provision might seem to bea technical issue, actually it should be at thecenter of all discussions. Get the measure-ments wrong, and the problem is misstated,which usually means that the policies toaddress it are also wrong. For too long, thatis what has happened.

It is easy to list the attributes of adequateprovision of water and sanitation, but it is dif-ficult to measure most of them. For water, theissue is whether each person has easy, afford-able access to safe and sufficient water for allneeds. Easy access implies that water sup-plies are close to the home, are regular, andcan be obtained without waiting in a longline. Water quality is also very important, atleast for the water to be used for drinking andfood preparation. Of course, all of this waterneeds to be available at a price that even low-income groups can afford.

The attributes of adequate sanitation arealso easily listed. Clean and readily availableplaces for women, men, and children to defe-cate in private at home—and also at work, atschool, and in public places—with good pro-vision for anal cleaning (and managing thesafe disposal of paper or other materials used)and washing. If there is no provision withineach person’s home, good-quality, easilyaccessible, well-maintained toilets should beavailable close by at costs that low-incomepeople can afford. Excreta must be disposedof in ways that prevent contamination bydirect contact, contaminated water, or flies.

Although these criteria seem uncontro-versial, it is hard to find out who has water andtoilets that meet them. Most official statisticsare based on questionnaires administered to

a representative sample of households. But itis impossible to know whether a householdhas adequate water and sanitation on thebasis of a few predetermined questions, par-ticularly where people rely on a range ofwater sources and technologies for differentuses and at different times and seasons. Ade-quate provision depends not only on thetechnologies involved but on how they areused, in what sort of setting, and by whom.Men, women, and children have differentneeds, and people with impaired mobility,including many elderly, have their own spe-cial needs. Finding out whether a house-hold’s pit latrine is adequate, for example,would require a long list of questions andobservations, most of which would be quitedifferent from those relevant to flush toiletsor a communal toilet.

Large-scale household surveys typicallyinvolve samples that underrepresent preciselythe areas where water and sanitation provisionis at its worst—people living in informal, low-income settlements. They are also notdesigned to provide useful information forlocal water providers; they can say what pro-portion of households in a nation lack pipedwater supplies, but they do not indicate exactlywhich households lack them—or which neigh-borhoods have the worst provision. Censusesprovide the coverage that household surveysdo not because they draw information fromall households (though they too usuallyundercount the homeless and those living ininformal settlements). But censuses at besthappen every 10 years, and they generallyinclude even less information on water and


29


Adequate provision depends not only on the technologies involved but on how they are used, in whatsort of setting, and by whom.

sanitation. It is also rare for the informationthey contain to be made available to localgovernments or utilities to identify whereimprovements are most needed.

This creates a dilemma for those respon-sible for presenting international statistics onwater and sanitation. They can either aspireto estimates of the population shares withoutadequate water and sanitation, despite theabsence of any systematic empirical basis forsuch estimates, or they can develop indicatorsthat can be estimated empirically but that donot correspond to adequate provision. Dur-ing the Water and Sanitation Decade of the1980s, governments were asked to provideestimates of access to “safe” water and sani-tation even though most had no real basis fordoing so. Starting in 2000, and setting thebasis for monitoring progress toward the Mil-lennium Development Goals (MDGs), thelatter approach prevailed instead, and gov-ernments have been helped to develop esti-mates of the proportion of urban and ruralpopulations with “improved provision” on thebasis of household surveys wherever possible.9

The statistics in Table 2–1 might seem tobe at odds with official U.N. statistics, whichshow a much smaller proportion of urbandwellers lacking “improved provision.” Butthe Table provides estimates of access toadequate water and sanitation, while U.N.statistics provide estimates of “improved”coverage, which may or may not be ade-quate. As the United Nations explains, thereare no data available for most nations on theproportion of people with good quality or“adequate” provision from a health per-spective or with “sustainable access to safedrinking water,” as called for in the MDGs.Unfortunately, many who use the officialstatistics are unaware that these do not mea-sure “adequate” or “safe” provision. Thisoften means erroneous conclusions aredrawn not only about the scale of the prob-

lem but also about where the worst situationsare found.10

The fact that U.N. statistics do not mea-sure who has adequate provision helpsexplain why urban populations that show“improved” water and sanitation still havevery high infant and child mortality rates. Forinstance, according to a U.N. report pub-lished in 2002, over three quarters of theurban population of Kenya and Tanzaniahad “improved” provision of sanitation in2000—but most of these have poor-quality,poorly maintained pit latrines, often sharedwith many other people. Infant and childmortality rates remain high in the urbanareas of both these nations.11

Although it is tempting to argue for more-detailed, internationally comparable house-hold surveys, these do not provide theinformation needed at the local level. Actionon the ground often requires detailed dataabout each household, each structure, eachplot boundary in the poorly served areas,and the forms of provision already foundthere. It also requires maps that include con-tours and details of roads, paths, and plotboundaries. This is not the same as the infor-mation that governments and internationalagencies need to monitor provision. While itis important to recognize the deficiencies inthe statistics commonly used to monitorprogress toward the MDGs, it is more impor-tant to correct the deficiencies in the infor-mation needed to drive local action.

First Things FirstAlthough the most animated discussions onwater and sanitation generally focus on whichtechnologies should be used, the choices ofhow to finance and manage provision andwho takes responsibility for different aspectsof it are just as important. Discussions onfinance and management tend to focus on


30


public versus private, but here too there area range of options, often with public, pri-vate, and nonprofit organizations having com-plementary roles.

A key issue is whether the providers andtheir associates—whether government agen-cies, private enterprises, or nongovernmen-tal organizations (NGOs)—are accountableto local residents. What is needed in eachurban center or district is more competentlocal water and sanitation organizations inwhich those who are unserved or ill servedhave influence. In many of the cities whereprovision has improved and expanded, itwas not technological innovation that drovethe improvements, but financial and man-agement innovations underpinned byresponses to demands from those withoutadequate provision.

Thus, there are no universal truths inregard to technology, management, or financ-ing, although there are some useful workingprinciples. For one, what is provided has towork for low-income groups, which alsomeans being convenient and affordable byboth users and providers. This also meansseeking solutions that do not undermine thefinancial viability of providers—whether pub-lic or private. It is nonsense to think that it isalways possible to recover all costs, includingall infrastructure investments, through userfees or connection charges. The poorestgroups may have incomes so low that fullcost recovery is impossible, making cross-subsidies necessary, through either utility tar-iffs or taxes. But it is good practice to seeksolutions that keep down unit costs and min-imize the need for subsidies. The less these areneeded, the more the possibilities of expand-ing provision and reaching those with verylimited incomes, and the less the dependenceon external funding.

Seeking to reach everyone with adequateprovision does not necessarily mean reach-

ing everyone with the same form of provision.It is much better to have well-managedcheaper provision in low-income areas than noprovision at all—well-managed communalwater taps, for instance, rather than houseconnections. The lower-cost forms of provi-sion can allow incremental improvements asmore finance becomes available. For instance,the piped water system serving the communaltaps needs to have the capacity to allow house-hold connections when people can affordthem. Sometimes it is cheaper to expand waterprovision by tapping local water resourcesrather than waiting for the expansion of theconventional water mains. Externally funded“solutions” that replace rather than build onexisting systems are often overly expensive(as well as ill suited to local circumstances) andcan discourage or even crowd out more appro-priate locally funded solutions.12

Provision can also be improved in ways thatare not classified as “water and sanitation”projects. For instance, housing loans mayallow low-income households to improveprovision in existing homes. There is a grow-ing trend for micro-finance institutions toprovide loans for home improvements—which often include connections to pipedwater and sewer systems or better provisionwithin the home through better internalplumbing or toilets. Or mortgage financecan allow people to buy or build a new homewith better provision. Programs providingthose living in informal settlements with legaltenure may allow local utilities to extendpiped water and sewer connections that werenot allowed when the settlements were ille-gal. Many city government support “slumand squatter” upgrading programs, whichusually include better provision of water andsanitation. Federations of “slum” and “shack”dwellers can work with the relevant agencieson the household enumerations and map-ping of informal settlements that are needed


31


for local action—and at a small fraction of thecost of professionally managed surveys.13

Providing Adequate Water Supplies

The best system for providing water remainsa city-wide piped network supplying as manyhouseholds and other buildings as possiblewith in-house piped connections. The cost ofserving each structure with piped suppliescomes down with increasing densities. Citiesalso provide economies of scale for watertreatment and bill collection. Willingness andcapacity to pay is higher in most urban areas,if a good service is offered.

But installing, managing, and, whereneeded, expanding a piped water system iscomplex. This is especially so in rapidly grow-ing cities, where there is usually a patchworkof new developments scattered around theperiphery of the built-up area to which it isdifficult and expensive to extend pipes forwater. In many cities and small urban centerswhere local capacity is lacking, the piped sys-tem serves only a small proportion of inhab-itants—generally the better-off. Water suppliesare also often intermittent—which commonlymeans that supplies in many parts of the sys-tem are contaminated (as pressure in thepiped system drops, contaminants can easilyseep into the pipes through cracks).

However desirable it is to recommend acitywide system with piped connections foreveryone, this is often beyond local capaci-ties. A pro-poor strategy in such circum-stances would focus on two aspects. First,

ensure that those who do receive piped con-nections pay the full cost (within a systemthat seeks to keep down such costs). Second,look for ways to ensure better provision forlow-income groups and other groups cur-rently unserved. This might involve con-necting them to the piped network, but if thecost of house or yard connections is toohigh, provision could be through sharedtaps or communal or public taps or throughsupporting separate provision (for instance,local shared water tanks that draw fromgroundwater).

In all urban centers there is a need toreview who is using poor-quality watersources—for example, unprotected shallowwells and untreated water from local rivers orlakes—and to discuss with them the bestmeans of improvement. This means consid-ering what arrangements with low-incomeneighborhoods can improve provision in waysthat can be afforded by providers and inhab-itants. (See Table 2–2.) Providing taps inbackyards is cheaper than in-house connec-tions. Water taps shared and managed by5–25 households are much cheaper than yardtaps, especially if billing is shared (since it ismuch cheaper for the water provider to col-lect the money from the group). Water kiosks(where water is sold by the bucket) are alsoa possibility—and these can be managed bya community organization. But if water costsmore than low-income groups can afford,they will draw on unimproved sources forother domestic needs.14

Of course, all these forms of provisionneed a regular, sufficient, good-quality watersupply. Communal and public taps need reg-ular water supplies; it is often the intermit-tency of supplies that causes long lines. In allthis, perhaps the most fundamental changesought is the quality of the relationshipbetween water providers and the population.

Most households would prefer to be as far


32


One critical issue is how to reducecosts and increase the possibility ofcovering them, through either userfees or some form of public finance.

down the steps inTable 2–2 as possi-ble, so one criticalissue is how toreduce costs andincrease the possibil-ity of covering them,through either userfees or some form ofpublic finance. Evenif the upstream infra-structure and trunksare government-funded—and thereis often consider-able justification forthis—the costs forconnection and for operation andmaintenance can beburdensome for low-income households.

One innovationfirst developed inBrazil and nowbeing applied in sev-eral other nations is“condominial” watersupplies. Here, thecost of the publicwater network ismuch reduced by thewater agency providing the water pipes togroups of households (including condo-miniums or cooperatives)—with the house-holds within this group taking responsibilityfor installing the pipes to their homes oryards. This can cut the cost per householdserved so much that many low-income house-holds can afford this instead of communal orpublic standpipes.15

There are also many examples of local inge-nuity and partnerships that allowed improvedprovision despite limited budgets and users’

capacity to pay. One example is the commu-nity taps program in San Roque Parish, Man-daue City (which is part of Metro Cebu, in thePhilippines). A local federation formed bysavings groups of urban poor people providesthe legal framework for various community-managed development projects. The MetroCebu Water District’s Community FaucetProgram gives poor communities permissionto tap into the mains and get water at a lowcost if they plan, finance, and manage the lay-ing of the pipes and install the taps.16


33


Table 2–2. Ladder of Water Supply Improvement Options for Households

Types of Provision Management

Shared unimproved water sources

Shared public taps

Cooperative taps (such as 1 per 20 households)

Yard taps for each household

Individual house supplies (including multiple-tap)

Shift from left to right leads to or involves:• increasing convenience (and decreasing time needed to obtain water), usually

increasing unit costs; and• increasing use of water,usually with health benefits (especially for washing, laun-

dry, and personal hygiene).

Shift from left to right is helped by increasing size of population, more commer-cial and industrial demand (which helps fund infrastructure), and more householdswith greater capacity to pay.

Shift from management by households and communities to professional man-agement involves increasing sophistication for technical management and highercapital costs.


Individual orcommunal

Mixture of formal(for instance, forsupply) and com-munity

Formal organization (government or private sector)

Providing Adequate SanitationThe ideal adequate sanitation is for every-one to have a well-functioning toilet withintheir home, with facilities for washing afterusing it. But for many low-income groups,this is not possible—it may be too expen-sive, or the room or rooms they live in arerented and the owner does not want to pro-vide toilets. One defining characteristic ofcities is the high cost of space, so poorer peo-ple live in overcrowded conditions in order tokeep accommodation costs down. Many low-income households have only one or twosquare meters per person. In addition, themost “space-efficient” form of sanitation—atoilet connected to a sewer—is often not anoption because there are no sewers.17

For the full public health benefits of san-itation, every woman, man, and child needsto be able to use a toilet that safely disposesof their feces. If even a small portion of thepeople in a neighborhood defecate in theopen, this can put everyone’s health at risk.But whatever the health and other risks posedby defecation in the open or into waste mate-rials (known as “wrap and throw”), theseremain the cheapest sanitation options. (SeeTable 2–3.)18

Eco-sanitation, which takes an ecosys-tem perspective, emphasizes the closure ofmaterial flow cycles, including the recyclingof human excreta and water from house-holds. Returning urine and feces to the soilmakes wastewater treatment much cheaper.Most forms of eco-sanitation also use littleor no water. For the system to work well,there needs to be a good, safe way to storeand remove the urine and feces—and thentransport the materials to farmers who wantto use them. It also requires good manage-ment to control smells, keep the toiletsclean, and avoid flies. Most designs usemore space than toilets connected to sew-

ers—although the dehydration model(where urine is separated from feces) reducesthe space needed. The unit costs vary widely,depending on local circumstances and thetype of system used.

A study in the city of Kunming in Chinaasked stakeholders about introducing twodifferent kinds of eco-sanitation: “no mix”toilets in which urine is separated for use asa fertilizer (with feces disposed of througha conventional flush) and dry toilets, alsowith urine separation but with feces kept ina chamber within the house, with ash beingadded and the dry wastes collected regu-larly. Most people surveyed recognized theneed for such toilets: Kunming is by a lakethat is now heavily polluted. The dry toiletsare significantly cheaper and imply muchless water use, but most stakeholders con-sidered them less appropriate. This suggeststhe need for innovative technical and orga-nizational solutions to make dry toilets moreacceptable in urban contexts. This form ofeco-sanitation is likely to find widespreadapplication first in lower-density develop-ments on the edges of cities, where there arefewer space constraints and no sewers toconnect to and where demand for the “nutri-ents” is close by.19

A Pakistani NGO, the Orangi Pilot Pro-ject (OPP), has helped transform debatesabout provision of sanitation by demon-strating that it is possible to install good-quality sewers serving each house, even inlow-income settlements, with full cost recov-ery. This NGO was formed in 1980 to sup-port new models of providing infrastructureand services in Orangi, a large cluster of low-income, informal settlements in Karachi that-now has some 1.2 million inhabitants. Sincethen, its work has expanded to encompassmany other areas of Karachi and to supportpartner organizations working in other urbancenters in Pakistan.20


34


http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/karachi

At the core of OPP is the concept of “com-ponent-sharing,” whereby the inhabitants ofeach street or lane take responsibility for plan-ning, financing, overseeing the constructionof, and managing the “internal” pipes—in thecase of sanitation, the lane sewer to whicheach household’s toilet connects—that thenconnect to a government-provided “external”sewer or to a natural drain. As the inhabitantsof each lane work together to install andmanage the pipes, advised by OPP or anotherlocal organization, they cut unit costs dra-matically—typically to a fifth of what theywould have been charged by the official water

and sanitation agency. This brings unit costsdown to the point where low-income house-holds can afford to pay and so allows fullcost recovery. Thus, each lane organizationoffers the local sanitation utility a partnerwho can manage the most time-consumingaspect of improved sanitation—the work ateach household and lane.

The intention of the locally supportedinitiatives in Pakistan is to form partner-ships with local governments. OPP has alsosupported the mapping of all informal set-tlements in Karachi, with the help of localyouth teams, to strengthen inhabitants’


35


Table 2–3. Different Sanitation Options and Costs

Cost per Type of Provision of Sanitation Household Benefits and Drawbacks

(dollars)A flush toilet connected to a sewer or septic tank within each home plus piped water to the home for personal hygiene

Condominial sewers (the Orangi Pilot Project model of “component sharing”)

An “improved” latrine or pour-flush toilet linked to a latrine within each home

Eco-sanitation

Basic latrine

Access to a public or communal toilet/latrine (assuming 50 persons per toilet seat)

Possibility of open defecation or defecation into waste material


400–1500

40–300

40–260

90–350+

10–50

12–40

none

Costs per person rise a lot if provision is made for sewagetreatment using conventional treatment plants with highlevels of treatment.

With high densities and strong community organizationand input, unit costs per household can compete with pitlatrines.

No need for sewers. Improved latrines control smells bet-ter than conventional pit ones and limit or prevent insectaccess to excreta. Difficult to find space for this in mosturban contexts; not suitable for multistory buildings. Chil-dren often frightened of using them (dark, large pit).

In most models, no need for sewers. Many models withprovision for urine diversion, which has advantages fornutrient recycling and on-site decomposition but usuallyadds significantly to unit costs.

No need for sewers. If well-managed, can be as healthy asmore expensive options but difficult to find space for inmost urban contexts; not suitable for multistory buildings.

Effectiveness depends on how close it is to users, howsafe to use at night, how well maintained, and how afford-able by poorest groups.

Obvious problems both for those who defecate and forothers in the community.

claims to stay on the land and to provide thebasis for installing or improving water, san-itation, and other infrastructure. For peopleliving in an informal settlement, negotia-tions with any government agency are enor-mously strengthened if they have accurateand detailed maps showing existing plotboundaries, roads, pipes, and drains thatalso allow detailed discussions of what isneeded to improve conditions and wherethis has to be built.21

After more than two decades of work—andoften opposition from government as wellas external consultants who told them theyhad the wrong approach—OPP has not onlysupported or catalyzed good-quality sanita-tion and drainage for hundreds of thousandsof people in Karachi. It has changed the waythat city governments design and plan sani-tation provision. It succeeded in changing asanitation master plan for the whole ofKarachi from one that was expensive andpoorly designed (and unlikely to work well)to one that was far more effective, cheaper,and better for low-income groups and thatavoided the need for a large foreign loan.OPP is helping to identify priorities for workall over the city—influencing what govern-ment investments are made but without rely-ing on funding from government to do so inorder to safeguard its independence.

This example raises an interesting issue—the role of local civil society organizations indeveloping the best possible mix betweengood-quality and convenient provision,affordability, and local management. Theannual budget of this local NGO is tiny com-pared with the value of the pro-poor sanita-tion and other activities it has supported—andalso compared with the money it has saved thegovernment in unnecessarily expensive andpoorly designed infrastructure systems. Thelessons from OPP lie less in what was built andmore in how it was done: the work done

directly with urban poor organizations, build-ing their capacities; the demonstration ofnew ways of designing, building, managing,and financing water and sanitation infra-structure; the very detailed documentationand mapping of needs; the credibility estab-lished with local governments; and, finally, thequality of the advice provided to communi-ties and to government.

Communal Provision of Water or Sanitation

Communal or public provision of waterthrough public taps or water kiosks has longbeen seen as a “solution” for poorer groups.But the same does not hold for sanitation,although this has been challenged recently bysome local innovations (with some receivingsupport from the international NGO Wat-erAid). The communal approach works bet-ter for water, as people can store water intheir homes and can avoid lines or the needto fetch water at night. Communal or pub-lic provision of sanitation is never ideal—butin many places it is the best compromisebetween better provision, affordability, andthe potential for local management. It ischeaper than household provision and oftenmuch easier to provide in existing high-den-sity settlements.22

Efforts to provide public toilet blocks inIndia provide one example of this workingwell. (See Box 2–1.) As with OPP in Pak-istan, this was initiated by local NGOs andcommunity-based organizations but not asautonomous provision. The projectimproved sanitation for hundreds of thou-sands of people and showed how to reducethe gap between the cost of achieving bet-ter provision and what can be afforded bylow-income groups. The cities and com-munities where this program was imple-mented have some of the country’s


36


lowest-income urban populations.23

But it is difficult to make communal facil-ities work well, and especially difficult tomake them safe and convenient for childrenand women to use at all times and to keep thetoilets clean and well maintained. The costsof a regular water supply to such facilitiesand a high standard of maintenance have tobe met—but this might imply higher chargesthan users can afford. Having enough toiletsavailable to avoid waits at peak times increasescosts—but lines discourage many people(especially children) from using the facilities.The difficulties of good communal provisionare generally fewer if a toilet is shared amongrelatively few households who know eachother—for instance, a toilet shared by thoseliving around a yard.

Public or communal facilities are worth

considering where it is not possible to providewater connections and good sanitation toeach household—but this decision has tomade in consultation with those who cannotafford household provision. This will gener-ally require an incremental approach, withgood communal provision as a first step andwith support for household provision there-after. The possibilities of good householdprovision are often greatly increased if groupsof households work together to help plan,manage, and finance the installation.

Increasing Private-sectorParticipation

In the 1990s, many international agencies—led by the World Bank—vigorously pro-moted private-sector participation in water


37


During the late 1980s and early 1990s, twocommunity organizations and a local NGOdesigned, built, and managed public toilet blocksbecause provision was poor to nonexistent intheir neighborhoods.The alliance they formedwas between the National Slum Dwellers Federation, Mahila Milan (a network of savingsgroups formed by women “slum” and pave-ment dwellers), and the Mumbai-based NGOSPARC—the Society for Promotion of AreaResource Centers.

The construction of each toilet block wasusually preceded by a community-managed sur-vey to document the inadequacies in provision.Local savings groups from the “slum” helpeddesign, implement, and manage the toiletblocks.These blocks sought to avoid the defi-ciencies in the siting, design, and management of existing public toilets.The community toiletsgave women more privacy, made waiting lineswork better—for instance, separate lines formen and women, since otherwise men just

push ahead of women—ensured a constantsupply of water for washing, and made betterprovision for children. Many of them had sepa-rate children’s toilets at the front so youngstersdid not have to line up and wait.

Community management of the toiletblocks ensured that they could be maintainedthrough user charges, with costs being muchlower than conventional “public toilets.”Typically, families paid a standard monthly fee.Caretakers and cleaners were identified fromthe local community. At first, local governmentsignored or discouraged these efforts.Then themunicipal commissioner in Pune, a city withover 2 million people, and eventually other cityauthorities recognized the poor quality of pub-lic toilets and the inadequate numbers built andsupported this alliance in building communitytoilets. More than 500 toilet blocks have beenbuilt to date—mostly in Pune and Mumbai, butincreasingly in other urban centers as well.


Box 2–1. Toilet Blocks in India Designed and Managed by the Community

and sanitation programs. This was in part apragmatic response to the failure of publicutilities to undertake the desired improve-ments during the 1970s and 1980s and inpart a reflection of the broader decline ofsupport for government planning in favor ofprivate enterprises and markets. Public util-ities were widely seen as inefficient, over-staffed, manipulated by politicians forshort-term political ends, unresponsive toconsumer demands, and—particularly inlow-income settings—inclined to providesubsidized services to the urban middle classand leave the urban and rural poorunserved.24

Proponents of increasing private-sectorparticipation argued that by transferring util-ity management to private operators, undercompetitive conditions, it should be possibleto overcome these problems and to increaseinvestment in expanding water and sanita-tion provision. It was hoped that private con-cessions, such as those created in BuenosAires and Jakarta, would point the way to anew form of public-private partnership,although a number of other contractual forms,including the management contracts that arenow more popular, were also explored.25

Increased private-sector participation—or privatization, as it is more often termed byits critics—proved to be very contentious.This is perhaps not surprising. The fear of pri-vate companies gaining a monopoly overurban water systems and putting privateprofit ahead of public interest stretches backcenturies. The controversy over contempo-

rary concessions has been heightened by thefact that consortia led by a handful of largeforeign water companies initially won mostof the major contracts. The notion thatdevelopment assistance was being used topromote privatization also caused contro-versy, even in donor countries. With con-temporary concessions, the ownership ofassets has been kept in public hands andcontracts have been signed that, at least inprinciple, prevent the companies from rais-ing water prices unilaterally to secure excessprofits. This has not been enough to allay thefears of critics, however.26

It is difficult to assess the impact of thesedevelopments on people without adequateaccess to water and sanitation, or even todetermine whether the net effects have gen-erally been positive or negative. The findingsof the largest statistical reviews have beenambiguous. But when measured against thevery optimistic claims that private-sector par-ticipation would expand provision, improveefficiency and accountability, and reduce cor-ruption and political interference, the resultsmust be viewed as disappointing.27

The early contracts did not produce thedesired results, at least for the urban poor. TheBuenos Aires contract was initially taken as amodel of a well-designed concession, but itdid not provide the basis for extending pro-vision to the many unserved parts of the citywhere residents did not have secure tenureand it imposed connection costs far abovewhat other unserved residents could afford.By the time such problems were beingaddressed, Argentina’s economic crisis under-mined the very basis for the concession. InJakarta, the two concessions also ran intoproblems: soon after the contracts were signedthe country was in economic crisis, Presi-dent Suharto fell from power, and the closeties between the local partners and Suhartofamily business interests turned from being a


38


Small water and sanitationenterprises in low-income urban settlements have been neglected in the debates on private-sector participation.

necessity into a liability. These concessionswere renegotiated, but many of the obstaclesto extending provision to Jakarta’s low-income residents still persist. Indeed, for agreat many countries privatization has beenmore of a diversion than a solution to urbanwater and sanitation problems.28

Generally, governments that have problemsmanaging public utilities also have problemswith privately operated utilities. Indeed, manyof the obstacles to public provision in thepoorest areas remain when providers becomeprivate: uncertain or illegal land tenure, dif-ficult terrain, complex and cramped plot lay-outs, large distances from existing water mainsand trunk sewers or drains, illegal connec-tions, difficulties collecting bills, corrupt prac-tices. Moreover, as critics have pointed out,the private water companies have not investednearly as much in the water sector as envis-aged in the early 1990s.29

Understandably, private operators weremost interested in securing concessions invery large cities that had an appreciable mid-dle class. There was little interest in the smallercities and towns where most of the ill-servedand unserved actually live. Most of thosewithout adequate provision today are notabout to be connected to a functional waternetwork and are nowhere near any seweragenetwork. At least in the near future, it mat-ters little to most of them whether the largeurban utilities are operated privately or pub-licly, as they will not be served in either case.Even in middle-income countries, many citiesdo not so much have water networks as theyhave a multiplicity of different systems, somemore industrial and others more artisanal,some under more corporate control and oth-ers under more community control. In manylow-income areas, the private sector is impor-tant, but primarily through the goods and ser-vices sold by small water and sanitationenterprises (including water vendors) rather

than through utilities operated by multina-tional companies.30

In recent years, the international drive toprivatize water and sanitation provision hasstalled, and increasing private-sector partici-pation is now rarely presented as the solutionto water sector problems. In many countriesthe water sector is still undergoing interna-tionally supported reforms, many of whichinvolve shifts toward commercial principlesand a regulatory environment that is moreopen to private-sector participation. More-over, while the multinational water companiesmay be less active in pursuing concessions,other contracts and private enterprises aregaining in importance. In parts of Asia, forexample, local companies are reportedlybecoming stronger. Of 124 major water andsanitation contracts identified in a recentreport as operational in Asia in 2004, forexample, 42 had been awarded to nationalcompanies and a further 17 to companiesrun by Chinese entrepreneurs based inMalaysia or Singapore (with 84 of the 124contracts being in China).31

Small water and sanitation enterprises havelong had key roles in low-income urban set-tlements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.They have been neglected in the debates onprivate-sector participation. Local govern-ments have often suppressed them, despite thefact that the informal markets for small waterand sanitation providers are closer to the freemarket ideal than the heavily regulated mar-kets of water utilities are. There is growingrecognition that utilities and governmentsneed to acknowledge the strengths of theseenterprises and work with them rather thanagainst them. There are serious challengesto this, however. Many operate with tech-nologies that do not meet official standardsor sell at prices that exceed the controlledprices of the official utilities, making it diffi-cult for governments to condone let alone


39


support a role for them.32

Perhaps the mistake of the 1990s was toconfuse good business principles on waterand sanitation provision—keep down unitcosts, be accountable to clients or potentialclients, recover costs from users whereverpossible—with the operations of large-scaleprivate businesses and to assume that onlylarge private enterprises could apply goodbusiness principles in the sector. In manyways, most of the local NGOs and commu-nity organizations mentioned earlier havedone better at following these business prin-ciples. These are important, but there is noreason why they cannot be implemented bycivil society organizations—and by govern-ment agencies.

As noted already, many public water andsanitation agencies provide good servicesand close to universal coverage, and theyhave done so by applying good businessprinciples. There are also many others whoseperformance has improved greatly by doingthe same. For instance, a government-owned water corporation in Uganda thatserves Kampala and many other urban cen-ters shifted from large losses to a surplusbetween 1998 and 2006; in these years, aseries of initiatives tripled the number ofhouseholds served, reduced unaccounted-for water from 51 to 29 percent, and low-ered connection and reconnection fees.Customer relations were also much better.However, it is worth noting that althoughthis can make good provision of water payfor itself, it does not provide the financial

basis to address Kampala’s huge backlog ofpeople without adequate sanitation.33

Managing Water Resources Better

Improving provision of water and sanitationobviously depends on regular, sufficient sup-plies of fresh water, but it is important not toconfuse this goal with the problem of waterresource scarcity. Since the 1980s, there havebeen growing concerns about water scarcityand stress, driven primarily by land use changesand the large quantities of water used in foodand biomass production. This growing waterstress poses serious risks to existing aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems and to many agricul-tural systems. As of yet, however, there is noevidence that it is a significant factor in inad-equate provision of water and any associatedill health and hardship.

Unfortunately, particularly in the morepopular accounts of an impending waterresource crisis, statistics on the number ofpeople without improved water supplies andthose suffering from water-related diseaseshave often been presented alongside esti-mates of the numbers living in water-scarceor water-stressed areas. The implicit sugges-tion is that water stress is why people fail tosecure better water supplies and become ill.Statistically, however, there is no associationbetween nations facing water stress and thosewith the most inadequate provision of waterfor rural and urban populations, even at sim-ilar income levels. Many large cities whereprovision of water and sanitation is quiteinadequate have little or no overall shortageof freshwater resources, while cities facingsevere water scarcity often still manage toachieve high levels of provision.34

Urban residents, particularly low-incomegroups, do sometimes face difficulties secur-ing adequate water supplies as the result of


40


Many case studies of cities with water shortages show that these situations are more often the result of poor management than of water scarcity.

water resource deficiencies, and these are notalways evident in statistics on water provision.In Jakarta, for example, the poorest residentspay more than the wealthy for their water inareas where the groundwater is saline (andthey are forced to buy high-priced vendorwater) and less than the wealthy where thegroundwater is suitable for drinking (afterboiling). Neither the water vendors nor theunprotected wells they use can be consid-ered improved water supplies, however.Indeed, in a somewhat perverse way the salinegroundwater makes water coverage look bet-ter, since it motivates some households toconnect to the piped water system. In Mex-ico City, on the other hand, water resourceproblems affect the piped water provision,especially in poorer, more peripheral parts ofthe city. And each dry season brings anincrease in popular protests about water short-ages and denunciations in the press. In thiscase, even the households facing supply break-downs in the dry season would be consideredas having improved supplies, again failing todetect the deficiencies resulting from waterresource problems.35

Many case studies of cities with watershortages show that these situations are moreoften the result of poor management than ofwater scarcity—as in the case of Guadalajara,Mexico, and the drying up of Lake Chapalaand in Beijing, where a great deal of water inand around the city is used inefficiently. Mis-management can also lead to intermittentsupplies from parts of the piped water systemwithout any water resource scarcity whatso-ever. In any case, the amount of additionalwater required to meet basic urban needs issmall relative to the consumption for otherpurposes. The additional water required foradequate provision is, if well managed,unlikely make a significant difference to acountry’s overall water withdrawals. On theglobal scale, an additional 20 liters per day for

a billion people would still only amount toabout 7 square kilometers a year, comparedwith aggregate water withdrawals on theorder of 4,000 square kilometers.36

Thus, most solutions to water resourcescarcity in cities lie in better local manage-ment. Often the cheapest way to increaseavailable supplies of fresh water for the pipedwater system is to reduce leaks and intro-duce pricing structures that encourage largerusers to withdraw less. As with the tech-nologies for water supply and sanitation, thereare numerous techniques through whichwater use can be cut or wastewater reused orrecycled—or new sources tapped (forinstance, through rainwater harvesting inhomes, institutions, and public facilities).Where such measures are insufficient, it maystill be possible to rehabilitate upstream infra-structure to achieve higher capacity utilizationrates. In other cases, new sources of bulkwater need to be identified. Addressing watersupply issues in the piped water network thusrequires a two-pronged approach: improvingmanagement and securing sources of bulkwater for current and future needs.37

Overall, measures to improve water avail-ability at the settlement scale are undoubtedlyimportant in many urban centers, but they arerarely more than part of the solution to prob-lems of inadequate provision for the worst-offresidents. Indeed, it should be kept in mindthat while water scarcity and infrastructuredeficiencies are likely to hurt those with thefewest economic and political resources, mea-sures to address scarcity and invest in newinfrastructure will not necessarily help them.Only when these are combined with measuresto improve provision in the more deprivedareas and to secure more influence for suchgroups in the planning process will waterresource management and infrastructureinvestments likely benefit those who needthem the most.


41


Who Needs to Change theWay They Work?

The Human Development Report 2006 char-acterized the way ahead for sanitation as morelocal development and more engagementwith the unserved. This also summarizes theapproach needed on water. As emphasizedthroughout this chapter, each urban centerneeds the best possible mix between good-quality convenient provision, what they canafford, and what can be managed locally.38

Local governments obviously have thecentral role in changing the approach—andin most examples of very good or muchimproved provision, the changes were under-pinned by more competent and accountablelocal governments. But local governmentsare often weak and ineffective because higherlevels of government want to keep them thisway. And they are often unrepresentative ofpoorer groups’ interests because of powerfullocal vested interests.

Success in water and sanitation rests notonly in what local governments do, however,but also in what they encourage, support,and supervise. In many instances, small-scalewater businesses (vendors and water kiosks),local NGOs, cooperatives, and communityorganizations already make important con-tributions to provision or to financing betterprovision. And there are many potential part-nerships between local governments and thesedifferent service providers. Local governmentcan do much to improve the provision ofwater and sanitation by other means—forinstance, through measures to increase thesupply and reduce the cost of land for newhousing and through support for “slum” and“squatter” upgrading programs, as noted ear-lier. The many ways this can be done areoften not recognized; for instance, extendingroads and a good public transport system onthe edge of a city’s built-up core can reduce

land prices for housing (so that far more low-income households can afford to build theirown homes) and cut unit costs for water andsanitation provision.

However creative and effective these com-munity organizations, NGOs, or small waterenterprises are, it falls to local governments toprovide the framework in which these canwork and, where needed, collaborate. Mostlocal governments lack the capacity to man-age or oversee a conventional model whereformal agencies—whether public, private, orcooperative—provide good-quality water andsanitation to all buildings, with good man-agement both “upstream” and “down-stream.” But most can provide a frameworkof support for a combination of public, small-scale private, NGO, community, and house-hold provision.

It is also possible to combine conven-tional and unconventional models, with theconventional model used wherever possible(where users can afford to pay its full cost)and with alternative models meeting needselsewhere. Within this, the conventionalmodel can be expanded to cover growingproportions of the population. In addition,as shown by many examples in this chapter,household and community action can domuch to improve provision within homesand neighborhoods. But they usually needthe larger (external) systems from which todraw water and into which to dispose of liq-uid and solid wastes.

Promoting good hygiene is another impor-tant part of the solution—and the benefits ofgood hygiene practices are particularly largewhere sanitation provision is the worst. Thisfalls within a more fundamental need forgood relations between local governments,official service providers, and the unserved orill served, because their cooperation and sup-port is essential for improvements.39

The polarized debate about “public” ver-


42


sus “private” providers can obscure the factit is the quality and efficiency of providers andtheir accountability to current and potentialclients that is the key issue. Since most offi-cial water and sanitation providers in urbanareas are still in the public sector, reform ofthese agencies is often the most effective localapproach—including ensuring less politicalinterference in setting prices, a more respon-sible attitude toward bill paying by public-sec-tor water users, and a more business-likeapproach, such as increasing coverage throughreducing costs and ensuring that costs can befully recovered through user fees or securedfrom other reliable sources.40

In most nations, more effective and pro-poor local governments depend on supportfrom higher levels of government. In manyLatin American nations, improvements inwater and sanitation provision have certainlybeen boosted by decentralization and bystronger local democracies, although perhapsless than might have been anticipated becausemany governments followed economic poli-cies that reduced government roles and invest-ments through much of the 1990s.41

Every nation also needs innovations of thekind shown by the Orangi Pilot Project in Pak-istan and by the water engineers in Brazilwho developed condominial systems for waterand sanitation—or by federations of slum,shack, and pavement dwellers that havedemonstrated far cheaper and more effectiveways to develop new housing with good pro-vision of water and sanitation. It is not somuch what these groups did but the extent towhich their innovations were rooted in localcontexts and had as a priority reaching low-income groups. This allowed them to drivedebates and discussions within their own dis-tricts, cities, and nations about differentapproaches—and provided innovative, work-ing examples that politicians, civil servants,professionals, and community organizations

could visit. Innovations only work and spreadif they are appropriate to local contexts.42

Enormously expanding and improvingprovision in urban areas in ways that reachlow-income groups depends not so much onscaling up existing efforts as on supporting avast multiplication of local initiatives. Thereare tens of thousands of urban centers whereprovision of water and sanitation is extremelyinadequate; each needs locally drivenprocesses to address the inadequacies.

But supporting this approach is problem-atic for most international agencies. First, itmeans supporting work in urban areas; manyof these agencies have long avoided workingin cities or have restricted funding to urbanprojects in the belief that these areas attractan excessive share of development funds.They fail to see the inadequacies in provisionof water and sanitation—and the scale anddepth of poverty—in urban areas. And theyfail to see how fast urban poverty is growingin most nations.43

Even if this changes, however, perhaps asgreat a problem is knowing how to make thelarge sums that international agencies canprovide through governments support thediverse local processes needed to improveand extend provision. Official developmentassistance agencies are ill equipped and poorlystructured to support a multiplicity of localprocesses implemented by local governments,NGOs, or community-based organizations,many of which require modest levels of fund-ing and a strong engagement with theunserved. It is perhaps not surprising thatmost of the innovations in provision of water


43


It is the quality and efficiency ofproviders and their accountability tocurrent and potential clients that isthe key issue.

and sanitation in urban areas that reachedlow-income groups were not funded by theseofficial agencies.44

If national governments provide the appro-priate framework for local action, develop-ment assistance can support this. But it isthe lack of national government support forlocal action that is the problem—especially innations where provision of water and sanita-tion is the worst. Meanwhile, most interna-tional agencies are providing less support forwater and sanitation initiatives as they shiftfunding to budgetary support (which is lessstaff-intensive than projects) or funding chan-neled through other agencies. And for theagencies that do still provide substantial fund-ing for water and sanitation, it is often forhigh-cost infrastructure that delivers little topoorer groups.45

As a recent United Nations report notes,it is time for external agencies to supportlocal capacities to develop locally appropriatesolutions, not impose their often inappro-priate and costly solutions and often inap-propriate conditions. Improving provision inurban areas does need substantial funding,especially for the big “trunk infrastructure”for water, sanitation, and drainage into whichcommunity or neighborhood improvementsare integrated and for the larger water man-agement upstream and waste managementdownstream. There is not much point inextending piped supplies to unserved com-munities if bulk water supplies are insuffi-cient to cope with the new customers. Butthere is also not much point in providingfunding for bulk urban infrastructure if city

and local governments have no intention ofimproving and extending provision to mostlow-income groups.46

The bottom line in this discussion of waterand sanitation challenges around the worldis that low-income groups most need theworld’s help in their daily struggle for accessto adequate supplies and facilities. They arethe ones who have to drag the equivalent ofsix heavy suitcases of water back to theirshelter every day. And who have to relievethemselves in the streets outside the shacksthey call home.

The strain this brings to families is capturedin the words of Chhaya Waghmare fromPune, India: “There are 280 families in oursettlement…. Every day we get water broughtto us in tankers. The delivery timings are notregular. We start queuing for water in themorning by putting our water containers ina line. If we have to go out we can leave thehouse only after we have filled the water. Ihave to go to work. My children are veryyoung and cannot fill the water. So my sisterstays at home and waits for the tanker. Inorder to be home when the tanker comes, shehas stopped going to school.”47

Shalini Sadashiv Mohite of Mumbaidescribes what it was like before the com-munity organization of which she is a mem-ber built their own public toilet: “There wasno toilet in this whole area. Men and womenfrom the settlement squat along the road.Women do not go after six in the morning.They wait for the cover of darkness. We eveneat less so that we do not need to relieveourselves during the daytime.”48

In the end, for most of those lacking ade-quate water and sanitation the issue is asmuch about better relationships with thosein power and utility managers as it is abouttechnology or pricing or infrastructure invest-ments. Most examples of better provisionin this chapter were underpinned by gov-


44


Low-income groups are the ones who have to drag the equivalent of six heavy suitcases of water back to their shelter every day.

ernments' recognition of the legitimacy ofthe needs of unserved groups—even groupswho lived in illegal settlements. Many situ-ations were also helped by urban poor orga-nizations and local NGOs demonstrating togovernments the possibilities of much

improved provision, if they worked together.Yet most international funding agencies haveyet to understand this—or even if they do,they have failed to restructure their fundingto support it.


45



With more than 10 million residents, Lagos is literally bursting at the seams. This formercapital of the Federal Republic of Nigeria andWest Africa’s leading seaport and commer-cial-industrial center received substantialfederal government funding in road andbridge construction during the oil boom eraof the 1970s. The city has consequentlyexpanded phenomenally—right up to themargins of Ota, some 40 kilometers to thenorth, in Ogun State. A massive influx ofpeople has placed unbearable pressure ontransportation, housing, and water and elec-tricity supplies in Lagos, creating a wideninggap between demand and supply.1

While concerted efforts by the federal andstate governments had ameliorated the situa-tion up to the late 1970s, three developmentsaggravated the crisis. First, hostile, mainlymilitary, federal governments since 1979frustrated ambitious state government plansfor infrastructure development, especially foran urban rail service. Second, the massivedevaluation of the national currency and asteep decline in economic fortunes under the World Bank’s Structural AdjustmentProgram, coupled with official corruption,denied the city much-needed resources forinfrastructure development. Third, the trans-fer of the federal capital to Abuja in 1991practically sealed the fate of Lagos. As archi-tect Rem Koolhaas remarked, “Lagos was leftto its own devices, then abandoned.” 2

Following the return to civil rule in 1998,all tiers of government can provide water,electricity, and roads. But the record of gov-ernment service in these sectors is dismal.One new development has been the involve-ment of the private sector in service provision.The Lagos state government has initiatedpublic-private partnerships in water, roads,and electricity supply. It has hired private-

sector technocrats to run its water corpora-tion and has started an independent powerproduction scheme. Most recently, the federalgovernment has proposed an ambitiousscheme for developing the Lagos megacity.3

Water supply illustrates the challenges andpossibilities of fresh initiatives in tacklinginfrastructure collapse in Lagos. The threemajor waterworks at Iju, Adiyan, and Isashihave a combined installed capacity of 119million gallons a day, although their output is just 69 million gallons a day. Twelve miniand eight micro waterworks have a combinedcapacity of about 3 million gallons a day.While the major waterworks rely on surfacewater from the Ogun and Omo Rivers, theothers depend on groundwater supplies. Yetlarge shortfalls have increasingly been experi-enced since British rule ended in 1960, dueto population growth, dilapidated infrastruc-ture (leaking pipes), illegal connections, poormaintenance, and inadequate access to thelimited supplies. Official supplies meet barelyhalf the demand, and coverage throughoutthe city is uneven.4

Private operators take up the deficit inofficial supplies. Water is brought in to high-income households in tankers, while hawkerssell to poorer people in high-density neigh-borhoods in four-gallon tins. The wealthyinvest in private boreholes. Wells, which havebeen sunk across the city since the nineteenthcentury, are more widespread. But the qualityof water from them is generally poor, giventhe low-lying terrain, the pollution ofgroundwater sources, and the shallowness of the wells. Since the mid-1990s, however,treated water sold in nylon sachets, known as “pure water,” has emerged as a popularsource of supply. “Pure water” is portable and satisfies the requirements of individualconsumers as well as large religious, political,

46

Collapsing Infrastructure

CITYSCAPE:

------------

----LAGOS

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/lagos

and social gatherings.Unfortunately, the indiscriminate disposal of the nonbiodegradable sachets has com-pounded the problem of environmental sanitation.5

Meanwhile, the Lagos state governmenthas attempted to privatize water supply,backed by a law passed in December 2004.This was in the face of a debt of $117 millionincurred by the Lagos State Water Corpora-tion (LWSC) by the end of 2004. Variousstakeholders have opposed this scheme of“private-sector participation,” which retainsgovernment ownership but hires private oper-ators to manage the distribution of potablewater. For the last two years the LSWC hasbeen run by Olumuyiwa Coker, a chief execu-tive recruited from the private sector, whoadmits that LSWC covers only 55 percent of the state.6

The inability of the state government to cope with collapsing infrastructure has

heightened con-cerns about thefuture of themegacity, theonly one of itssize without afunctional railmass transit sys-tem. Hostile inter-governmentalrelations have ham-pered a coordinatedapproach to theresolution of theinfrastructure crisesin Lagos. Agents ofthe federal and stategovernments haveclashed over thecontrol of roads inthe city, and the fed-eral government has

withheld funds allocated to local govern-ments in the state, in defiance of the SupremeCourt. The national government has oftenfrustrated initiatives by the state, such asindependent electric power projects.7

Relations improved, however, in 2006following the appointment of a new Ministerof Works. In July 2006, the federal govern-ment announced its intervention through aLagos Mega City Region DevelopmentAuthority, with a primary focus on the city’shousing crisis. It also endorsed a 26-billion-naira ($200- million) International Develop-ment Association interest-free loan for theupgrade of infrastructure in the megacity. Therenewed optimism this brought to the city istempered by the realistic need to wait and seeif all stakeholders meet their obligations.8

—Ayodeji OlukojuUniversity of Lagos, Nigeria


47

Cityscape: Lagos

Lagos: rubbish pile in the foreground, commuters beyond

Ganiyu Ajibola Aliyu/UNEP/Peter Arnold, Inc.

48

On the surface, Accra in Ghana, Beijing inChina, and Vancouver in Canada seem tohave little in common. They range in popu-lation from roughly 2 million in the metro-politan region of Vancouver to more than14.5 million in Beijing. The per capitaincomes are vastly different: about $700 a yearin most of Ghana, about $2,200 in Beijing,and more than $32,000 in Vancouver. Buttake a closer look, digging a little deeper intothe backyard and rooftop gardens, and you’llrealize that these city folk share a preoccu-pation that has thrived since the first cities—raising food.1

Accra has a population of 6 million, includ-ing a steady supply of migrants from ruralareas and immigrants who seek work in its fac-tories. Because food is expensive, people farmanywhere they can: in backyard plots, inempty lots, along roadsides, and in aban-doned dumps. These farmers grow a varietyof crops for home use and sale, includingexotic varieties like green peppers, springonions, and cauliflower, as well as more tra-ditional crops like okra, hot peppers, and

leafy greens such as alefi and suwule.2There are more than 1,000 such farmers

in Accra. Their plots vary from just one tenthor one twentieth of a hectare (10 meters by10 meters) to 20 hectares in the city outskirts.Among the biggest challenges they face iskeeping their crops irrigated, since clean,affordable sources of water are not easy tofind. Backyard farmers often use greywater—the waste water from bathrooms and kitchens.While sewage water can be a health hazard,farmers in Accra—and in cities all over theworld—are finding that human waste can bea valuable fertilizer.3

In Beijing, city planners in the 1990sdecided that urban agriculture was an impor-tant way to meet the city’s food needs, preservegreen spaces, and conserve the region’s waterand land resources more efficiently. Theybegan offering courses and assistance for aspir-ing farmers, they surveyed existing land use tobetter understand the extent of urban farming,and they tried to incorporate urban farminginto long-term city planning decisions.4

Today, urban and peri-urban agriculture

C H A P T E R 3

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg

Farming the Cities

(farming in, around, and near cities) in Bei-jing not only provides residents with safer,healthier food, it also keeps farmers in busi-ness. Between 1995 and 2003, the income forfarmers living just outside of Beijing dou-bled. The city includes tens of thousands ofhousehold farms and more than 1,900 agro-tourism gardens for Beijing residents cravingsome rural experience. Although the share ofthe city’s population involved in farming iscurrently very small—just about 1 percent—the municipal government plans to cultivategardens on 3 million square meters of roofspace over the next 10 years.5

Vancouver is known for being a populardestination for tourists. But what most visi-tors do not realize is that the city is a leaderin encouraging its inhabitants to grow andbuy fruits, vegetables, and other items pro-duced in the city. According to a recent sur-vey, an impressive 44 percent of Vancouveritesgrow vegetables, fruit, berries, nuts, or herbsin their yards, on their balconies, or in one ofthe 17 community gardens located on cityproperty. Vancouver’s mild temperatures andice-free winters make it the ideal city to growfood nearly year-round. There, farming thecity is part of a much larger movement thatincludes restaurants buying from local farms,buying clubs in which neighbors subscribe toweekly deliveries of produce, and the heavilyattended Feast of Fields harvest festival twicea year on a farm outside the city that exposescity folk to rural life.6

A Rich History of Urban Farming

Growing food and raising fish and livestockin Accra, Beijing, and Vancouver—indeed, incities all over the world—is nothing new. Insome ways, these three cities are respondingto the same challenges that urban gardenershave faced for millennia. The hanging gardens

in Babylon, for instance, were an example ofurban agriculture, while residents of the firstcities of ancient Iran, Syria, and Iraq pro-duced vegetables in home gardens. This ispartly because cities have traditionally sprungup on the best farmland—the same flat landthat is good for farming is also easiest forconstructing office buildings, condomini-ums, and factories—and partly because themasses of urban dwellers create a perfect mar-ket for fresh fruits and vegetables.

“In ancient times, the cost of transportwas much greater,” explains Jac Smit, head ofthe Urban Agriculture Network, “so the impe-tus for growing food in cities was greater.” Ofcourse, urban farmers continued to refinetheir craft. Centuries after the Incan residentsof Machu Picchu raised food in small, inten-sive plots irrigated with the city’s wastewater,enterprising Parisians developed bio-intensiveproduction with steam-heated greenhousesand glass cloches that cover individual headsof lettuce; they sold their produce as far awayas London. In China’s cities, farmers devel-oped complex cropping patterns and trellisesthat made use of every available square meter.7

But like the story of all local farming, arange of forces in the modern era—the Indus-trial Revolution, the evolution of the mega-city, the invention of refrigeration—helped torender urban farming obsolete. In particular,when cities first combined industrial andorganic wastes in one sewage stream at theend of the nineteenth century, they madewastewater too toxic for irrigation. And inmany cities, urban agriculture became notonly harder to practice but illegal as well,thanks to overzealous city officials and pub-lic health practitioners who wanted to elim-inate urban livestock production.

Then during the 1970s, somethingchanged. People working for the UnitedNations, the Peace Corps, and other devel-opment groups noticed the spontaneous


49

Farming the Cities

appearance of home gardens and small retailfarms in major cities throughout Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa. Rapid urbanization, inef-ficient and expensive transportation, and agreater demand for food made raising produceand livestock in cities possible and necessary.In other words, the same needs that had givenrise to urban farming in ancient times hadreappeared. And although cities in industrialcountries might be able to compensate fortraffic congestion and lack of local food withsuperior transportation and packaging, thosein developing countries could not. Urbanfarming was posed to take off again.8

In fact, farming is ubiquitous in citiestoday. The U.N. Development Programmeestimates that 800 million people are involvedin urban farming worldwide, with the major-ity in Asian cities. Of these, 200 million pro-duce food primarily for the market, but thegreat majority raise food for their own fami-lies. In a survey conducted for the UnitedNations, cities worldwide already produceabout one third of the food consumed bytheir residents on average, a percentage thatwill likely grow in coming decades, giventhat the need for urban agriculture could begreater now than ever before.9

According to the U.N. Food and Agri-culture Organization (FAO), the number ofhungry people living in cities is growing.While malnutrition in rural areas is still a big-ger problem in terms of actual numbers ofpeople—of the 852 million people world-wide who are undernourished, 75 percentlive in rural areas—urban residents, particu-larly children, also suffer from food shortagesas well as micronutrient deficiencies. Urbanagriculture can be one of the most importantfactors in improving childhood nutrition, byincreasing both access to food and nutri-tional quality. Recent studies in the Philippinesand elsewhere confirm this linkage betweenbetter childhood nutrition and the production

of food in urban areas.10

Fortunately, urban politicians, businesses,and planners are beginning to regard urbanagriculture as a tool to help cities cope witha range of ecological, social, and nutritionalchallenges—from sprawl to malnutrition toswelling landfills and the threat of attacks onthe food chain. In this context, taking advan-tage of land in and around cities is essentialand obvious. Unlike parks or other greenspace, which are generally financed by tax-payers, urban farming can be a functioningbusiness that pays for itself. And for citiesthat use nearby farmland to filter wastewater,recycle garbage, and cool down the concretejungle, farming is rapidly becoming some-thing they can’t do without.11

Replenishing Food DesertsLocal food takes on a very different meaningon a planet where half the people live incities. As a greater share of the world’s pop-ulation resides farther from where food isgrown, produce has to be moved across coun-tries and sometimes around the world.

In 2001, FAO officials were concernedabout the capacity of large cities in Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa to feed themselves. Theyfound that by 2010 many of these cities willrequire massive increases in the number oftruckloads of food coming into the area eachyear—increases that would overwhelm thecapacity of these cities to distribute food.Bangkok will need 104,000 additional 10-tontruckloads each year, Jakarta will need205,000, Karachi 217,000, Beijing nearly303,000, and Shanghai just under 360,000.And while cities may never be able to meet alltheir food needs from local farmland, thetremendous infrastructure, energy, and costrequired to shuttle food into densely popu-lated areas argues for urban centers to secureas much of their food as possible from farm-


50

Farming the Cities

land within their borders or nearby.12

For the inhabitants, cities bring certaingastronomic advantages. A diversity of peo-ple and businesses means access to a widerange of cuisines compared with more-tradi-tional fare in the countryside. Cosmopolitancommerce means that specialized stores andinternational supermarkets stock a variety ofingredients. At the same time, a more harriedurban lifestyle often means that city folk haveless time to cook or prepare meals from rawingredients and that they opt for the conve-nience of processed, prepared, or even fastfood. (Consumers in urban areas pay up to 30percent more for their food than people inrural areas do, partly because they grow fewerof their own ingredients and partly becausethe food travels farther.)13

But the change in habits raises all sorts ofnutritional and logistical concerns. Foodsthat are more processed require more refrig-eration, clean water for preparation, andsophisticated transport lines. They also meanmore sugar and fat in the diet, which com-bined with more sedentary urban lifestylesencourages diabetes and obesity. A study of133 developing countries found that migra-tion to the city—without any changes inincome—can more than double per capitaintake of sweeteners, simply because they areavailable cheaply. Traditional staples—wholegrains, potatoes and other root crops, andsome vegetables—on the other hand, areoften more expensive in urban areas. Forexample, surveys show that recent migrantsto Hanoi, Viet Nam, eat less rice, corn, veg-etables, and beans than they used to andmore meat, fish, eggs, milk, soft drinks, andcanned and processed food. Home-preparedmeals are gradually replaced by restaurantfare and street food.14

So this is the essence of the urban foodquandary: People living in cities demand morefood and a greater range of foods than their

rural counterparts, but they live farther fromthe centers of food production. In response,people often start farming in the city simplybecause they cannot find an affordable andreliable source of the foods they crave fromtheir rural roots or because they might nothave the cash to buy food at all. As opposedto in the countryside, in cities a lack of moneytranslates more directly into lack of food.15

In other words, growing food is not ahobby for most people, it is a necessity. Stud-ies from several African cities have shownthat families engaged in urban agricultureeat better, as measured by caloric and proteinintake or children’s growth rates. In terms ofproviding an essential source of food andincome, urban and peri-urban agriculture isprobably most important in sub-SaharanAfrica. In the cities and towns in East Africa,a third of urban dwellers are engaged in agri-culture. In West Africa, the number of house-holds involved in urban agriculture variesfrom more than 50 percent in Dakar, Sene-gal, to roughly 14 percent in Accra, Ghana.In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 60 percent of themilk sold is produced right in the city.16

In densely populated Bangkok, home toroughly 10 million people, rising demandfor aquaculture products such as morningglory, water mimosa, and freshwater fish ismet primarily by an industry of peri-urbanwater farmers. Nearly one third of the nation’sintensive urban aquaculture production comesfrom around Bangkok, and it generates about$75 million each year. Catfish farms in thenorthern part of the city produce more than70 percent of the country’s total output ofthis fish. And about 40 kilometers west ofBangkok, there are vast farms growing theaquatic plant morning glory (a staple of theThai diet), while 20 kilometers south of thecity tilapia and carp thrive in large ponds.17

Farms in the city can often supply marketson a more regular basis than distant rural


51

Farming the Cities

farms can, particularly when refrigeration isscarce or during a rainy season when roads arebad. And local food production might bethe best option for feeding urbanitesneglected by the long-distance food chain. Inboth the industrial and the developing world,poorer urban households typically spend agreater share of their income on food thanwealthier urbanites do. In some cases, poorurbanites spend 60–80 percent of theirincome on food, making them especially vul-nerable to price changes.18

Nutritionists and sociologists have arguedthat many poor inner-city areas in industrialcountries have become “food deserts” in recentdecades. Supermarkets have left the inner citiesto milk the more lucrative suburban markets,after pushing many of the independent mom-and-pop grocers out of business. Entire cityneighborhoods have been left with only fast-food restaurants and convenience stores. Thisprovides a good opportunity for farmers’ mar-kets and community-supported agriculturesubscriptions, in addition to food co-ops andother locally owned stores. In the Anacostiaregion of Washington, DC, which has nothad a supermarket for years, a new farmers’market is the first good source of fresh food forlocal residents.19

This reliance on city farmers is not alwaysplanned. Cuba depends heavily on urbanfarming—an estimated 90 percent of theproduce eaten in Havana is grown in andaround the city. The shift, however, was notentirely voluntary. In the early 1990s, theU.S. embargo and then the collapse of theSoviet Union left Cuba without agrochemi-cals, farm machinery, food imports, or petro-leum, hobbling its capacity to produce foodand ship it to cities. Confronted with massivefood shortages, government officials set up aloose network of local extension offices thathelped Cubans obtain vacant land, seeds,water, and gardening assistance.20

Cuba’s main motivation was preventing ashortfall of food, but its support for city farm-ing has also been a wise investment in jobs andcrisis prevention. Urban farming in Cuba hascreated 160,000 jobs, including farmworkers,masons, vendors, herb dryers, and compostmakers. Egidio Paez of the Cuban Associationof Agricultural and Forestry Technicians notesthat “the growth and spread of cities invari-ably creates many empty spaces…which oftenbecome trash-dumps that are sources of mos-quitoes, rats and other disease vectors.” Trans-forming these unhealthy spaces into farmsand garden spaces creates jobs. Cuba’s urbanfarmers raise food organically—without pes-ticides or chemical fertilizers—eliminatingthe health and environmental problems thatresult from agrochemicals.21

These welcome benefits of urban farmingare needed in many countries. In Yaoundé,Cameroon, more than 70 percent of urbanfarmers do not have other occupations, a fig-ure that rises to 85 percent in Abidjan, Côted’Ivoire. In peri-urban Hanoi, agriculturestill generates more than half of the incomesin some sections. In Kumasi, Ghana, theannual incomes of some urban farmers wereestimated at $400–800, which is two to threetimes what they could make in rural farming.22

In many cases, farming is particularly suitedto city folk without jobs or some outlet fordeveloping skills for the working world. InBoston, Massachusetts, the Food Projecttrains inner-city youth how to do many of thejobs associated with a commercial cateringbusiness; the youngsters work on a farm, har-vest the food, prepare it, and serve it at events.In Cairo, Egypt, teenage girls who are notallowed out of the house according to reli-gious customs have found a calling—andgenerated their own income—by tendingrooftop vegetable gardens. They use waste-water from their apartment buildings andhave developed networks of friends and fam-


52

Farming the Cities

ilies for marketing the produce.23

Beyond providing jobs and good nutrition,urban farming can have a whole range ofother health benefits. Research has connectedgardening to reducing risks of obesity, heartdisease, diabetes, and occupational injuries.For urban folks especially, working with plantsand being in the outdoors can both preventillness and help with healing. Some healthprofessionals use plants and gardening mate-rials to help patients cope with mental ill-ness and improve their social skills,self-esteem, and use of leisure time. Horti-culture therapy is relaxing and reduces stress,fear and anger, blood pressure, and muscletension; it can also lessen patients’ depen-dence on medications.24

Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Pol-icy Council sees urban agriculture as the “newfrontier in public health,” benefiting healthtwice: first, by supplying urbanites with morefoods and, second, by affording them theexercise involved in raising food. Robertsnotes that obesity is epidemic in most wealthynations and increasingly in Third World cities.Having food produced locally can radicallychange people’s attitudes toward the pro-duce. “Instead of pop and candy vendingmachines plastering the cityscape, people seefresh fruits and vegetables,” notes Roberts.25

Because gardens can provide a social bea-con in urban areas, their potential to educateextends beyond the basics of planting. InLilongwe, Malawi, the Peace Corps has beenusing urban gardens as a way to raise medi-cinal plants and educate people about AIDS.According to Anne Bellows, a research asso-ciate at the Food Policy Institute in New Jer-sey, beyond physical health “urban gardensbring people together in public space, result-ing in community growth, education, healthylifestyles, and fun.” 26

Roberts also envisions a third way in whichurban agriculture can benefit public health—

by improving the social determinants ofhealth, including the beauty and safety ofneighborhoods and the strength of commu-nity ties and social interactions. Studies showthat people at farmers’ markets have as manyas 10 times more conversations, greetings, andother social interactions than people in super-markets. City planners are learning that farm-ers’ markets can be used to bring peopletogether in a central location, becoming aforum for politicians, activists, and othercommunity leaders to raise awareness aboutlocal issues.27

A survey of community gardens in NewYork found that having a garden improvedresidents’ attitudes toward their neighbor-hood, reduced littering, improved the main-tenance of neighboring properties, andincreased neighborhood pride. They alsofound that the presence of gardens was fourtimes more likely to spur other communityefforts in low-income neighborhoods than inhigh-income ones, due to a greater numberof pressing community issues and a lack ofmeeting places. Add to this the other well-documented effects of community gardens—including greater consumption of freshvegetables, reduced grocery costs, and the var-ious psychological and health benefits asso-ciated with exercise in a natural setting—andit becomes clear that urban farming does a lotmore than just replenish food supplies.28

Healing the Concrete JungleAs cities strive to be more self-sufficient infood, several obstacles stand in their way. Onthe most practical level, tall buildings oftenobscure sunlight (although rooftop gardensprovide one solution), and urban soils may becontaminated with the residue of past indus-tries (although pesticide-laden rural soils areoften not much cleaner). Raising livestockor fish close to dense human dwellings and the


53

Farming the Cities

strain urban farming can place on an alreadytight city water supply present unique healthand environmental challenges for cities. Han-dled appropriately, however, urban farmingcan actually serve to diffuse the potentialpublic health issues and might even improvewater quality.29

As fresh water becomes a more and moreprecious commodity in cities, using every dropmore than once becomes important. Althoughurban farmers use rainwater and water fromnearby rivers and streams to grow crops, manyalso use a source of water that is widely avail-able in all cities—human waste. The Interna-tional Water Management Institute (IWMI)estimates that wastewater is used on morethan 50 percent of the urban vegetable sup-ply in several Asian and African cities. (See Box3–1.) In addition to contaminated water,urban farmers and consumers also have toworry about other sources of pollution in

their food, including heavy metals and othertoxins that can contaminate the soil.30

Despite these problems, urban farmingcan bring a bit of the country into the con-crete jungle, creating benefits that reach wellbeyond a city farmer who makes more moneyor a city resident who has a more stable foodsupply. (See Table 3–1.) Urban farms bringsome needed diversity to the urban land-scape. They provide ground to help catchand filter rainwater; land for composting andreusing of organic wastes; city trees to createshade, reduce heat, and cut down on green-house gases; and even buffer zones for flood-or earthquake-prone areas. Shady, flower-filled plots might provide a respite for theweary urban soul, but these spaces can alsoheal the toxic city environment.31

In the broader sense, urban farming canalso be an extremely efficient use of naturalresources. Intensive production of vegeta-


54

Farming the Cities

It is hard to believe, but much of the foodgrown in cities in the developing world is irri-gated with polluted water.Why? The reason issimple—wastewater from sewage systems and even raw urine and feces are low-cost,nutrient-rich sources of irrigation for the poorin urban areas.Worldwide, 3.5–4.5 millionhectares of land are irrigated with wastewater.But wastewater contains a whole range ofpathogens that can survive for weeks afterbeing applied to fields, posing a public healththreat.

Most wastewater irrigation is doneinformally. City authorities know it is takingplace, but they lack the money or infrastructureto offer an alternative. In Ghana, there are fewdata on the extent of informal irrigation in thecountry, but in Kumasi (with a population of 1million) at least 12,700 farmers irrigate morethan 11,900 hectares in the dry season—more

than twice the area with formal irrigation in theentire country.

In Accra, Ghana, 200,000 people a day eatsalad from irrigated urban agriculture.Whilethis production contributes to a diversifieddiet, it also gives a sense of the number of peo-ple potentially at risk from polluted water.

Governments and nongovernmental organi-zations, such as the International Water Manag-ement Institute, are working to educate urbandwellers about the risks and benefits associatedwith wastewater irrigation.Without it, however,millions of people would go hungry. Guidelinesfor using wastewater need to be flexible,reducing risks to public health and not punish-ing urban farmers for irrigating their crops.

—Pay Drechsel,International Water Management Institute


Box 3–1. Urban Agriculture and Wastewater Use

bles in cities can use less than a fifth as muchirrigation water and one sixth as much landas mechanized rural cultivation. In Freiberg,Germany, officials subsidize farmers on thesteep hillsides surrounding the city in orderto reduce the risk of erosion. Coffee farms inthe hills around San Salvador, El Salvador,serve the same purpose, and a proposed taxon the city water (which depends on thepresence of forest-laden coffee farms in the

watershed) would help keep these farmersin business.32

In the East Kolkata wetlands of India,farmers are helping protect the environmentas well as earning a living. The wetlandscover 12,500 hectares and include 254 wildand farmed fisheries, space for agriculturalproduction, and residences. And they hap-pen to be on the coastal edge of one ofIndia’s most densely populated cities,


55

Farming the Cities

Table 3–1. Multiple Uses and Benefits of Urban Agriculture

Use City Benefit

Sewage treatment and aquaculture

Crisis prevention and food security

Bioremediation and phytoremediation

Creating equity and controlling crime

Erosion and landslide prevention


Beung Cheung Ek Lake, Cambodia

Cities in Cuba;Freetown, Sierra Leone

New Orleans,United States

Los Angeles, UnitedStates; St. Petersburg,Russia

San Salvador,El Salvador

Thousands of families living around this sewage-contami-nated lake cultivate water spinach—a local staple thatthrives in nutrient-rich waters. For thousands of yearsAsians have been using aquaculture ponds enriched withhuman wastes to grow plants, rear fish, control floodwa-ters, and remove local pollutants.

In response to the U.S. embargo, Cuban officials designed anetwork of urban gardens. In 1999 urban farmersproduced on average 215 grams of fruits and vegetablesper day per Cuban—in some cities harvests exceed the300 grams per day target set by health ministers.A similarsystem exists in Freetown, where war forced residents,refugees, and schoolchildren to rely on urban agriculture.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita unleashed dangerous levels ofDDT, arsenic, lead, and other soil toxins. But citywide plant-ings of sun flowers, wild mustard, oyster mushrooms, andcompost are helping sequester and break down these toxins.

Teens in Los Angeles grow produce to sell at farmers’markets. St. Petersburg prisons use rooftop gardens tocreate income, pride, and a valuable sense of community.

One of the few remaining forested areas around therapidly growing city is a 120-hectare parcel called ElEspino. Known as the “lungs” of the city, it provides freshair and groundwater replenishment for the city’s watersupply. Managed by a cooperative of coffee growers whotend their bushes in the forest’s understory, El Espino hasmore than 50 species of trees and shrubs, which shelter70 species of birds, including some not found elsewhere. Inrecent years, much of El Espino has been developed, how-ever, and during Tropical Storm Stan in 2005, massiveflooding caused huge landslides in areas that hadwithstood previous storms.

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/kolkata

Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), where the wet-lands are the primary means of absorbingwastewater from the city’s sewers. In aunique system of recycling, the fish and veg-etable farms extract nutrients from the city’swastewater; fish ponds covering about 4,000hectares encourage a range of physical, bio-logical, and chemical processes that helpimprove the quality of water before it emp-ties into the Indian Ocean.33

Popularly known as the kidney of the city,the Kolkata wetlands produce roughly 18,000tons of fish each year for sale and supportaround 60,000 residents through fishing, fishfarming, fish processing, and related activities.Ironically, while such benefits have been aninspiration to coastal cities around the world,this has not kept speculators from increasingpressure on the government to develop theseareas for residential and industrial purposes.34

Urban farmers are also adept at turningwhat some consider problems into solutions.“Despite the health and environmental risksposed by wastewater, its use in urban andperi-urban agriculture is a reality,” says Gay-athri Devi of IWMI. “If the city were toimpose policies that restrict urban agricul-ture, they would not only be largely ineffec-tive, but they would also likely causesignificant socioeconomic problems for farm-ers and their families.” For instance, Hyder-abad, India’s sixth largest city, boasts anemerging Internet and biotechnology huband is widely recognized as the meeting placeof northern and southern India. But 300,000farmers and their families working 15,000hectares within the city continue to rely forfood and income on a decidedly ancient irri-gation system: water from the nearby MusiRiver that is little more than untreated wastefor much of the year.35

Technologically savvy cities can see farmsin and around the city as allies in keepingwater coming into the city clean and ensur-

ing that it is not too dirty when it flows out.In Lima, Peru, treated wastewater is used toproduce tilapia, and studies show that fish cul-tured in this way are acceptable to consumersand economically viable. The constructioncosts for this lagoon-based wastewater treat-ment facility were charged to the municipal-ity; the local farmers who irrigated their cropswith treated wastewater were happy to pay theland and operation costs, which were half ofwhat some of them paid for groundwater.36

All the attention that urban farming isreceiving can make people more aware oflocal pollution. In Hanoi, Viet Nam, con-cerns about how industrial runoff, garbage,and poorly maintained canals were affectingthe safety and flavor of fish from surround-ing fish farms prompted municipal authori-ties to retain large wetlands and lakes withinthe city boundaries for aesthetic and floodcontrol reasons. According to a recent report,fish farming “is encouraged by the authori-ties as they believe the residents of Hanoi willequate food production with good environ-mental health, thus providing reassuranceto consumers.”37

For cities confronted with growing wastedisposal problems—which includes virtuallyall cities—the strongest environmental argu-ment for local farming is the opportunity toreuse urban organic waste that would other-wise end up in distant, swollen landfills. (SeeBox 3–2.)38

People have kept livestock in cities forcenturies to help deal with urban waste as wellas provide income and food. Farm animalsrecycle household refuse, agricultural waste,lawn cuttings, and other organic matter veryefficiently, and the manure they produce canimprove urban soils. Despite the commonassumption that all of the world’s pigs, chick-ens, cows, and other livestock are raised inidyllic country settings, more and more of theworld’s meat and animal products are pro-


56

Farming the Cities

duced in or near urban areas.Consider this: People in developing coun-

tries now consume half of the world’s meat,thanks to rising incomes and exploding urban-ization. And people in cities in these countriesare not just consuming more animal products,they are also becoming centers of production.In Bamako, Mali, for instance, 20,000 house-holds keep livestock in the city. In Harare,Zimbabwe, more than one third of house-holds keep chickens, ducks, pigeons, rabbits,and turkeys. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 74percent of people keep livestock, while inDhaka, Bangladesh, the figure is 80 percent.Even in industrial countries people can be

found raising bees, worms, chickens, andother animals. (See Box 3–3.)39

But there can be too much of a goodthing. Thanks to unregulated zoning andsubsidies that encourage large-scale livestockproduction, massive chicken and pig opera-tions are moving closer and closer to majorurban areas, including in China, Bangladesh,India, and many African countries. This, saysMichael Greger, a veterinarian with theHumane Society of the United States, is“bringing together the worst of bothworlds—the congested inner cities of thedeveloping world combined with the con-gested environment on industrial farms.” 40


57

Farming the Cities

Efforts to turn urban organic waste into com-post have generally been small, limited to theefforts of a few farmers collecting food scrapsfrom hotels or vegetable markets or enterpris-ing individuals who have begun to “mine” citylandfills for organic matter. It is estimated thatin Kano, Nigeria, 25 percent of the fertilizerneeds of nearby farmers are met with munici-pal wastes.Among the barriers to greater recycling of city wastes are a lack of peopleinterested in collecting it, high transportationcosts, and the fact that most urban waste sys-tems mix organic (food scraps, leaves, grassclips, newsprint) and nonorganic (plastic, met-als, glass, hazardous chemicals) waste, whichcomplicates the removal of the organic compo-nent. In most countries, the cost of dumpingwaste into landfills is so low that there is littleincentive to look for alternatives.

In settings where the organic waste is easilyseparated and where farm and garden plots arelocated nearby, the transformation of urbanwastes into fertilizer can be a lucrativebusiness, particularly for poor urbanites.Eduardo Spiaggi of the University of Rosario inArgentina is training residents of the city’s villas

miserias in composting techniques, since manyof them already make a living from waste col-lection, classification, and recycling, althoughthey often discard the organic part. In combina-tion with training in small-scale gardening techniques, the participants—65–70 percent of whom are women—report more food forhousehold consumption and some incomefrom selling surplus food and compost.

For restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, andother businesses that generate large amountsof food waste, converting this “garbage” intocompost can keep down disposal costs andeven generate income. Projects from aroundthe world have demonstrated the feasibility ofcollecting waste from an array of settings—supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals—for composting on farms and spreading asfertilizer. In California, the Vons Companies Inc.and Ralph’s Grocery Company supermarketchains, with more than 585 stores betweenthem, have been able to reduce their wastestream by 85 percent and turned their scrapsinto profitable, branded products sold back totheir customers.


Box 3–2. Mining Organic Waste

While there needs to be a place for raisinganimals in cities, industrial farming withincities is an inhumane and ecologically dis-ruptive way of producing meat. A 2005 reportby the World Bank echoed this, noting that the“extraordinary proximate concentration ofpeople and livestock poses probably one of themost serious environmental and public healthchallenges for the coming decades.” Manyexperts are worried about the spread of dis-eases, such as avian flu, from animals to

humans, and city officials are grappling withhow to dispose of mountains of manure.41

In many parts of the world, includingalong China’s eastern coast, in Thailandaround Bangkok, and in Brazil near SãoPaulo, there is an “excessive concentration”of factory farms as well as animal manure. Infact, some provinces along China’s easternseaboard, near consumers and port facilities,have more than 500 livestock per square kilo-meter, which is five times as many animals as


58

Farming the Cities

Until mid-July 2005, dozens of people in Van-couver, Canada, were engaged in a sweet butillegal activity—raising bees. But thanks to adedicated group of apiarists, the city’s healthcouncil changed the laws, allowing beekeepersto manage their hives legally. In London, bee-keeping is also now a legal endeavor, with atleast 5,000 registered beekeepers keeping bee-hives in their backyards and on rooftops. Bee-keepers in New York City, however, have notbeen as lucky. They are restricted by a law thatprohibits raising “wild animals,” including hon-eybees.That hasn’t stopped beekeepers therefrom producing some of the best-tasting honeyin New York State.

Consumers may be reluctant to try honeyproduced in polluted cities, but because manycities have a huge variety of parks, private gardens, and even outdoor flower stands,the honey produced in urban areas is just asgood—or better—than that produced in therural countryside. In addition to producinghoney, bees help keep urban gardens pollinatedand biologically diverse.

And while urban beekeepers carry out their work primarily on rooftops, a growingnumber of cityfolk are keeping their livestockunder kitchen sinks, in backyard bins, and evenhuge municipal waste dumps.Vermiculture—recycling organic waste with worms—can bean environmentally friendly alternative to more

conventional waste disposal. For households,worm composting bins take up very little spaceand work quickly.Worms typically eat theirweight in food daily—a kilogram of worms caneat a kilogram of food waste every day.

Vermiculture can also be donecommercially.While organic waste—everythingfrom carrots to bread to yogurt—can takeyears to decompose in regular landfills, wormscan compost up to 90 percent of waste in littlemore than a couple of months.Although somecommunities may have a hard time adjusting toseparating their organic and inorganic waste,many have been able to do it successfully. TheCanyon Conversions Company near San Diegoin California (a city of about 150,000 people)processes some 400 tons of municipal yardwaste per year with 200 tons of worms.

And in Rosario,Argentina’s third largest city,residents of the poor Empalme Graneros neigh-borhood are using worm compost made fromdiscarded fruit and vegetable trimmings to nur-ture plots of vegetables, while selling worms tolocal fishers.This income stream is no smallbenefit in the city with Argentina’s highestunemployment rate.The residents sort trash andseparate out plastics, cardboard, metals, and glassfor resale. By recycling organic waste into com-post, the project reduced the quantity of dumpedorganic waste that posed a health threat.


Box 3–3. Bees and Worms: A City’s Smallest Livestock

the surrounding land can handle.42

Even raising smaller herds of free-rangelivestock in cities can sometimes present wastemanagement problems. In the city of Kisumu,Kenya, many residents rely on livestock forincome and food. But there is little land avail-able to absorb manure. According to a recentstudy, three fourths of the dung produced inKisumu is not used as fertilizer for growingcrops, nor is it a source of fuel for cooking andheating. And because there is no regular wasteremoval system in the city, the manure piles upand up, contaminating soil and water.43

But now some people living in Kisumuare using animal waste both as a source of fueland as a money-making opportunity. Withinvestment from Lagrotech Consultants, aprivate company, and from a developmentagency, Kisumu residents are turning dunginto a safe, efficient source of fuel. The dungbriquettes—made by mixing water, charcoaldust, straw, and other ingredients with animalmanure—produce very little smoke (a healthhazard of other fuels, particularly for women)and save residents from having to buy expen-sive commercial fuel. Livestock owners arealso generating additional income by sellingtheir excess briquettes.44

One way to prevent the problems thatplague industrial livestock production is to dis-courage factory farming in or near cities. Arecent FAO report suggests a combination ofzoning and land use regulations, along withtaxes, incentives, and infrastructure develop-ment that can encourage producers to raiseanimals closer to croplands, where manure canbe used as fertilizer and where there is less riskof disease. According to FAO, figuring outwhere the best places are to produce live-stock can help control land and livestocknutrient imbalances—in other words, raisinglivestock in areas that have enough land tohandle waste. Thailand, for example, putshigh taxes on large-scale poultry production

within 100 kilometers of Bangkok, while giv-ing farmers outside that zone tax-free status.Thanks to this, the concentration of poultryfarms right outside of Bangkok has droppedsignificantly over the last decade.45

Planning Garden CitiesIn the 1880s, Ebenezer Howard felt thatthe modern city was consuming itself andeverything around it. Howard envisioned adifferent type of city, a “garden city,” withparks and green spaces and suggested popu-lation and livestock carrying capacities. Thecity would include gardens to raise some ofits own food, but it would also make roomfor deliveries of food from the nearby coun-tryside. Howard realized that “people stream-ing into the city” not only represented athreat to the urban areas, it also could bleedthe rural areas to death. He was not propos-ing a blending of the two into a homogenoussuburb, but instead a symbiosis. “Town andcountry must be married,” wrote Howard inGarden Cities of To-Morrow, “and out of thisjoyous union will spring a new hope, a newlife, a new civilization.” 46

The remnants of Howard’s garden citycan be seen in greenbelt cities constructedduring the Depression in the United States,in the postwar new towns of Great Britain,and in the parks that ring Portland, Oregon,today. Nonetheless, with few exceptions themarriage between town and country has notalways been “joyous.” The unchecked growthof modern cities, aided by freeways and masstransit that stretch ever farther from theircore, remains one of the primary threats tothe farmland that feeds them. As Howard sus-pected, the basic design of the modern cityseemed to be inherently threatening to farm-ing nearby. Rather than incorporating per-manent farmland into urban design, plannerspave it over, even as the growing urban pop-


59

Farming the Cities

ulation puts increasing demands on theremaining land. In the United States, 79percent of fruit, 69 percent of vegetables,and 52 percent of dairy products are raisedin metropolitan counties or fast-growingneighboring counties in the path of sprawl,which threatens to eliminate this form ofurban agriculture.47

Despite all that farming can do for thecity landscape and the urban soul, politicians,businesses, and planners continue to regardfood as a rural issue that does not demand thesame attention as housing, crime, or trans-portation. This stubborn mindset partlyexplains the “piecemeal approach” to plan-ning for city food systems, according to astudy from the Department of Geographyand Urban Planning at Wayne State Univer-sity in Michigan. Urban planners around theworld viewed gardens and farmland withincity limits as an anachronism, not to be foundin a “modern city.” In many cities, farminghas been outlawed. Policymakers would bewise to realize the nutritional, social, eco-logical, and economic benefits of reversingthis mindset and putting programs in place toencourage cities to feed themselves.48

Planners interested in making room forfarming in cities must look beyond farmers’markets and community gardens to muchdeeper issues of a city’s design. An extensivelight rail system that reduces the need forhighways, or a municipal composting site thatgenerates high-quality fertilizer, or city schoolsthat serve local produce for lunch all representimportant determinants of just how much acity can support the surrounding country.

Whether it is the English commonlands

during the Middle Ages or the conservationreserves of today, keeping the countrysideintact seems an essential ingredient in keep-ing urban life from destroying itself. Farmlandis also less of a drain on public coffers thansuburbs: research in the United States hasshown that municipalities often spend severaltimes more on public services for every dol-lar that new housing generates in tax rev-enue than they spend on services for everydollar generated by farms and open land.Advocates of farmland preservation point outthat there is no shortage of creative policiesat the disposal of interested municipalities.The scarce commodity has been the politicalwill to confront powerful building and trans-portation lobbies.49

The location and design of food marketsis vitally important for urban farming. In theabsence of government leadership, the place-ment of food retailing outlets in cities is oftenhaphazard and inefficient, and it ultimatelyends up wasting food and driving up prices forpoor consumers. For example, Edward Seidlerof FAO’s Marketing Group notes that of thefive wholesale markets in Hanoi, a city of 5million, only one was planned. The others alldeveloped spontaneously and now find them-selves deep in the inner city, where storage andwaste disposal facilities are insufficient, fooddamage and losses are high, food quality isreduced, and traffic jams and parking areconstant challenges for both buyers and sell-ers—all resulting in higher consumer prices.As many Third World cities begin to erecthousing developments and transportationinfrastructure to accommodate their rapidlygrowing populations, local officials who donot incorporate food shops and markets intotheir plans will force masses of residents to payextra and travel long distances to buy food.50

Seidler suggests that city authorities con-sider establishing local retail markets thatcater to low-income consumers, while simul-


60

Farming the Cities

In Rosario, Argentina, seven farmers’ markets and more than 800 community gardens sprouted up throughout the city.

taneously providing outlets for farmers, espe-cially those who grow vegetables on the edgeof cities. “In Dar es Salaam and Mbabaneand Manzini in Swaziland, the local councilshave established small retail markets to servelocal clientele living in the suburbs,” Seidlernotes. “In Barbados and in many Caribbeancountries, local councils have established smallretailing facilities around local bus stops toprovide services to hawkers who formerlysold their produce, exposed to the elements,on pavements blocking pedestrian traffic.” 51

In Rosario, Argentina, where farming inthe city was initially a response to the nation’sfinancial crisis, officials are trying to establishit as an integral part of urban life. They cre-ated the Programa de Agricultura Urbana(PAU), a cooperative venture that unitesurban farmers, municipal officials, agricul-tural experts, and representatives of non-governmental organizations. The PAU helpedurban farmers secure and protect agriculturalspaces, take advantage of value-added agri-cultural products, and establish new marketsand market systems. Soon, seven farmers’markets and more than 800 community gar-dens—supporting some 10,000 farmers andtheir families—had sprouted up throughoutthe city. The cooperative also involved resi-dents of Molino Blanco, a low-income hous-ing project, in the design and construction ofa large garden park that includes walkingpaths, soccer fields, and large designated areaswhere people can raise food.52

“Urban farmers tell me that they are notonly pleased to have the opportunity to gen-erate income and feed their families,” saidRaul Terille with the Centro de Estudios deProducciones Agroecologicas in Rosario anda member of the PAU. “But also, after yearsof feeling marginalized, they are making agenuine contribution to their city and arefinally being recognized for it.” 53

From Cienfuegos in Cuba to Piura in Peru

and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, city officialsare also taking inventories of available vacantland in the city through on-the-ground sur-veys by farmers and through geographic infor-mation systems and are analyzing the land’ssuitability for agricultural use. In a few cases,officials then demarcate certain areas to bepermanently used for farming, which givesfarmers the incentive to make long-terminvestments in the land.54

In the erosion-prone city of Villa María delTriunfo in Peru, where 83 percent of allurban farmers are women for whom this is thesole source of income, city officials surveyedthe 70-square-kilometer urban landscape todetermine what share was suitable for farm-ing. By 2004 the municipality had estab-lished a dedicated urban agriculture office inits economic development branch; had ear-marked money to subsidize seed, fertilizer,and other inputs for city farms; and encour-aged an increase in local processing and mar-keting. The program helped create 399 familyand community plots on formerly vacantland, examined sources of irrigation water,developed a municipal consolidation plan forurban agriculture through 2010, and formeda multistakeholder advisory group that sup-ports ongoing implementation of the plan.55

Mapping can be used not just to find suit-able farmland but also to track food avail-ability, as the city of Philadelphia in the UnitedStates did several years ago. It found that alack of healthy food options and high rates ofdiseases like cancers, diabetes, high bloodpressure, and heart disease coincided in thelow-income areas of the city. The FoodTrust’s Supermarket Campaign leveraged thisinformation to create the Pennsylvania FreshFood Financing Initiative, an $80-millionpublic-private partnership that works toincrease the number of grocery stores inunderserved communities. Penn State Uni-versity researchers are using National Institute


61

Farming the Cities

of Health money to study the effects of thisinitiative on fruit and vegetable consump-tion patterns and on health.56

If the goal is to be more self-sufficientwhen it comes to food, city officials need tothink creatively. Perhaps the most cutting-edge design innovation for bringing foodback into cities is also the most sublime—rooftop gardens. At the midtown-Manhattanheadquarters of Earth Pledge, an environ-mental organization hoping to lower NewYork City’s temperature and reduce pollution,a green roof with an organic kitchen gar-den—filled with lettuces, tomatoes, egg-plants, peppers, cucumbers, assorted herbs,and even sweet potatoes—thrives above theshade created by the skyline and is out ofthe way of ground-level pollution from cars.57

Rooftop gardens are springing up every-where. City Hall in Chicago sports a greenroof; in Tokyo, a new ordinance requires allnew building plans with more than 1,000square meters of floor space to cover 20 per-cent of their roofs with vegetation as a wayto reduce energy costs and urban tempera-tures. (See also Chapter 5.) In Mexico, theInstitute for Simplified Hydroponics hasdeveloped low-cost roof garden technolo-gies that will help many more landless peas-ants in the world’s expanding cities feedthemselves and earn a living from urban farm-ing. And in Morocco, students and commu-nity groups have built garden beds from oldtires filled with compost and vermiculite onrooftops and achieved yields dramaticallygreater than conventional gardening. Theycollected and recycled water that drainedthrough the bottom of the beds, reducingwater use by 90 percent over standard gar-dening techniques—a critical factor for coun-tries susceptible to drought.58

In some cases, urban food policy councilshave been formed to help guide governmentdecisions on food. These informal coalitions

of local politicians, hunger activists, environ-mentalists, sustainable agriculture advocates,and community development groups allowfood policy decisions to reflect a broad rangeof interests and tap possible synergies. Forinstance, hunger activists, senior citizens, andfarmers might join to lobby for farmers’ mar-ket coupons for the poor and elderly, so thathungry citizens could buy healthy food andfarmers would have new customers.59

The Hartford Food System (HFS), forexample, works to give people in Connecti-cut better access to nutritious and affordablefood. The group has helped establish farmers’markets, distributes coupons to low-incomehouseholds for use at these markets, createda grocery delivery service for homeboundelderly people, and launched the ConnecticutFood Policy Council—a body that helpsguide Connecticut’s decisions about food.HFS tracks prices at supermarkets and oper-ates a 400-member community-supportedagriculture program that distributes 40 per-cent of its produce to low-income people. Italso educates the public about farmlandpreservation and lobbies for policies that pre-serve farmland.60

These local councils might have anotherpolicymaking advantage. “Only an entity onthe ground that knows the community andknows the nuances of the local food systemknows how to make the system work for localfolks,” says Mark Winne of HFS. Policiesdesigned in the rarefied air of bureaucraciesmay not be relevant or effective for specificcities or communities. HFS interviewed hun-dreds of low-income Hartford residents todetermine the main causes of hunger in thecity. After finding a strong correlation betweenfrequent bouts of hunger and poor access totransportation options, the group workedwith city officials to modify bus lines so thatroutes connected low-income communitieswith supermarkets. HFS also helped to open


62

Farming the Cities

several farmers’ markets and a new super-market in the same poorly served area.61

Without public participation, policiesintended to support urban farming mightactually harm it. In the 1980s, the governmentof Tanzania issued a policy encouraging peo-ple in cities to grow food. This policy built onyears of farming and cattle raising in Dar esSalaam and other cities during colonial times.Much of that cow grazing, though, was in lesspopulated parts of the cities owned by wealthyforeigners. The new policy meant animalswere in the densest part of the cities, creatingnoise and manure problems.62

Bombarded with complaints, the city gov-ernment in Dar es Salaam responded by beingstricter about noise, dirt, and manure cleanup.Between 1985 and 2005, the number of ani-mals kept in the city quadrupled, growingfaster than the human population did, butthe number of problems reported plummeted.The amount of land under cultivation hasdoubled, hundreds of jobs have been created,and the availability of locally grown food hasincreased dramatically. Women who keep cowsor raise vegetables in their backyards reportmaking two to three times as much per yearas their husbands, inspiring people elsewherein society. “Once national and municipal lead-ers understood the on-the-ground reality ofurban agriculture, they were convinced of itseconomic value—especially for poor familiesand women,” says George Matovu, RegionalDirector of the Municipal Development Part-nership in Tanzania.63

One way to make it easier for cities tofeed themselves is to slow the flow of peopleinto them from the countryside. Policymak-ers in rural areas have to make living there ahealthy, viable option for the world’s poor, sothat they are not forced to move to cities. Injust the last 50 years, some 800 million peo-ple have moved from the countryside tourban areas in search of higher incomes and

a better way of life.64

Investing more in rural agriculture canhelp ease this migration, according to a 2006study by FAO. The report found that gov-ernments and policymakers are largelyunaware that if “properly managed,” agri-culture can not only produce food but alsohave a positive impact on poverty alleviation,food security, crime control, and protectionof the environment in both cities and thecountryside. In particular, improving roadsand rural infrastructure, access to credit, andsocial services in rural areas can help curbthe rate of people leaving the country and easepressure on urban centers. People leavingthe country often gravitate to a nation’s cap-ital or a few large cities, a strain that can belifted by medium-sized towns that embraceurban agriculture as farming and farming-related industries flourish.65

A low-cost option for growing food incities might be even more important thanever before. The migrations that promptedEbenezer Howard to demand a new patternof city development are minuscule comparedwith the changes under way in the ThirdWorld today. “On the longer term, urbanagriculture will be sustainable especially ifits potential for multifunctional land use isrecognized and fully developed,” noted Renévan Veenhuizen, editor of Cities Farmingfor the Future by Resource Centers on UrbanAgriculture and Food Security. “The sus-tainability of urban agriculture is stronglyrelated to its contributions to the develop-ment of a sustainable city: an inclusive, food-secure, productive and environmentallyhealthy city.” 66


63

Farming the Cities

The most cutting-edge design innovation for bringing food back into cities is also the most sublime—rooftop gardens.


Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, evolvedas a farming settlement. From the mid-1700sto the early 1800s, apart from being one ofAfrica’s best natural harbors, this area offeredsafe drinking water, fresh grapes, apples, let-tuce, spinach greens, potatoes, goats, sheep,chickens, and ducks to European explorersand traders en route to India. West Africansrecaptured on their way to slavery and thosefreed in Europe and North America oftenresettled in Freetown.1

Farming and trading emerged as the mainsocioeconomic activities under the Britishcolonial administration from 1808 to 1961.After the Second World War, a freehold landtenure system emerged, which was distinctfrom the communal ownership found in thehinterlands. By the end of British rule, mostagricultural lands had been sold for urbanuse: residences, industries, and stores. Free-town’s urban center grew in built-up landarea and population after independence. The Greater Freetown Area now covers about 8,100 hectares. The population nearlyquadrupled between 1963 and 1985—from127,917 to 469,776 people. Economic lifeand food security deteriorated rapidly. It tooka war before agriculture began to resurge inthe city.2

In March 1991, a retired military corporallaunched the Revolutionary United Front(RUF) rebel war from the eastern part of thecountry. In 1992, the military defending thecountry against the RUF overthrew the rul-ing All People’s Congress Party, forming theNational Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC).In 1996, through a democratic process, theNPRC handed power over to the currentruling party, the Sierra Leone Peoples Party,which gradually ended the war with the helpof local and international organizations.

The war destroyed lives and property.

More than 2 million people were displaced,and major economic activities, such as farm-ing, mining, and forestry, were disrupted.People flooded into Freetown, increasing thedemand for food.3

Urban agriculture returned to the city, asmany public sector workers became unem-ployed. Some of their spouses entered theinformal sector, cultivating leafy vegetablesand marketing fruits and vegetables withinand near the Freetown municipal boundary.Young displaced people and women return-ing to the city turned to farming locally andinternational trade in vegetables betweenConakry in Guinea and Freetown. Those who could not afford to travel operated asgo-betweens and served as local retailersbetween wholesale importers and consumersin Freetown. Other women joined the urbanagriculture marketing chain by preparing fast food for the growing numbers of unem-ployed, single, separated, or divorced familymembers.

During the war, Njala University College(now Njala University) relocated to Freetownin early 1995, and researchers there startedstudying technical, health, and institutionalissues among farmers in the city. For instance,farms in Freetown are rainfed from April toOctober and irrigated from November toMarch. During the irrigated months, farmerswork with old, worn-out containers that leak.Those who get wet are prone to falling illwith arthritis and pneumonia. Of particularconcern to health and energy experts areschool-age children, who during the week-ends often help their parents prepare seedbeds, transport household refuse, water, andmarket the crops.4

Urban farming grew even more impor-tant during the nine months of the ArmedForces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) mili-

64

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------FREETOWN

Urban Farms After A War

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/freetown

tary junta in 1997–98. As a result of an internationaltrade embargo against theAFRC regime and the rebel blockade of tradebetween Freetown and itshinterland, food shortagesbecame acute. Farmingwithin and near Freetownbecame a basic survivalmechanism.5

After the war ended inlate 2002, the first post-war census revealed thatFreetown’s populationhad increased to 772,873and now contained 16percent of Sierra Leone’s population. To helpfeed the burgeoning city, since 2005 theMinistry of Agriculture and Food Security(MAFS) has promoted urban farming associa-tions and training under the U.N. Food andAgriculture Organization Special Project forFood Security’s Farmers Field School. Forinstance, drip irrigation technology wasextended to some of these plots.6

In June 2006, the MAFS teamed with the International Network of Resource Cen-ters for Urban Agriculture and Food Secu-rity to launch the Freetown Urban andPeri-Urban Agriculture Project (FUPAP).The project has trained people in multistake-holder processes for action planning andpolicymaking for urban agriculture. Stake-holders trained include representatives of the Freetown Municipality, the Ministry ofLands and Country Planning, the MAFS,Njala University, the National Commissionfor Environment and Forestry, the NationalFarmers Association of Farmers, the Decen-tralization Secretariat, and a variety of non-governmental organizations.7


65

Cityscape: Freetown

Women selling vegetables from Guinea in Freetown

Thomas R. A. Winnebah

The growing population, particularly inthe city’s east ward, has increased the demandfor housing. Dwelling units are being con-structed within stream valleys where farmingtakes place. Farming is being pushed to peri-urban lands. With the re-establishment of theFreetown City Council, the newly constitutedmultistakeholder city team under FUPAP isworking toward the full integration of agri-culture into city development plans. This mayhelp redress access to land as another con-straint to farming.

Farming—the foundation of life in Free-town since pre-colonial times—was marginal-ized by nonfarm land uses during urbaniza-tion, but it resurged in importance during therecent war. The current attempts at placingagriculture at the core of urban planningsuggest that farming will always exist in Free-town as long as there are mouths to feed.

—Thomas R. A. Winnebah, Njala University, Sierra Leone

—Olufunke Cofie, International WaterManagement Institute, Ghana

66

The meeting was over, a motion to remove therail tracks was passed—and yet a rail revivalseemed almost certain. Friends of the Railway(F.O.R.) in Perth, Australia, was trying torestore the Perth-Fremantle railway in 1982after the government had closed it in 1978.Perth was a modern city and the car was king.The government wanted the railway reserveto become a freeway, and buses were to replacethe trains. But since the rail’s closure, buseshad lost 30 percent of the riders who hadused the train. Further, the first signs of aglobal oil crisis had hit Australia in 1979, anda transportation system entirely reliant on oil-fueled cars and buses did not seem sensible.1

After four years of intense lobbying,F.O.R. was gaining public support. Thegroup had called a public meeting; the gov-ernment’s political party had responded bybusing in 600 supporters two hours beforethe start of the event, preventing any one else

from entering. After the government sup-porters passed their “unanimous” vote, themedia were merciless in their coverage of a“bankrupt government.”

Within a year the government was votedout of office and the train was restored. NowPerth has 180 kilometers of electric rail, with72 stations covering every corridor of thecity. The rail system is often the fastest way toget around the city, and patronage grew from7 million passengers a year to 47 million in2005, with sharp increases again since fuelprices skyrocketed.

Perhaps more important, land near sta-tions has become the preferred site for livingand working. As the city has focused newdevelopment around stations, these areas havebecome hives of activity. Perth has pioneereda travel demand management system calledTravel Smart that has educated people abouttransportation options. As a result, more than

C H A P T E R 4

Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy

Greening UrbanTransportation

Peter Newman is Professor of City Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainability and Technol-ogy Policy, and Jeff Kenworthy is Associate Professor in Sustainable Settlements at the Institute, at Mur-doch University in Perth, Australia.

15 percent of car trips have changed intopublic transport or bicycle trips. Extensivecycleways now lace the metropolitan area,including a “veloway” for bicycles along raillines. Funding for public transportation andbicycles now outstrips road funding andincludes a hydrogen fuel cell bus trial.

Although still powerful, the car is notquite the king it was in Perth. Politiciansthere can now bathe in the glory of havinghad the foresight to prepare their city for anoil-constrained future. The F.O.R. campaignand hundreds of others in cities around theworld demonstrate that modes other thanthe car can be facilitated by popular govern-ments. For this to happen, however, civilsociety must develop a vision of what thiswill involve for each city. Turning that visioninto reality will unavoidably involve politics.

“Greening” urban transportation, as Perthhas tried to do, is about finding ways to makewalking, bicycling, other nonmotorized modeslike rickshaws, buses, light rail (modern trams),and heavy rail more competitive with the caras well as about reducing the need to travel inthe first place through land use changes, forexample, that put people’s homes and jobscloser together. This chapter looks at therationale for doing this, at the policies that canmove cities in that direction, and at somecases where this is happening.

Transportation and Land Use in Cities

While each city has its own transportationstory, the past 30 years have seen an explosionin the growth of cars in cities worldwide. In1970 there were 200 million cars in theworld, but by 2006 this had grown to morethan 850 million—and the number isexpected to double by 2030. Heavily mar-keted, highly successful in its political cam-paigns, and now the symbol of success for any

aspiring person from Boston to Belgrade toBeijing, the car seems unstoppable.2

Cities everywhere have been filling withcars—leading to congestion, road accidents,and bad air quality. Traditionally the responsehas been to build more road capacity, whichdisplaces transit (public modes of trans-portation), bicycling, and walking and whichcauses a city to spread outwards along high-ways. Travel distances get longer and traveltimes favor cars. This sets up a spiral of morecars, more roads, and more sprawl that seemsnever-ending.

Cars are useful, and the desire to own oneis so great that every city has to work out howto deal with this. Yet ownership of cars maynot be the problem, as the extent to whichcars dominate a city varies enormously. Citiesare shaped by their economies, their culture,and their transportation priorities in a syner-gistic way.

This chapter uses data on urban areas fromthe Millennium Data Base prepared for theInternational Union of Public Transport andconducted by the Institute for Sustainabilityand Technology Policy at Murdoch Univer-sity in Australia, the most comprehensiveurban transportation and land use data setavailable. Data for 84 cities in 1995 (the lat-est year available) are used to establish aglobal perspective (available at www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au), while 15 cities typ-ical of the situation in industrial and devel-oping countries are presented here to illustratethe main differences. The indicators discussedinclude transportation energy, transit use,population density, nonmotorized transport(NMT), relative speed of transit to traffic,and length of freeway.3

The variation in the amount of fuel usedin private passenger cars in the 15 cities isshown in Figure 4–1. Not surprisingly, Amer-icans lead the world in the use of cars and fuel,although there are significant differences


67

Greening Urban Transportation

between Atlanta at 2,962 liters of gasolineannually per person and New York at 1,237liters. People in Australian, Canadian, andNew Zealand cities are next, with 700–1,200liters per person. European cities use around450 liters per person, while people in EastEuropean cities use about 100–240 liters.The figures in wealthy Asian cities are alsoextremely low, averaging 275 liters per per-son. Cities in developing countries are mostlyat the lower end of this array, ranging fromaround 70 to 300 liters per person. Ho ChiMinh City—with 27 liters per person—ishardly measurable on the same scale.4

Cities vary in their ability to afford cars andto provide roads for them, but there is sur-prisingly little correlation between car fuel useand city wealth. Cities like Tokyo and HongKong are very wealthy, for example, but theirresidents use 10 times and 25 times less gaso-line than Atlanta. European cities in generalare among the wealthiest in the world, butpeople there use six times less fuel than peo-ple in Atlanta. It seems that cities invest ineither the ability to travel by car or the abil-ity to travel by other modes such as transit.5

Figure 4–2 shows the proportion ofmotorized transportation on transit in the15 typical cities. These show an even greaterspread. U.S. cities have vanishingly small lev-els of transit, although 9 percent of NewYork City’s motorized transport is on publictransportation. Australian, Canadian, andNew Zealand cities are just a little better,varying from 5 percent in Perth to 14 percentin Toronto. Most European cities are over 20percent transit, although a few have less than10 percent. East European cities, in contrast,are all around 50 percent transit. The wealthyAsian cities are very high in transit, withHong Kong at the top with 73 percent. Fig-ures for cities in developing countries arehighly scattered, from Mumbai at 84 per-cent to Ho Chi Minh City at 8 percent and

Riyadh at 1 percent. Again, these patterns donot seem to follow per capita wealth levels.Some cities appear to invest in transit. Oth-ers do not.6

The third indictor of significance is non-motorized transport—mainly walking andbiking, but also some rickshaw use. Figure4–3 shows that the cities with high car use andlow transit generally have low walking andbiking: North American, Australian, and NewZealand cities average 8–16 percent (Atlantais just 3 percent) whereas European, LatinAmerican, and Asian cities are around 30percent (although Shanghai registers 78 per-cent and Ho Chi Minh City 44 percent).The density of these cities helps explain thedifferences, as distances in compact cities areshort enough for walking. The political pri-ority assigned to facilitating NMT is alsoimportant, which explains Bangkok’s rela-tively low figure. Copenhagen and Amster-dam have high bicycling rates—over 30percent—due to the exceptional provisionof cycling infrastructure. For Chinese cities,the bicycle remains the largest contributor tourban transport, but this is being challengedby rapid motorization. (See Box 4–1.)7

The fourth important indicator is densityof population in people per hectare of devel-oped urban land. (See Figure 4–4.) In general,higher-density cities have the most walk-ing/biking and transit use, while low-den-sity cities have the most car use. This is seenclearly in a larger sample of cities. (See Figure4–5.) Although there are some exceptions—Curitiba and Krakow are a little lower in den-sity than expected for their low car use, forinstance, and Bangkok is higher density thanexpected for the city with the highest car usein Asia—the link between urban form andtransport seems to be quite clear. Some ana-lysts argue that transport patterns are mostlycaused by other factors such as income andgasoline price, but Figure 4–6 shows the same


68


large variation in transportation energy withdensity across Sydney’s suburbs. The densityof activity is very high in the center (City ofSydney), where the fuel use is similar to Shang-hai or Krakow, whereas usage in the inner

suburbs is like Munichand in the outer sub-urbs it is like Houston. This also shows that it is not income driv-ing these patterns,because Sydney—likeall Australian cities—declines uniformly inwealth from the centeroutward.8

From these trans-portation and land usedata, it is clear thatthere is one set of prob-lems associated withlow-density cities—sprawl-based car depen-dence—and a differentset associated withhigh-density cities—congestion-based carsaturation.

Cities built aroundcars sometimes useautomobiles 10 timesas much as other cities,and they have land usepatterns that suggestthere is little alterna-tive. Many of theseurban areas have a pat-tern of low-densityland use that is so car-dependent that it rein-forces the downwardspiral of greener modesof transportation. Theyhave traffic problems

not only on the freeways that lace them butalso in their centers, which are often domi-nated by car parks and traffic conflicts. Butthey also have no other viable options fortransportation. It appears that only cars can get


69


Source: Kenworthy and Laube

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000Liters Per Person Per Year

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba

Hong KongKrakowBogota

ShanghaiHo Chi Minh City

figure 4-1


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 4–1. Private Passenger Transport Energy Use in 15 Cities, 1995



AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-1


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 4–2. Proportion of Motorized Passenger-kilometers on Public Transport in 15 Cities, 1995

us to destinations in a reasonable time. Thisis mainly the case in U.S., Australian, NewZealand, and Canadian cities as well as increas-ingly on the fringes of European cities and intransitional cities that are allowed to sprawl.9

Cities that have retained denser land

use generally supportmore transit and walk-ing/biking. But theyalso have less space forvehicles on theirstreets. Thus in manyof these denser cities,cars, scooters, andthree-wheel taxis arerapidly filling thestreets—the traditionaldomain for public lifein a city—leading to adecline in air qualityand more noise andtraffic congestion.Worse, as public spaceis converted to use byprivate vehicles, busesare slowed down andthe public space forwalking, cycling, andother nonmotorizedtransportation likerickshaws is reduced.The result is that use ofgreener transportmodes begins to spiraldown in dense cities aswell. Cars become thequickest and safestmeans even in heavytraffic. This is rapidlybecoming the case inmany Asian, African,Middle Eastern, andLatin American cities.10

Car-dependent and Car-saturated Cities

Cities are shaped by many historical and geo-graphical features, but at any stage in a city’shistory the patterns of land use can be


70



Residents Per Hectare

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Figure 4–4. Urban Density in 15 Cities, 1995



AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-1


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Percent

AtlantaNew York

PerthVancouver

ZurichMunich

BangkokTokyo

São PauloCuritiba



figure 4-3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 4–3. Proportion of Total Daily Trips by NonmotorizedModes in 15 Cities, 1995

changed by altering its transportation prior-ities. Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti hasargued that there is a universal travel timebudget of around 1 hour on average per per-son per day. This “Marchetti constant” hasbeen found to apply in every city in the Mil-lennium Data Base’s global sample as well asin data on U.K. cities for the last 600 yearsand defines the shape of cities:11

• “Walking cities” were and remain dense,mixed-use areas that are no more than 5kilometers across. These were the majorurban form for 8,000 years, but substantialparts of cities like Ho Chi Minh City, Mum-bai, and Hong Kong, for example, retainthe character of a walking city. Krakow isalso mostly a walking city. In wealthy citieslike New York, London, Vancouver, andSydney, the central areas are predominantlywalking cities in character.

• “Transit cities” from 1850–1950 werebased on trams and trains, which meantthey could spread out 20–30 kilometers,with dense centers and corridors followingthe rail lines and stations. Most Europeanand wealthy Asian cities retain this form, asdo the old inner cores in U.S., Australian,

and Canadian cities. Many developing citiesin Asia, Africa, and Latin America havethe dense corridor form of a transit city, butthey do not always have the transit sys-tems to support them, so they becomecar-saturated.

• “Automobile cities” from the 1950sonward could spread 50–80 kilometers inall directions and at low density. U.S., Cana-dian, Australian, and New Zealand citiesthat were developed in this way are nowreaching the limits of the Marchetti con-stant of a half-hour car commute as theysprawl outwards and hence are redevloping.In some cities, like growing megacities

or rapidly sprawling ones, the travel timebudget for an increasing proportion of peo-ple can be exceeded. Invariably people willadapt by moving closer to their work or find-ing a better transportation option. The searchfor better options can form the basis of socialmovements that seek to provide greenertransportation.

There are many reasons to overcome cardependence and car saturation. (See Table4–1.) Perhaps the best way to see it overall isthe lack of resilience in a city when cars begin


71


Some commentators fear that the world willnot be able to cope with the growth in Chinesecities as people there are buying cars so rapidly.Yet the 200 million Chinese who have movedinto cities over the last 10 years use around 50liters of transport fuel per person—in total,the 200 million use less in a year than Atlanta’s4.1 million people use and one quarter as muchas Sydney’s 3.5 million people.

Of course, if the Chinese choose to buildfreeways and sprawl their cities like Atlanta,they will end up using cars like Atlanta does.But there is almost no possibility of that hap-

pening, despite the government’s recent attemptsto build freeways. Chinese cities are built ofhigh-rise towers, so they house some 150–200people per hectare. Space for highways becomesthe limiting factor in high-rise cities, and thecurrent building phase appears to be reachingthat limit in cities like Shanghai. Atlanta, at 6people per hectare, is the lowest-density city inthe world. Freeways there are constantly beingexpanded to enable movement, and there is stilla lot of space for such roads.


Box 4–1. Is the Motorization of Chinese Cities a Threat to the World?

to dominate. A city needs many kinds oftransportation and land use options, not justone type. This is what Eric Britton, an Amer-ican transport planner living in Paris, callsthe New Mobility Agenda—breaking the

stranglehold of the sin-gle “car-only” optionfor cities and provid-ing instead a widerange of options. Thiscan build resilienceinto the city, especiallywhen it faces crises likeclimate change and thepeaking of world oilproduction as well asthe variations in eco-nomic and social func-tions that transportneeds to address.12

Fuel is a majorproblem for car-dependent cities if pre-dictions about globaloil production peak-ing come true. Citiesthat are not preparedwith greener trans-portation options mayfind the era of oildepletion more diffi-cult than cities thathave struggled tocombat car depen-dence. However, fuelis only one of theissues listed in Table4–1. Too many cars ina city will continue tobe a problem no mat-ter what fuel is used.But even fuel prob-lems in vehicles are noteasily dealt with by

simply improving efficiency. Table 4–2 setsout the fuel efficiency performance of trans-port options in the global cities sample.13

Urban car travel is on average nearly twiceas energy-consumptive as average urban bus


72


Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-7

Kilometers Per Hour100 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000Source: Kenworthy and Laube

Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-5



figure 4-6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

Residents and Jobs Per Hectare

Source: Kenworthy and LaubeFringe Suburbs

Outer Suburbs

Inner Suburbs

City of Sydney

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

300

600

900

1200

1500

Figure 4–6. Urban Density versus Private Transport EnergyUse in Local Government Areas in Sydney, 2002

Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-7


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-5



figure 4-6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000Li

ters

Per

Per

son

Per

Yea

r



Outer Suburbs

Inner Suburbs

City of Sydney

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

300

600

900

1200

1500

Figure 4–5. Urban Density versus Private Transport EnergyUse in 58 Higher-Income Cities, 1995

travel, 3.7 times more than typical light railor tram system travel, and 6.6 times moreenergy-intensive than average urban electrictrain travel. Light rail and tram systems typ-ically involve a lot more stopping and start-ing than heavy rail, with stations much closertogether. So although their average passengerload is similar to heavy rail, their energy effi-ciency is a little poorer. Diesel rail is only a lit-tle more fuel-efficient on average than anurban bus. Average occupancies on trains areroughly equal across types—generally morethan twice that of buses and about 20 timeshigher than cars. Overall, these data re-

emphasize the importance of developing agood backbone of electric rail in cities ifenergy conservation is to be enhanced. Citieswithout such systems are the ones with veryhigh gasoline use.

Many commentators look at the theoret-ical potential in the various modes to see ifactual passenger loads could be increased.Bus loadings vary enormously, although theseare not easily improved if, for example, a busroute is through highly dispersed suburbs.The main target is the ridership level in cars,which could carry four people instead of theaverage 1.52. This average number is so uni-

versal, however—it ranges from a lowin Geneva of 1.20 to the highest inManila at 2.5—that it appears unreal-istic to expect much higher occupancy.Car pooling has little potential in thisarea as it offers participants only a lim-ited timetable. But public transport hasa much higher range—from 1.8 in busjitneys in Manila to 239.4 in Mumbaiper carriage (often with many people onthe roof). So there is a real potential forchange in transit occupancy levels.14

The other way to improve vehiclefuel efficiency is through improvingthe vehicle technology itself. Since thefirst oil crisis in the early 1970s, the


73


Table 4–1. Problems in Cities Related to Cars

Environmental

Photochemical smog

Toxic air emissions

High greenhouse gascontributions

Loss of forest and rural land

Greater stormwater problemsfrom extra hard surface

Traffic problems—noise, neigh-borhoods cut up by roads

Economic

Costs from accidents and pollution

Congestion costs

High infrastructure costs in newsprawling suburbs

Loss of productive agriculturalland

Loss of urban land to asphalt

Obesity and other health impacts

Social

Oil vulnerability

Loss of street life and community

Loss of public safety

Access problems for those without cars and those withdisabilities

Road rage

Table 4–2. Average Fuel Efficiency and Occupancy by Mode in 32 Cities, 1990

Average Fuel Measured Average Mode Efficiency Vehicle Occupancy

(megajoules per (number ofpassenger-kilometer) occupants)

Car 2.91 1.52Bus 1.56 13.83Heavy Rail (electric) 0.44 30.96Heavy Rail (diesel) 1.44 27.97Light Rail/Tram 0.79 29.73

Note: Rail mode occupancies are given on the basis of theaverage loading per wagon, not per train.The average occu-pancy of cars is a 24-hour figure.SOURCE: See endnote 13.

solution has been cast as one of creating moretechnologically efficient cars and trucks. Thisis still seen by many commentators as themost important response. Energy entrepre-neur Jeremy Leggett of Solarcentury, forinstance, suggests that U.S. dependence onMiddle Eastern oil would be reduced to zeroif fuel efficiency were improved in the U.S.vehicle fleet by just 2.7 miles per gallon. Thisassumes that people do not drive more ifthey need less fuel per kilometer, yet the pastfew decades have seen people driving moreand more in the United States.15

Vehicle engines have become more effi-cient in recent decades, but this has been off-set in the United States and Australia by anincreasing proportion of heavier sports util-ity vehicles in the overall fleet. Thus U.S.vehicle fuel efficiency improved from 1975to 1987 but has dropped from 26.2 miles pergallon then to 21.4 in 2006, and Australianfleet averages are now below their levels inthe 1960s. In contrast, European and Chi-nese standards on vehicles are beingincreased, which is likely to have rippleeffects throughout the vehicle industry.Huge technological advances are available in vehicle fuel efficiency; they just need to be mainstreamed.16

Air quality data from across the world’scities indicate continuing problems in thisarea as well. Vehicle and fuel technologyimprovements in most industrial-countrycities have been able to hold overall ambientair pollution levels steady or reduce themdespite increases in driving. But this is not thecase in cities in most developing countries.Yet this is even more important in thesehigh-density cities, where air pollution threat-ens the health of millions. In cities like Mex-ico City, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, andDhaka, most traffic consists of three-wheelertaxis with two-stroke engines (in MexicoCity, for instance, 55 percent of traffic is

mini-taxis). These are cheap to run but dirty,causing air pollution that is sometimes threeto five times the level recommended by theWorld Health Organization.17

In Delhi, one study suggested that 10,000people were dying every year from air pollu-tion. Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain from theCentre for Science and Environment therefirst raised this issue in the early 1980s; in1985, environmental lawyer M. C. Mehtasued the government of India for inaction onthe issue. In 1998, after much consideration,the Supreme Court mandated that all busesin Delhi use compressed natural gas (CNG)as fuel by 2001. By 2006, some 80,000 CNGvehicles could be found on Delhi’s streets,including all public buses and mini-taxis. Airpollution dropped by 39 percent. Now otherIndian cities have followed, and Beijing wantsto do likewise.18

To deal with another major problem in car-saturated cities—congestion—municipal gov-ernments often turn to freeways. These areusually proposed to help free up congestion.Speeding up traffic will save time (at leastfor awhile) and is thought to save fuel andemissions because vehicles are involved inless of the stop-and-start driving that wastesfuel. Traffic planners use benefit-cost analy-ses based on these ideas to justify the largecapital cost of freeways. But the data do notsupport these contentions.

Is congestion associated with higher fueluse in cities? No, cities with higher congestionhave lower fuel use. (See Figure 4–7.) Thosewith the least congestion use the most fuel.Although individual vehicles in less-congestedcities are moving more efficiently, they arebeing used much more and for longer dis-tances; at the same time, people in these citiesare not using more fuel-efficient modes oftransportation as much.19

When road capacity increases, car use doestoo, to fill the space created. In a study of U.S.


74


cities over the past 30 years, the Texas Trans-portation Institute found that there was nodifference in the levels of congestion betweencities that invested heavily in roads and thosethat did not. Thus it is possible that a policyof road-building designed to reduce traffic canactually have the opposite effectand increase it.20

The building of freeways variesconsiderably across the world’scities. Data on the amount of free-way per person in cities generallyindicate that “if you build roads,cars will come.” (See Table 4–3.)West European cities and wealthyAsian cities place very little empha-sis on such roads. These cities areamong the wealthiest in the world.Latin American and Chinese citieshave 50 times less freeway percapita than U.S. cities do. Whenfreeways are expressed in terms ofmeters per dollar of wealth in thecity, then sadly the cities that areinvesting most heavily in freeways

relative to their wealthare those in Africa andthe Middle East. Thiswould indicate a mud-dled developmentassistance priority sys-tem.21

Limiting car use inorder to reduce con-gestion is a more sus-tainable solution thanbuilding freeways. This has been done in Greater London.Mayor Ken Living-stone did what manypeople thought wasimpossible—he levieda congestion tax that

proved to be popular. For many years trans-port economists have recommended thatcities tax the use of cars to reduce congestionand to pay for motor vehicles’ external costs,such as pollution and accidents. AlthoughSingapore and Oslo had already set up these


75


Table 4–3. Freeways in 84 Cities, Summary by Country or Region, 1995

Cities within Freeways per Freeways per Region or Country Population City Wealth

(meters per (meters per $1,000 thousand population) gross regional product)

United States 156 4,970Australia and

New Zealand 129 6,520Canada 122 5,850Western Europe 82 2,560Asia high-income 20 650Eastern Europe 31 5,260Middle East 53 11,880Latin America 3 620Africa 18 6,410Asia low-income 15 3,990China 3 1,170


Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-7


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear

figure 4-5



figure 4-6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Lite

rs P

er P

erso

n Pe

r Y

ear



Outer Suburbs

Inner Suburbs

City of Sydney

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

300

600

900

1200

1500

Figure 4–7. Average Road Traffic Speed versus PrivateTransport Energy Use in 58 Higher-income Cities, 1995

systems, London was the biggest city toattempt it.

Officials ringed London’s inner city withsensors that let people pay automatically orthat fined those who did not pay when theycrossed into the central city. And they put themoney raised back into better transit. Trafficwas reduced by 15 percent and bus serviceimproved dramatically, as buses were betterable to meet their schedules and the city sup-plied more of them. People who continued todrive appreciated the 60,000 fewer vehicles aday entering central London; 50–60 percentof those who stopped driving changed totransit. Stockholm is now moving toward acongestion tax after a six-month trial founda reduction in traffic of 25 percent in themorning rush and 40 percent in the evening.About half the commuters moved to transit,with a 4.5-percent increase in its use.22

Some other cities faced with congestionhave decided not to build freeways—and haveturned out to be global leaders in green trans-portation. Copenhagen, Zurich, Portland inOregon, and Vancouver and Toronto inCanada all faced considerable controversywhen freeways were initially proposed. Thecity governments decided instead to providegreener options—light rail lines, cycleways,traffic calming, and associated urban villages.All these cities had citizen groups that pushedvisions for a less car-oriented city and a polit-ical process that allowed and encouragedtheir inputs.23

Today many other cities are trying todemolish freeways that have blighted centralurban areas. San Francisco removed the

Embarcadero Freeway from its waterfrontdistrict in the 1990s after the Loma Prietaearthquake in 1989. It took three ballot ini-tiatives before public consensus was reached,but the freeway has been rebuilt as a tree-lined boulevard with pedestrian and cyclespaces. As in most cases where traffic capac-ity is reduced, San Francisco has not foundit difficult to ensure adequate transport. Traf-fic calming studies for many years have shownthat cities adapt as people switch to differenttransport modes and stop taking unnecessarycar trips and as cities create land use changesthat are more compatible with the new traf-fic capacity. Regeneration of land uses in thearea has followed this change of transporta-tion philosophy.24

Seoul, South Korea, has removed from itscenter a large freeway that had been builtover a major river. The freeway had becomecontroversial because of its impacts on thebuilt environment as well as the river. After amayoral contest in which the vision for a dif-ferent kind of city was tested politically, thenew mayor began a five-year program that sawthe freeway dismantled, the start of a riverrehabilitation process, the restoration of ahistorical bridge over the river, the restorationand rehabilitation of the river foreshores as apublic park, restoration of adjacent build-ings, and extension of the underground railsystem and a bus rapid transit (BRT) systemto help replace the traffic. The project hasbeen very symbolic for Seoul, as the riverwas a spiritual source of life for the city. Nowother Asian cities, especially in Japan, areplanning to do similar projects, and Aarhus inDenmark has removed a major arterial roadcovering a small river and created a beautifulforeshore regeneration.25

What these projects have shown is thatwe should, as David Burwell from Project forPublic Spaces, says, “think of transportationas public space.” Freeways, from this per-


76


Some cities faced with congestionhave decided not to build freeways—and have turned out to be global leaders in green transportation.

spective, become very unfriendly solutionsas they are not good public spaces. But boule-vards with space for cars, cyclists, pedestrians,and a busway or light-rail system—all pack-aged in good design and with associated landuses that create attractions for everyone—these are the gathering spaces that makegreen cities good cities. The Aarhus Rivernow attracts people and investment to the areathat was once blighted by the busy road. TheDemos Institute, a U.K. public policy researchgroup, has shown how public transport helpscreate good public spaces that in turn helpdefine a city.26

Traffic engineers are increasingly aware ofthis new paradigm for transportation plan-ning. Andy Wiley-Schwartz of the U.S. pub-lic policy group Project for Public Spacessays that “road engineers are realizing thatthey are in the community development busi-ness and not just in the facilities develop-ment business.” He calls this the “slow road”movement. A similar movement in Denmarkspearheaded by the urban designer Jan Gehlhas stressed the importance of making allpublic spaces, especially roads, into people-ori-ented spaces where the priority is for pedes-trians and cyclists.27

Both car-dependent and car-saturated citiesthus need a combination of transportationand land use options that are more favorablefor greener modes—that is, they must savetime compared with a car. First, public trans-portation needs to be faster than traffic downeach major corridor. Cities where transit is rel-atively fast are the ones with a reasonablelevel of support for it (see the data on the 84cities on the Web site). The reason is simple:public transport in these cities saves time.28

Second, more people need to live and workwhere they have greener transportationoptions. Densities in central cities, regionalcenters, and neighborhood centers need toincrease so that whatever mode people choose

they can travel less. Transit needs densitiesover 35 people and jobs per hectare of urbanland (though preferably 50 people), cyclingalso begins to be effective over 35 people perhectare, while walking requires densities over100 people and jobs per hectare.29

And third, transit service levels and con-nectivity need to allow time savings to occur.Transit must be available at 15-minute inter-vals or less and be provided at night and onweekends. A city with inadequate public trans-portation can be restructured into a series oftransit cities where local bus services link toa faster service down corridors. These localbus services can then go across the corridorsby linking into stations in a coordinated wayfrom many directions. Vancouver and Sydneyhave restructured in this way, and Denverhas a rail project planned that will transformthat city’s transit system.30

Rebuilding Cities with TransitTo reverse sprawl-based car dependence, it isalmost impossible to redevelop a whole cityso that transit is faster than the traffic. But itis possible to make transit faster than trafficdown all main corridors. The European andAsian cities with the highest ratio of transit totraffic speeds have achieved this with rail.Rail systems are faster in all 84 cities in theMillennium Data Base by 10–20 kilometersper hour (kph) over bus systems, which rarelyaverage over 20–25 kph. Busways can bequicker than traffic in car-saturated cities,but in lower-density car-dependent cities it isimportant to use the extra speed of rail toestablish an advantage over cars in traffic.This is one of the key reasons railways arebeing built in more than 100 U.S. cities.31

Rail, together with proper zoning, caninduce density around stations. The Metro-rail system in Washington, DC, built in 1976,has grown to 168 kilometers of track with 86


77


stations and has become a key factor in shap-ing housing and employment patterns. Thisprocess—called transit-oriented development,or TOD—is becoming a guiding philoso-phy for planners, politicians, and developersas it not only reduces car use, it also savesmoney on infrastructure and helps createcommunity and business centers.32

Centers or TODs need to be plannedalong every public transport system so thattransit cities are built as an antidote to auto-mobile cities. In these centers—especiallymajor regional centers—walking and cyclingneed to be given priority so that short jour-neys can be done quicker. The walking city isjust as functional in today’s economy as in anyother period of history. A combination oftransit cities and walking cities can be builtwithin an auto city to make it more resilient.Most Australian and Canadian cities are beingplanned and redeveloped with this concept inmind, as are Portland (Oregon), Chicago,and Denver in the United States.33

Less than 1 percent of the trips in Den-ver are by transit, yet the city is rebuildingitself around six new rail lines. Inspired byneighboring Boulder, with its transit andbicycle-friendly center, Denver groups likethe Transit Alliance began a campaign totransform the transit and land use system inthe mid-1980s. A partnership was forgedbetween political leaders, business, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), andneighborhood groups. In 2004, votersapproved a proposition to raise $4.7 billionto provide 192 kilometers of new rail trackwith 70 new stations, 30 kilometers of busrapid transit, and a plan to focus develop-ment around the transit system.34

Greener transportation has begun to trans-form Vancouver, Canada. The city’s popula-tion, like that in many North Americandowntown areas, began declining in the1970s and 1980s. In response, the City

Council created quality urban spaces, goodcycling and walking facilities, reliable electricrail (the Sky Train) and electric trolley buses,and high-density residential buildings with atleast 15 percent public and cooperative hous-ing. The population has grown by 135,000in the last 20 years, and transportation pat-terns have changed. Car trips in the citydeclined by 31,000 vehicles per day between1991 and 1994 (35 to 31 percent of all trips),while cycling and walking increased by107,000 trips daily, rising from 15 to 22 per-cent of trips. By 2006, walking and cyclinghad gone up to 30 percent of trips.35

Families are moving into the city, andschools, child care centers, and communitycenters are now crowded, while the numberof cars owned in the city has dropped to lessthan it was five years earlier—probably aworld first, especially in a city undergoing aneconomic boom. The city requires each devel-opment to provide public spaces and socialfacilities equal to 5 percent of the cost of theproject. These funds improve the city’s walk-ability as well as local community facilities.Vancouver also has redeveloped many areasaround the Sky Train stations.36

Paris, like many European cities, has astrong transit system and a walkable centralarea, but over recent decades it has givenmore and more space to the car. Now, in a bidto reclaim its public spaces, it is implement-ing a series of policies to reduce the numberof cars in the city. The new measures include320 kilometers of dedicated bike lanes, con-version of one-way express routes for motorvehicles into two-way cycle lanes with addi-tional street trees, and the removal of 55,000on-street parking spaces a year. The city alsoplans a new light rail system linking a dozensubway and express train lines, providingcross-city linkages, and 40 kilometers of ded-icated busways that enable buses to travel attwice their normal speed, with bus stops that


78


provide real-time information. MayorBertrand Delanoë says 80 percent of Parisianssupport these innovations.37

Bus rapid transit is filling a niche betweenrail and conventional buses. (See Box 4–2.)Its main features are dedicated lanes, pre-paid fares, level boarding, frequent service,large capacity, signal priority, and intelligentcontrol systems. As BRT can fit onto existingroads, it is cheaper than rail. Ottawa, Curitiba,and Bogotá were the first cities to demon-strate BRT on a large scale.38

The strength of BRT is that it can be likea rail system in bypassing road traffic. Inmany cities in developing countries, thou-sands of minibuses have crammed the streets.With its extra speed, some BRT systems cancarry 20,000 people an hour. Buses in trafficcan rarely carry 8,000 passengers per hour.BRT offers a greener option that is fasterthan traffic or minibuses. Buses have emissionsand noise problems, so they are less able toattract dense development around their mainstops, though this can be overcome withemissions regulations (especially by favoringCNG) and by noise insulation in buildings.39

Paris, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Miami,Boston, Brisbane, Mexico City, Jakarta, Bei-jing, Kunming, and Chengdu are all nowdeveloping BRT systems. Describing theBRT trend in Chinese cities, the Interna-tional Energy Agency notes: “If Chinesecities continue the momentum they havegained in the past few years, transport willserve city development, the strangulation bysmaller vehicles seen elsewhere will beavoided and Chinese cities will move a largestep towards sustainability.”40

Transformation of many car-saturatedcities in the developing world can occurthrough a well-placed BRT or rail system, asso much activity is already built into each cor-ridor. The question of whether to use BRTor rail depends on the number of people to

be transported and the space available in thecentral area. In Mumbai, where 5 millionpeople a day arrive by train, the space is soconfined that only rail could work. In high-density cities, transit-oriented developmentnodes are already in place, they simply needthe transit. Bangkok has begun to provide arail rapid transit system through and aboveits congested streets that has an average traf-fic speed of 14 kph and a transit (bus) speedof 9 kph.41

All these hesitant moves toward greenerurban transportation received a boost fromhigher oil prices during 2006. According tothe American Public Transportation Associ-ation (APTA), use of public transport in theUnited States in the first quarter of 2006was more than 4 percent above a year earlier.Ridership on light rail was up 11.2 percent,and buses carried 4.5 percent more passen-gers. Bus use has seen some astonishinggrowth, especially in smaller cities, notesAPTA president William Millar. Tulsa, Okla-homa, has seen bus travel jump 28 percent inone year, for example. Many systems are run-ning their buses on natural gas or cooking oil,to save money and draw in green riders. Butit is light rail that is booming across theUnited States. Phoenix, Charlotte in NorthCarolina, and Oceanside in California arebuilding light-rail lines from scratch. Denver,Dallas, St. Louis, and many others are racingto extend existing systems, sometimes alongold railway tracks.42

Facilitating Walking and BikingNonmotorized transport—bikes, rickshaws,walking—needs to be given as much priorityas transit if it is to be facilitated. The largenumbers of people who walk or bike or whowould do so if safe routes existed providesplenty of justification for cities to set asidewhole streets and parts of streets.


79


http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/curitiba

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/bogota


80


Since 1974, when the bus rapid transit systemin Curitiba, Brazil, opened, engineers haveknown it was possible to provide the speed,capacity, and comfort of subways at a fractionof the cost. Curitiba was able to move roughly12,000 passengers per direction at peak hour(pphpd) at average speeds greater than 20 kph.Although most metrorail or subway systemshave capacities above 20,000 pphpd and speedsaround 30 kph, Curitiba’s system was closer tothose levels than any bus transit had achieved.

Curitiba built beautiful tube-shaped stationswith platforms at the same level as the bus floor.By paying before entering the tube, passengerscould quickly enter all four bus doors.With adedicated right of way and signals that gave pri-ority to the bus corridors, buses avoided traffic.Buses were switched from direct routes totrunk and feeder services, which cut the num-ber of them on the roads. Businesses enjoyedthe decreased traffic, reduced air pollution, andhigh-speed passenger access.

The share of trips in Curitiba taken by publictransport increased with the BRT and remainedabove 70 percent for over two decades, coun-tering the iron rule that transit use declineswith economic development.The system’s lowcost made it possible to expand bus service tokeep pace with metropolitan growth.WhenBRT expansion stopped in the early 1990s, theshare of trips by public transit began to decline.Today it is about 54 percent—albeit still highfor a city with motor vehicle ownership ofaround 400 cars per 1,000 people.

For more than two decades, BRT failed tothrive outside Curitiba. Brazilian cities such asSão Paulo, Belo Horizonte, and Porto Alegrebuilt bus lanes superficially resembling Curi-tiba’s but without the key elements: prepaidplatform-level boarding stations, restructuredbus routes, and bus priority through the citycenter.When experts considered why no citycould replicate Curitiba’s success, they notedthat its Mayor, Jaime Lerner, had been appointedduring a dictatorship and had military backing

to force private bus companies to reform.Themunicipal transit agency collected fares andpaid bus companies by the kilometer. Bus oper-ators in other Latin American cities blockedsuch changes.

In 1998, Quito built the first real Curitiba-style BRT, routed boldly through the city’s his-torical core on narrow streets. Its speed andcapacity are slightly lower than Curitiba’s, as itgoes through such a dense city center. In 2006,the Quito BRT lane was briefly reopened tomixed traffic, however, significantly compromis-ing the system and illustrating one of the risksof BRT.

Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT system was builtby Brazilian and Colombian engineers who hadanalyzed the Curitiba and São Paulo systems.The main bottleneck in Curitiba is the bus stop.During rush hour, buses back up waiting to dis-charge passengers.TransMilenio’s innovation wasa passing lane and multiple bays at each stop.Up to three buses, not just one, can allow pas-sengers to board and alight at once.The passinglane also allowed express bus services.Trans-Milenio achieved an operating capacity of35,000 pphpd and speeds around 28 kph.Withovercrowding,TransMilenio moves 53,000 pas-sengers per direction per hour, comparable toall but the highest-capacity metros.With redes-igned streets, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and publicspaces, traffic accidents on the corridor dropped,bicycle and pedestrian trips increased, air pollu-tion decreased, and the quality of life improved.

The rapid dissemination of BRT since thelate 1990s owes much to Bogotá’s charismaticMayor at the time, Enrique Peñalosa.Also,development agencies and NGOs began to rec-ognize motorization-related problems, from airpollution to climate change. Many private buscompanies that had opposed BRT becamethreatened by growing private motor vehicleuse and paratransit minibus services; when theyvisited profitable bus operators in Bogotá andCuritiba, they became BRT supporters.

Jakarta opened the first Curitiba-style BRT

Box 4–2. Bus Rapid Transit:The Unfolding Story

Cities need to create a network of “greenstreets” where motor vehicles are banned.This is happening in Denmark and theNetherlands, where cities have bicycle infra-structure such as cycleways. Whole streetsare set aside for bicycles, and the number ofpeople using bikes is increasing. In Copen-hagen, for instance, 36 percent of residentsbiked to work in 2003 (27 percent drove,33 percent used transit, and 5 percentwalked). In Chinese cities, which have along history of cycling, many local mayorsbegan to remove bicycle and pedestrianrights in favor of cars. Now that the nationalgovernment has outlawed anti-bike mea-sures, the green streets of Chinese cities areto be restored. Yet the tension between cardrivers and cyclists is likely to remain, as itdoes in all cities.43

Providing green streets was also a goal ofIndonesia’s Kampung Improvement Pro-gram, a slum-upgrading initiative. In severalIndonesian cities, such as Surubaya, narrowstreets within the kampungs were kept closedto cars, and traditional social life was main-tained. By banning motorized vehicles, thegovernment helped protect the revitalizingkampungs from gentrification. The onlymodes of transportation used within the kam-pungs are foot, bicycle, and becak, the tradi-tional Indonesian trishaw.44

Every city desiring to have greener trans-port will need to favor its public transportand NMT system over road building. Thisis fundamental to greening urban trans-portation. It all comes down to priorities inthe planning of a city. (See Box 4–3.) Twoformer governors from different parties inthe United States, Democrat Parris Glen-dening and Republican Christine ToddWhitman, agree: “If you design communi-ties for automobiles you get more automo-biles. If you design them for people you getwalkable, livable communities.”45


81


in Asia in January 2004.Three corridors of TransJakarta are completed, and threemore are under design.While capacity(5,000 pphpd) and speed (18 kph) are notas high as in Curitiba, correcting designflaws such as having only a single door oneach bus and at each station could morethan double capacity.

In December 2004 Beijing followedsuit, with support from the Energy Foun-dation. Seoul, South Korea, also built anextensive bus priority system, though itdoes not have all the BRT features. MexicoCity followed in 2005 with Metrobus, withearly World Bank involvement and supportfrom EMBARQ at the World ResourcesInstitute. New systems have opened inHangzhou, Guayaquil, and a half-dozenother cities.Today, new BRT systems areunder development in dozens of cities inboth developing and industrial countries.The systems in Brisbane, Ottawa, andRouen in France are among the bestexamples in industrial countries.

Yet obstacles to the spread of BRTremain.There is a risk that the misapplica-tion of the lessons of Bogotá’s TransMile-nio will lead to suboptimal, largely failedsystems. Even U.S. cities have brandedmany marginal improvements in bus ser-vices as BRT, though these systems lackmost of the features that made Curitibaand Bogotá such a success.And Metro andlight rail interests have organized againstBRT in cities such as Hyderabad. Much ofthis competition is healthy, but for manylarge Asian megacities, integrated metroand BRT systems could offer a muchdenser, faster network for less than ametro-only system.

—Walter HookInstitute for Transportation

and Development Policy


Box 4–2. continued

The Economics of Urban Transportation

Many cities built around nineteenth-centuryrail in Europe and parts of the United States,Australia, and Latin America remain in theirtransit city form. As transit systems need tokeep pace with urban growth, new rollingstock and lines into car-dependent suburbs

are required to keep ahead of the avalanchein car use. To fund public transportation,cities have had to find innovative solutions,such as the congestion tax in London or theuse of land sales around stations for Copen-hagen’s new light rail.

Car-dependent cities without adequatetransit need to build new systems becausetraffic growth and urban sprawl are accel-erating car dependence. In recent decadesthis has meant new train systems. As indi-cated earlier, rail can offer a faster optionthan cars (often with average speeds over 50kph) and can facilitate the development ofwalkable centers. But transportation fund-ing sources have tended to favor buses, as these fit into the main priority of build-ing roads.46

Political intervention has led to the revivalof rail when funding has been opened tolocal choice. For example, the U.S. federaltransportation funding process was freeway-oriented from its inception in 1956 until the1990s. Then the Surface Transportation Pol-icy Project (a coalition of over 100 NGOs)drafted the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991, which requires thatlocal choices be made by cities. Funding forgreener transportation has grown, and the acthas been reauthorized twice with large con-gressional support.47

Car-saturated cities can model their tran-sit systems on Hong Kong and Tokyo, wheretransit is funded almost entirely from landredevelopment. In poorer cities, the use ofdevelopment funds for mass transit is clearlyjustified because transit helps transform theeconomy through better planning and effi-ciency in the city.48

Transit-based cities spend around 5–8percent of the GDP of the city’s region ontransportation, but in heavily car-based citiesthe figure is more like 12–15 percent (and itreaches 18 percent in Brisbane). Why? It


82


Cycling is not an easy option in traffic-choked São Paulo, a sprawling metropol-itan region of 19 million. Motorizedvehicles are responsible for 90 percent ofSão Paulo’s smog, which often hangs overthe city in a dark veil, contributing tosevere respiratory problems. Many of thewealthiest residents forgo the streets; thecity’s huge helicopter fleet is second onlyto New York City’s.

But a one-of-a-kind bike parking lot inthe São Paulo suburb of Mauá is prompt-ing city officials to rethink the role ofcycling. Cyclists wanting to ride to theMauá rail station had nowhere to parkuntil 2001, when station manager AdilsonAlcantâra created ASCOBIKE (Associationof Bicycle Riders). For a $5 monthly fee,members park their bikes and receive reg-ular maintenance.The initial 700 spacesfilled quickly, 1,800 members have joined,and the association is planning to expand.

Laura Ceneviva of the EnvironmentalDepartment of the City of São Paulo andthe head of the city’s bicycle working groupsaid “users pay a low fee for a good service,and jobs are created as well.There is noreason why we could not reproduce thissuccessful and efficient service throughoutSão Paulo.”

— Jonas HagenSustainable Urban Transport Consultant


Box 4–3. São Paulo Bicycle Refuge

appears to be due to the costs of car traveland the sheer space required for cars. Cartravel is estimated to cost more than transit(about 85¢ per passenger-kilometer versus50–60¢), even though motorists routinelythink it is cheaper—no doubt because theyfail to take into account such costs as depre-ciation and insurance. Data from U.S. citiesshow that transportation costs between the1960s and 2005 have risen from 10 to 19percent of household expenditures (beforethe recent rise in gasoline prices); cities withthe highest level of car dependence have thehighest percentages and those with bettertransit, the lowest.49

The biggest economic impact of cars oncities is the sheer space they take for roads andparking. Freeway traffic carries 2,500 peopleper hour, a bus lane carries 5,000–8,000, alight rail or BRT can carry 10,000–20,000,and a heavy rail system carries 50,000 peopleper hour—20 times as many as a freeway. Itis no wonder that freeways fill so quickly.Likewise, most car-dependent cities requirefive to eight parking spaces for every car. Allthis space costs money and is simply unpro-ductive land.50

Two calculations for Sydney illustrate theuneconomic, space-hungry nature of cardependence. If downtown Sydney closed itsrail system, the central area would be requiredto build another 65 lanes of freeway and1,042 floors of multistory car park. In real-ity, business would just scatter instead, as itdoes in most heavily car-dominated city cen-ters. This is also a big economic issue intoday’s global economy, as the new interac-tive kind of jobs that are becoming availableseem to favor city centers where a large con-centration of people can meet. Another rel-evant calculation: if the next million additionalpeople in Sydney were located in transit-ori-ented development so that each householdhad one less car, the city would save around

$18 billion in capital opportunity costs dueto space saving and $3–4 billion in annual dri-ving costs. And this does not include thereduced external costs due to pollution reduc-tions or the health savings due to less obesityand depression associated with excessive caruse. Greener transportation is a healthier eco-nomic proposition.51

The economics of greening transporta-tion have been assessed by the Center forTransit-Oriented Development in Oakland,California. Based on a detailed survey acrossseveral states, the staff calculated that peoplein 14.6 million households wanted to livewithin half a mile of a TOD. This is more thantwice the number who live there now. Themarket for TOD is based on the fact thatthose living in such centers now (who werefound to be smaller households, althoughthe same age and the same income level onaverage as those not in a TOD) save some 20percent of their household income by nothaving to own so many cars. People in TODsowned 0.9 cars per household compared with1.6 cars for other people. This freed up onaverage $4,000–5,000 per year. In Australia,a similar calculation showed this would savesome $750,000 over a lifetime.52

The economic benefits of greening urbantransportation are even beginning to be seenby some parts of the normally car-orientedconservative side of politics. According tothe Washington lobby group Free CongressFoundation: “Conservatives tend to assumethat transit does not serve any importantconservative goals. But it does. One of themost important conservative goals is eco-nomic growth. In city after city, new rail tran-


83


The biggest economic impact of carson cities is the sheer space they takefor roads and parking.

sit lines have brought higher property values,more customers for local businesses and newdevelopment.”53

Needed: Political Leadershipand a Vision of

Greener Options

Cities are organisms that work as a wholeregional system and as a series of local parts.They need viable governance systems at boththe regional and the local level to create greentransportation options for more resilient andsustainable cities.

Visionary master plans and regional gov-ernance structures enabled governments tobuild the urban freeways of the auto city.Today, cities need new visionary plans to gen-erate the political momentum and find thefunds for greening transportation, as well asthe governance structures that can carry outthe plans. Regional governance structuresfor transportation exist in most cities inCanada and Australia and, to a lesser extent,the United States. Bogotá and Curitiba reliedon regional governance systems, city money,and World Bank support to build their trans-formative transit systems. Mumbai andKolkata also have a regional governance sys-tem that manages their massive transit sys-tems. Megacities without such a system willfind regional transit difficult.54

But regional transit systems cannot workunless local systems feed into them. Localgovernments, residents, and businesses needto come up with their own green transport

plans, since each part of a city has differenteconomic functions. The cities that havedone best at building regional transit sys-tems—Zurich, Munich, Hong Kong, Sin-gapore, and Tokyo—also have active localtransport planning processes. Zurich has eachcanton choosing the timetable they requirefor their transit.55

Surveys constantly show that people wantto see greener transportation options givenhigher priority in their cities. In Perth, peo-ple were asked if they saw a need for moretransit, walking, and biking over cars, and78 percent agreed they did. Then they wereasked if they would transfer road funding topay for these greener modes, and 87 percentagreed with that idea. In Porto Alegre, Brazil,a people’s budget approach asked citizens toassign priorities for expenditures; the vastmajority of neighborhoods put greener modesof transportation above the need for moreroads. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a surveyshowed that bus and rail projects were favoredby 70–85 percent of those surveyed, whereas“more highway capacity” came in last, with59 percent support. A gasoline tax was thepreferred way to pay for such improvements.And in Oregon, the Transportation PrioritiesProject showed similar sentiments about tran-sit over freeway options.56

In the past, transportation priorities havegenerally been set by engineers, not the pub-lic. But in the United States, at least, votersare sending the clear message that they wantbetter options and are willing to pay forthem. Between 2000 and 2005, voters in33 states approved 70 percent of transportballot measures, generating more than $70billion in investments—much of it for pub-lic transportation.57

Even in Atlanta—the city with the fewestpeople per hectare and the most car use perperson—there are signs of hope. A $2.8-billion Beltline loop has been proposed that


84


Cities need new visionary plans to generate the political momentum and find the funds for greening transportation.

will link unused railroad rights-of-way withthe city’s existing transit lines and will createwalkable communities joined together bygreen trails and public transport. The projecthas lifted the sights of the city, bringingtogether a coalition of interests. “It’s veryimportant that cities and communities gofor a big vision,” says Peter Calthorpe, anurban planner based in San Francisco, “Citiesneed these bold moves and elements to makethem exciting places to live. It’s exactly thekind of thing that will differentiate a cityfrom the suburbs. Suburbs are the sum of alot of little ideas.”58

Determining the views of the public onhow they want their city to function in thefuture can involve deliberative democracytechniques, such as town meetings as occurredin New York after the September 11th terroristattack. In Perth, 1,100 people were broughttogether to plan the city; the result was astrong endorsement for greener transport ina greener city. In the United Kingdom, aforesight technique has been used to look athow cities can be envisioned. The greening ofurban transport options proved to be the onethe community desired the most.59

As described in this chapter, reaching thatgoal requires:• a transit system that is faster than traffic

down all major corridors;• viable centers along the corridors that are

dense enough to service a good transitsystem;

• walkable areas and cycling facilities thatcan mean easy access by nonmotorizedmeans, especially in these centers;

• services and connectivity that can usuallyguarantee access without time wasting;

• the phasing out of freeways and phasing inof congestion taxes that are directed backinto the funding of transit and walk/cyclefacilities as well as traffic-calmed boule-vards; and

• continual improvement of vehicle enginesand fuels to ensure that emissions, noise,and fuel consumption are all reduced.Cities need visions about how they can

be transformed from car dependence and carsaturation to greener modes. And they needpolitical leaders who can overcome the vari-ous barriers that prevent these visions fromcoming true.


85



Los Angeles is known around the world asthe mother of sprawl, thanks to countlessaerial photographs portraying vast landscapesof monotonous suburban houses. It maycome as a surprise to learn that Los Angeleswill soon be known instead as the birthplaceof the post-suburban city.

Los Angeles is a city, a county, and aregion—an immense mosaic of continuousdevelopment in Southern California. Thecity’s 1,300 square kilometers are inhabitedby 3.8 million people (according to the 2005U.S. Census estimate), translating to a den-sity of 30 persons per hectare or 2,930 per-sons per square kilometer. Compared withother global cities, Los Angeles is unques-tionably “suburban” if the term means lowdensity. Los Angeles has half the density ofLondon, one quarter as much as São Paolo,and one tenth as much as Hong Kong orMumbai.1

Seemingly unbounded expansion has beenpart of the city’s geographic pattern for over200 years. The first ring of single-family,detached dwellings was followed by an explo-sion of suburbs following World War II, whenimmense residential developments like West-chester, Lakewood, much of Orange County,and the San Fernando Valley were built up.Like their contemporaneous if more famouscousin Levittown, on Long Island, New York,these subdivisions came to define the imageof suburban sprawl.

From the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s,tens of thousands of home sales were financedby the federal government through variousmeans such as mortgage interest deductions,Federal Housing Administration loans, andinfrastructure subsidy. Federal housing policyhad several political uses: it was an employ-ment program for the vast constructionindustry, it provided housing to the middle

class, and it served conservative national inter-ests (based on the belief that no homeowner,with so much work to do, would have enoughspare time to be a revolutionary). The housingpolicies were also segregationist, since nearlyall early suburbs were restricted to whites.Zoning regulations for housing, first tested inLos Angeles, instituted further restrictionsagainst mixed-use or multifamily housing.2

Los Angeles was the engine behind anemerging, nationally organized real estatelobby at the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury—an industry dominated by residentialbuilders who monopolized the ever-wideningperiphery. In an effective marriage betweenthe government and housing constructioninterests, 58 percent of Californians becamehomeowners by 1960 and the figure neverclimbed higher.3

Los Angeles continued its unabatedgrowth as long as geography, policy, econom-ics, and the environment were amenable. It is only in the new millennium that definitiveresearch corroborated Angelenos’ impressionthat “sprawl has hit the wall.” There is nomore land for easy suburban growth, thecommute times exceed viability, and water—long a determining resource in SouthernCalifornia—is in short supply. Yet Los Ange-les expects to add 6 million new inhabitants—the population of two Chicagos—by 2020.The mother of sprawl must now transformherself into the mother of invention, andthere are signs that she is doing just that.4

The city has slowed its outward growthand has begun to fill interior gaps in the cityfabric. In 2000, the Los Angeles urban areawas more densely populated than San Fran-cisco, New York, or Washington, DC. Unlikethe dramatic landscape transformationwrought by postwar suburbia, the next metro-politan era is creeping into the city more

86

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------LOS ANGELES

End of Sprawl

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/losangeles

Still, within thaturban core of poverty aswell as in the inner-ringsuburbs and some ofthe early postwar sub-urbs, there is a flower-ing of infill projectsthat are adding to thehousing stock and toneighborhood quality.Formerly industrialsections of downtownare witnessing rein-vention as youngurban dwellers move

into the new market-ratehousing. Streets that had been abandoned are now filled late at night with people walk-ing dogs and dining out. Creative nonprofithousing corporations are demonstrating ways to build affordable, multifamily housingon scattered sites throughout the region.Mixed-use developments are supporting local retail and services along with housing.Smaller public schools are being establishedin older neighborhoods so that children canbe educated locally.

Los Angeles has a more than adequatesupply of sites for future infill, with residentsof every income and race willing to live athigher densities, provided they get the hous-ing and services they need. Local policymak-ers are struggling to create stronger publicguidance, so that the next Los Angeles will becharacterized by greater community equality.The lessons this city of nearly 4 million holdsfor metropolitan futures may stem the tide ofexporting the tired U.S. suburban model tothe rest of the world and may simultaneouslycultivate a new, more compact Los Angeles.7

—Dana CuffUniversity of California, Los Angeles


87

Cityscape: Los Angeles

© Bettmann/CORBIS

stealthily, as existing neighborhoods fill inand grow denser. Residents notice changesthat may not seem linked: traffic increases,housing prices skyrocket, parking is moredifficult, children need to be bused to outly-ing schools, new lofts are built downtown,communities grow more ethnically diverse,neighborhood organizations become moreprotectionist, older houses are torn down andreplaced by multifamily housing where per-mitted, and older housing stock is upgraded.5

Some of this infill is improving the qualityof life in Los Angeles. Yet in certain areas theresults are a looming disaster. For example,the core of urban poverty in the region is avast, 272-square-kilometer zone that cutsacross municipal boundaries and holds nearly40 percent of the county’s poorest house-holds. These neighborhoods are growingmore overcrowded with shadow housing, asnew generations of immigrants double andtriple up in existing apartments or turn gar-ages into semi-habitable quarters. Inadequateinfrastructure and services exacerbate prob-lems of poverty and inequity.6

New homes in Lakewood, Los Angeles County, in 1950


Melbourne’s Queen Victoria Market, a nine-teenth-century shopping complex, has a mod-ern facade: 1,300 solar panels—the largestsingle urban grid-connected solar installationin Australia. Regularly classified as one of theworld’s most livable cities, Melbourne has60,000 residents and a 660,000 daytimepopulation, is the heart of a metropolis of 3.6 million, and has emerged as a nationalenvironmental leader.1

The Melbourne City Council is promotingpartnerships between business and govern-ment that encourage business growth whilepromoting environmental quality. The cityintends to build new export-oriented indus-tries and jobs, with a target of a 60-percentgrowth in environmental management capac-ity. The council has adopted important envi-ronment strategies on carbon emissions,water consumption, and waste management.2

The ambitious Zero Net Emissions by2020 effort, on reducing carbon emissions, is backed by comprehensive policies and pro-grams. As the first Australian city to achieveall five carbon-reducing milestones of theCities for Climate Protection Campaign orga-nized by the ICLEI–Local Governments forSustainability, Melbourne has turned theserious threat of climate change into a triple-bottom-line opportunity by combining mar-ket mechanisms and regulation. While someobservers claim that fighting climate changerequires costly action, Melbourne is showingthat businesses can reduce operating costsand improve their competitiveness withenergy-efficient design.3

The City Council, which has already cut its own carbon dioxide emissions by 26 per-cent, has decided to lift its 2010 target froman initial goal of a 30-percent cut to 50 per-cent. Its new office complex, Council House2, is the first in Australia to achieve the maxi-

mum Green Star rating of six. Lord MayorJohn So wants the building to set a bench-mark for sustainable design: “We hope thatCH2 will change the way that buildings aredesigned and constructed in Melbourne,Australia and round the world.”4

Solar-powered louvers on the building’sfacade track the sun, and automatic “nightpurge” windows allow fresh air to cool thebuilding after dark. Wind turbines, solar pan-els, and a gas-fired cogeneration plant providepower. A water mining facility mines waterfrom a neighboring sewer, treats it to Class Astandard, and uses it to flush toilets and runthe cooling towers. The new building uses 87percent less energy than the old one and 72percent less water, while providing occupantswith 100 percent fresh air.5

These types of innovations are beingadopted citywide, as the new MelbournePlanning Scheme requires that all new officebuildings improve energy efficiency, reduceemissions, use passive solar design, use solarenergy or heat pump technology, collect andreuse rain water, recycle wastewater, encour-age waste recycling, and have no impact onthe solar collecting of adjoining buildings.

For existing buildings, owners are encour-aged to audit and reduce their own energyand water use with the GreenSaver program,which subsidizes participants’ energy andwater audits, as well as products such as low-flow showerheads, efficient light bulbs, anddraft sealers. A quarterly Melbourne Forumholds commercial green building discussionswith the real estate, property development,and architecture sectors to drive the adoptionof sustainability principles. A municipal Sav-ings in the City program helps hotels reducegreenhouse gas emissions and the impacts ofwater use and waste. City-run pilot projectsare targeting high-rise apartment buildings.6

88

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------MELBOURNE

Reducing a City’s Carbon Emissions

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/melbourne

Other Council initiativesinclude purchasing greenpower for street lighting andCouncil buildings and form-ing neighboring councils intoa green power bulk buyinggroup. The city is promotinga voluntary carbon marketto allow businesses flexibil-ity in emissions manage-ment and is investigatingjoining the Chicago Car-bon Exchange.

The city is also promoting carbonsequestration through urban tree plantingand a pilot investment in rural conservationplantings to offset emissions from the TownHall. Melbourne’s car fleet has signed upwith Greenfleet, which plants 17 trees per car.When Mayor So attended the 2005 WorldEnvironment Day in San Francisco, emissionsfrom his travel were offset by tree planting.7

The city has also created a $5-millionSustainable Melbourne Fund that has beenworking with Investa Property Group, Aus-tralia’s largest listed owner of commercialproperty, to finance a Greenhouse Guaranteeprogram that delivers energy savings to com-mercial tenants. The fund also invests inwater-saving infrastructure. Businesses, uni-versities, and other organizations can under-take a water audit to determine possiblesavings. The fund will finance the purchaseand installation of water-saving technology.The recipient then has a lower water bill butpays the fund the difference between the oldand new bills until the investment plus inter-est is repaid.8

The 2006 Melbourne CommonwealthGames set new benchmarks in reducing theenvironmental impacts of a world-class event.The state and the city cooperated to plant a

million trees to offsetemissions generated intransporting athletes toMelbourne, provided freepublic transport duringthe event, and housed ath-letes in “green” buildings.9

Melbourne’s leadershiprole has most recently beendemonstrated by its mem-bership in the Large CitiesClimate Leadership Groupthat is supported by theClinton Foundation’s Cli-

mate Initiative. Mayor So linked the grandplan with the practical “agreement to create a buying club for member cities to get lowerprices for sustainable products.”10

Melbourne’s commitment to combatingclimate change has the support of Labor,conservative, independent, and Green coun-cilors. The two major Melbourne-basedbanks are active members of the U.N. Envi-ronment Programme’s Finance Initiative, and the National Australia Bank highlightedits award-winning green headquarters in its2005 Corporate Social Responsibility Report.The State Government and the private-sectorProperty Council have also been closelyinvolved in these efforts.11

Elected councilors, senior staff, and com-munity and business supporters have com-bined to set achievable and ambitious targetsand then raise and expand them. The goal is“an Environmentally Responsible City whichseeks to actively increase natural assets throughthe decisions it takes, the development itchooses to pursue and the benefits andimpacts these have on the natural world.”12

—The Honorable Tom RoperFormer Minister, Victoria Government,Australia


89

Cityscape: Melbourne

The Council House 2 building

David Hannah/City of Melbourne

90

At night, Earth’s cities are visible from spaceas stars or chains of light in a sea of blackness.Many appear to be vibrant and to exudeenergy. People are drawn to the “lights onBroadway,” for example. But a closer exam-ination reveals complex webs of streets, enor-mous buildings, vehicles, and burgeoningpopulations—all of which need energy tobuild, use, and sustain. To meet these needs,cities draw energy from the world aroundthem, providing local benefits—but withhealth, security, and environmental conse-quences for all.

The portrait of urban energy use todaycontains real differences in consumption andresulting ecological footprints among theworld’s cities—differences that reflect the vastfinancial wealth separating the world’s mostindustrialized, rich urban areas from the poorercities just now experiencing rapid economicgrowth. Indeed, millions of people who live inor around the world’s poorest cities do not

have access to modern energy services. Even as industrializing and poor nations

seek to expand their economies to levelsnearer those of rich nations, Earth’s atmos-phere and ecosystems are demonstrating reallimits to our ever-increasing consumption ofresources. Partly in recognition of this, hun-dreds of cities around the world are workingto reduce their ecological footprints.1

The re-visioning of urban life reflects acritical moment in the history of cities, asmany unfavorable factors have converged tomake present trends insupportable. Over thepast 150 years, cities have become increasinglyreliant on dirty and distant energy sources,leaving them vulnerable to supply disruptionsand destroying community-based notions ofenvironmental protection. In the next fewdecades, the vast majority of expanded energysupply will be to meet the needs—direct andindirect—of cities. Increasingly, cities willneed to play a more active role in planning and

C H A P T E R 5

Janet L. Sawin and Kristen Hughes

Energizing Cities

Kristen Hughes is a research associate and doctoral candidate at the Center for Energy and EnvironmentalPolicy, University of Delaware.

building their own energy futures.Cities in the future will bear the brunt of

many challenges related to today’s unsus-tainable energy systems—from air and waterpollution to climate change—particularly asgrowing populations put increasing pres-sure on resources. As cities continue toexpand, the enormity of their contributionsto major social and environmental problemsis only expected to rise. Yet this same enor-mity of scale offers cities the potential tomake beneficial changes with significant localand global impacts. As this chapter describes,cities hold the key to mitigating problemsthrough urban planning, building design,and choice of end-use products and energyresources and technologies. Around theworld, numerous cities are already improv-ing their efficiency and producing more oftheir energy locally and sustainably, andmany of these efforts can be replicated else-where to reduce environmental impacts andimprove the quality of life for urban andrural dwellers alike.

Urban Energy Needs and Constraints

It took millennia to make the transition fromhuman muscle power to draft animals andthen to primitive machines that tapped renew-able energy flows from wind and water. Incontrast, the Industrial Revolution came alongin the mere blink of an eye. In the span of afew generations, cities were transformed fromdense areas of narrow streets with small, lowdwellings to skyscrapers and sprawling sub-urbs. Over time, urbanites traded horses forstreetcars and, eventually, private vehicles.Rarely very large before the advent of steamengines, urban populations began to soar asopportunity drew waves of immigrants tocities and as cleaner streets reduced deathrates. Energy use surged as well, and the

advent of the fossil fuel age—which providedpower for elevators, electric lights, and motorvehicles—enabled cities to become what theyare today.2

Direct energy consumption per person inindustrial-country cities is often lower than inrural areas due to the greater density of liv-ing and commuting spaces. Urban residentsin Japan, for example, use less energy percapita than rural residents do. In older cities,designed before the widespread use of privatecars, energy use per person is lower than insprawling modern cities. The dense environ-ment of Manhattan more than compensatesfor its massive, often old and inefficient build-ings, making New York City one of the mostresource- and energy-efficient places in theUnited States.3

In developing countries, where many ruralpeople lack access to modern energy services,the reverse is often true. The one third ofIndia’s population who live in cities con-sumes 87 percent of the nation’s electricity.And in China, urban residents typically use 40percent more commercial energy than theirrural counterparts. (People in rural Chinaactually use more total primary energy, mainlyin the form of biomass, but most of this is lostduring inefficient combustion.)4

Cities require energy to build infrastruc-ture, to light, heat and cool buildings, tocook, to manufacture goods, and to transportpeople. The infrastructure itself, includingstreets, buildings, bridges, and other urbanfeatures, represents large quantities of embod-ied energy—the energy invested in thesestructures during their lifetimes from the cra-dle of raw materials, to city block, to eventualgrave. (See Box 5–1.) Urban residents alsoconsume large amounts of energy indirectlyin the food and other goods they import.5

Most if not all of the energy used directlyin cities must be imported as well, raising ahost of significant costs and challenges. Pipes


91

Energizing Cities

carrying gas, for example, pose serious safetyand environmental threats in urban areas,where leaks or explosions can cause injuriesand deaths. Electricity generally comes fromlarge, central power plants via transmissionand distribution (T & D) systems that areoften inefficient and unreliable. The central-ized grid permits blackouts to cascadethroughout entire regions. The August 2003blackout in the northeastern United Statesand Canada, for example, which was causedinitially by a fallen tree, affected 50 millionpeople and cost the region $4.5–10 billion.A month later, another tree hit a high-volt-

age transmission line in Italy, leaving 57 mil-lion people in the dark.6

Transmission bottlenecks are particularlypronounced in large metropolitan areas,which require vast amounts of power to tra-verse great distances through a limited num-ber of lines. The share of electricity lost alongthe way ranges from 4–7 percent in industrialcountries to more than 50 percent in parts ofthe developing world, where much of theloss is due to people tapping lines illegally. Inparts of New Delhi, electric cables are caughtin a tangle of hooks and wires as slumdwellers, small factories, Hindu temples, and


92

Energizing Cities

The construction industry accounts for morethan one third of global carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions and produces nearly 40 percent of allhuman-generated waste.That waste traps enor-mous amounts of embodied energy. For exam-ple, concrete (composed of sand, aggregatesuch as crushed stone, and a cement binder)contains about 817,600 Btus per ton.A ton ofsteel contains 30 million Btus—about half theannual energy consumption of a typical home inSan Francisco.

While steel contains a higher amount ofembodied energy per ton, concrete accountsfor the largest portion of construction waste.Although cement represents only 12 percent of the average concrete mixture, it accounts for92 percent of concrete’s embodied energy. In1997, manufacturing 1.5 billion tons of cementworldwide emitted more CO2 than Japan didthat year.The industry’s impacts could bereduced significantly with more use of fly ash—a fine waste powder produced during coalcombustion that is toxic if inhaled. Increasingthe generally accepted rate of 15 percent flyash content in cement to a feasible 65 percentcould avoid emissions of the equivalent of Germany’s entire annual contribution toclimate change. In mid-2006, researchers dis-

covered a way to produce lighter, strongerbricks and build aggregate entirely from flyash. Completely replacing cement with fly ashmay also be possible. Increased use of fly ashcan reduce the need to manufacture cementand crushed stone, while also sequestering atoxic substance.

Using local and traditional materials for con-struction, such as stone, wood, clay, and plantmaterials, can reduce costs, provide local jobs,and improve occupants’ comfort and healthwhile minimizing the embodied energy of con-struction materials. Energy inputs for productionare often lower, and transportation needs—which account for 12 percent of concrete’sembodied energy—are reduced substantially.

Some people are taking the next step byopting to reuse construction “waste.” Thedemolition of Boston’s Central Artery, a stretchof freeway replaced during the infamous BigDig project, generated 20,000 tons of wasteconcrete and over 38,000 tons of waste steel,most of which went to landfills. However, BigDig engineer Paul Pedini had a different visionfor the old highway: he took some concreteslabs and steel beams and built himself a house.

—Stephanie Kung


Box 5–1. Reducing Construction’s Environmental Impact

even wealthy businessmen siphon off 36 per-cent of the city’s power.7

One of the greatest challenges of the cur-rent system is getting energy services to allurban residents. Nearly one fifth of the esti-mated 1.6 billion people worldwide who lackaccess to electricity and other modern energyservices live in the world’s cities. Becauseaccess is defined as areas with grid exten-sions, the actual number truly without accesscould be higher. About one third of Africanslive in urban areas, and at least one quarter ofcity dwellers on the continent do not haveaccess to electricity.8

Too many of the world’s people thus muststruggle daily to afford or find energyresources—most often wood, charcoal, dung,or other biomass. Indoor air pollution causedby burning these inferior fuels results in mil-lions of deaths annually. Heavy reliance onbiomass has also increased the destructionof forests around cities, exacerbating localair pollution and soil erosion. In India, SriLanka, and Thailand, wood harvesting bythe urban poor has produced a halo of defor-estation around cities, towns, and roads. Anda radius of some 400 kilometers has beencleared around Khartoum in Sudan.9

For those with access to modern energyservices, the predominant fuel used for non-transport energy is coal, which accounted fornearly one fourth of total global energy usein 2003; the International Energy Agency(IEA) projects that coal consumption willcontinue to rise significantly through at least2030. Energy from coal and other conven-tional sources comes with high costs, includ-ing soil and water pollution resulting fromresource extraction and use, air pollutionfrom burning, and associated health prob-lems. In China alone, coal use causes thedeath of 100 miners weekly on average, sig-nificant urban air pollution, and acid raindamage to more than a third of the country.10

Furthermore, heavy reliance on fossil fuels,particularly in cities, is the primary driver ofglobal climate change. Cities now house justshy of half the world’s population, but theyare responsible for the vast majority of green-house gas emissions from human activities.11

Reducing Demand withoutDimming the Lights

Much of the energy that people pipe, wire,and truck into cities is used by and in build-ings—constructing and operating them aswell as making their occupants comfortable.Globally, buildings account for more than40 percent of total energy use. When theenergy required for materials, transportation,and construction is included, buildings devourmore than half the energy used in the UnitedStates each year.12

As cities become more populated, moreand more of the world’s buildings are foundin urban areas. In 2005, Shanghai constructedmore building space than exists in all theoffice buildings of New York City. Everymonth, China adds urban infrastructure equalto that found in Houston, Texas, simply tokeep up with the masses of people migratingfrom rural areas to cities.13

The advent of cheap and readily availableenergy let the modern building work in spiteof nature rather than with it. Yet around theworld there is a small but rapidly growingmovement to make buildings “green”—low-ering their energy needs, for example,through efficiency improvements, embod-ied energy reductions, and the use of on-siteenergy resources. Green buildings incorpo-rate designs and technologies often consid-ered new and innovative; in reality, many ofthese ideas have been around for centuries.Today, architects, planners, and others arerediscovering traditional ways to light, heat,and cool indoor spaces and adapting them for


93

Energizing Cities

modern uses.Lighting accounts for nearly 20 percent of

total electricity consumption worldwide.Much of this occurs when the sun is shining.Thus energy use could be reduced dramati-cally with simple design techniques such asnatural daylighting, mirrors and reflectivepaints, and light shelves—horizontal fins atwindows that act as shading devices, reduceglare, and allow daylight to penetrate deepinto buildings. Technology has improved tothe point where glass transmits light whilereflecting unwanted heat. These techniquesand materials not only offset some of thelighting load, they also lower the significantheat gains associated with lighting, reducingair conditioning needs.14

Once design changes have lowered theneed for artificial light, energy demand can bereduced further with modern technologieslike motion sensors—which turn lights, appli-ances, or machinery off when they are notneeded—and energy-efficient bulbs andlamps. Conventional incandescent bulbs con-vert about 10 percent of energy to light andthe remainder to heat. In contrast, compactfluorescent bulbs and light-emitting diodes(LEDs) use far less energy to produce a com-parable amount of light while producing afraction of the heat. These alternatives costmore upfront, but they save energy andmoney over their lifetimes.15

Heating water and space also requires sig-nificant amounts of energy. Better insulation,proper building orientation, and the use ofsolar heating and other techniques can dra-matically lower energy demand and associatedcosts, as can reducing the scale of buildings.

In developing countries, one of the mostcost-effective ways to increase thermal com-fort for the urban poor is to install ceilingsbeneath their roofs in order to reduce heatloss; energy savings from such programs inSouth Africa have exceeded 50 percent.16

“Waste” heat that is vented in conven-tional large-scale power plants or in smallsystems like microturbines or fuel cells can becaptured for heating, cooling, or additionalpower generation. Such combined heat andpower systems improve overall efficiency lev-els dramatically. The Verdesian, a new build-ing in New York City’s Battery Park, capturesheat from a natural gas microturbine to pro-duce hot water, increasing overall energy effi-ciency to 80 percent or higher, comparedwith the 25–35 percent efficiency of a typi-cal fossil fuel power plant.17

The means used to distribute such heat canalso improve efficiency. Radiant floor heating,for example, is generally more energy-efficientthan conventional alternatives, and today’ssystems can operate with fossil or renewablefuels. Rediscovered early in the twentiethcentury and now commonplace in much ofEurope and the United States, radiant heat-ing was devised by the Romans, who placedterra cotta pipes beneath stone floors to heatvillas with flue gases from wood fires. A moremodern technique is used in the HewlettFoundation building in Menlo Park, Cali-fornia, where air is circulated through a raisedfloor, heating and cooling workers ratherthan the space above them and allowing indi-viduals to control temperatures.18

During hot months, space cooling isbecoming increasingly important to keepcities running. The concrete and asphalt jun-gles that replace natural life absorb heat andraise urban temperatures further, creatingwhat is known as the “heat island effect.” InChina’s major cities, air conditioning accountsfor 40 percent of the public’s summer energy


94

Energizing Cities

The Accord 21 Building, opened in2000 in China, uses 70 percent lessenergy than standard buildings.

demand and is the primary cause of powershortages that began in 2003. And in Tokyo,a modeling study found that waste heat emis-sions from air conditioning are responsible for1 degree Celsius of warming during the sum-mer, exacerbating the heat island effect. Asimilar study of Houston, Texas, found thattotal waste heat emissions were responsible forwarming of up to a half-degree Celsius indaytime and 2.5 degrees at night.19

For at least 2,000 years, people in theMediterranean region have passively cooledbuildings with a variety of techniques. Theseinclude cross ventilation over the surface ofa pool of water, open buildings, tree shading,careful placement and sizing of windows,and the use of massive, thick walls and floorsas insulation from summer heat. Some ofthese techniques are being revitalized today,along with options not available two mil-lennia ago.20

Natural ventilation—the use of outdoor airto cool buildings—reduces the need for airconditioning in some climates. Studies showthat effective night ventilation, adapted tolocal conditions, could reduce the coolingload in office buildings by 55 percent ormore. And the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) estimates that carefulplacement of trees can reduce the energyrequired for cooling by 7–40 percent,depending on the extent of tree canopy.21

Another way to reduce energy demandfor cooling is to top buildings with reflectivesurfaces—such as white paint or metal shin-gles that act as radiant barriers. An EPA-funded study that considered both coolingbenefits and heating penalties of such “coolroofs” found significant net savings in energyuse for 11 major U.S. cities.22

Green roofs and walls reduce heat gain insummer and they also insulate buildings fromcold in winter. Temperatures on conventionalroofs can be 50 degrees Celsius (90 degrees

Fahrenheit) higher than the ambient tem-perature; atop a “green roof,” the tempera-ture on a hot day can actually be belowambient. A study of an eight-story residentialbuilding in Madrid, Spain, found that addinga green roof cut annual energy use by 1 per-cent, while reducing the peak cooling load onupper floors by 25 percent. With enough“cool” or green rooftops throughout a city,substantial reductions in the urban heat islandeffect are possible, with the added benefit ofless urban smog. Green roofs also filter andretain storm water, reducing urban runoffproblems, and they create habitat for birdsand recreational space for people.23

Each of these features alone provides sig-nificant savings. The integration of intelli-gent design with several efficiency measurescan reduce energy use to half or less that ina comparable conventional building. Someexperts believe savings of up to 80 percent arepossible. As peak loads for lighting, heating,and cooling decline, the required size of boil-ers, fans, and other machinery does also, pro-viding greater savings in energy andconstruction costs. The Accord 21 Building,opened in 2000, was the first internationallycertified green project in China. It uses 70percent less energy than standard buildings,causing astonished inspectors to return repeat-edly to check that energy meters are func-tioning properly.24

There are good economic reasons for con-structing more-efficient buildings: they gen-erally have healthier and more-comfortableoccupants, higher worker productivity,reduced tenant turnover, and better per-forming students in schools. The Interna-tionale Nederlanden Bank headquarters inAmsterdam uses about 10 percent of theenergy of its predecessor and reduces workerabsenteeism by 15 percent, for a total savingsof $3.4 million annually. In the United States,the average premium for a “green” building


95

Energizing Cities

is 2–5 percent, but studies find that the asso-ciated financial benefits over 20 years aremore than 10 times the initial investment.And the costs of green buildings are fallingwith design and construction experience.25

Although the marginal cost of improvingefficiency is lowest when buildings are con-structed, retrofits can be highly cost-effectiveas well. Simple strategies like daylighting,efficient lighting, and glazing can pay forthemselves in as little as one year. More than300 retrofit projects—from insulation towater system improvements—undertaken inChina in recent years had an average pay-back period of 1.3 years.26

Such advances can also provide importantbenefits for the world’s poor. In industrialnations, maximizing efficiency throughdesign and cost-effective end-use technolo-gies can ensure that poor residents are notforced from their homes by rising energycosts. In the developing world, efficiencyadvances can bring dramatic quality-of-lifeimprovements by making energy servicesmore affordable to the poor. LEDs, forexample, provide an estimated 200 timesmore useful light than kerosene lamps. At$55 each, solar-powered lamps with LEDscould brighten the nights of the poor. InTembisa, a shantytown of Johannesburg,South Africa, a survey found that almost10,000 households spend more than $60each for candles and paraffin every year;with access to microcredit (see Chapter 8),such families could afford cleaner, betterlighting freely powered by the sun.27

In ancient Greece, many cities wereplanned in grids so that every home hadaccess to the sun for warmth and light inwinter; the ancient Romans went so far asto pass “sun-right laws,” forbidding buildersfrom blocking access to the winter sun.Green roofs date back thousands of years,the most famous being the Hanging Gar-

dens of Babylon, constructed around 500BC. The lessons of these ancient practices,combined with state-of-the-art technolo-gies and materials, provide today’s citieswith powerful tools to achieve dramaticefficiency improvements.28

Powering Cities LocallyWhen Thomas Edison installed his first elec-tric systems in the late nineteenth century, heenvisioned an industry with dozens of com-panies generating power close to the point ofuse. Such a system would be particularlysuited to densely populated urban areas. Ini-tially, the industry evolved along these lines,with many companies producing power onsite and capturing the waste heat. But bythe mid-1930s most industrial countries hadestablished monopoly industries, drivengreatly by the economic benefits of ever-larger generating stations matched with trans-mission and distribution systems. It was notuntil the 1980s that efficiency limits weremet—which, combined with a variety of eco-nomic and environmental challenges, ledmany experts to realize that bigger is notalways better when it comes to energy pro-duction.29

Small-scale, locally installed power equip-ment, also called distributed generation (DG),could enable cities to meet much of theirown energy needs once again. Today, DGremains more expensive per unit of energyoutput than conventional, centralized gen-eration, but costs continue to fall and asso-ciated benefits are significant. Distributedgeneration reduces the need for expensivetransmission and distribution infrastructurewhile lowering grid losses. By bypassing theT&D system, DG also improves reliabilityand reduces vulnerability to accident or sab-otage. Because they are modular and can beinstalled rapidly, distributed small-scale gen-


96

Energizing Cities

erators can expand to keep pace with demandas a city grows, deferring or preventing theneed for new central power plants. This is par-ticularly important in developing countries,where migration is rapidly raising urban num-bers as well as energy demand. And distrib-uted systems provide local control andownership of energy resources, encouragingcommunity-level economic development.(See Chapter 8.)

Most DG today comes from inefficientdiesel generators or natural gas turbines. Butseveral new options are emerging, with tech-nological progress on a variety of fronts. Forexample, advanced technologies such as high-performance microturbines and fuel cellspromise reliable, efficient alternatives. Fuelcells require minimal maintenance and can besited in crowded urban centers because theyare clean, quiet, and highly flexible. Severalfuel cell technologies are under develop-ment, with many already producing powerfor modern office buildings and hotels;advanced fuel cells could soon generateenough energy to supply a large proportionof the electricity and heat needed to powera city and warm its buildings.30

Today fuel cells or advanced microtur-bines must rely primarily on natural gas thathas to be piped into cities. But alternativesalready exist: methane from a local landfill willsoon drive a fuel cell in the city of Vaasa,Finland, supplying heat and power for 50homes. Eventually, fuel cells can use hydro-gen produced from a variety of renewablesources.31

Far beyond feeding turbines and fuel cells,renewable resources can provide energy forcooking, lighting, heating, cooling, and eventransportation in the world’s cities andbeyond. Renewables already meet the energyneeds of millions of people around the globe,and renewable energy markets are experi-encing exponential growth. Wind and solar

power are the fastest-growing electricitysources, and biofuels are the world’s fastest-growing fuels; all are experiencing double-digit annual growth rates.32

Wherever the sun shines, buildings—whether shacks or skyscrapers—can becomemini-power or heating stations. Solar photo-voltaics (PVs) generate electricity directlyfrom sunlight, often at precisely the timewhen power demand is greatest and electric-ity is most costly. PV technology has advancedto the point where it can literally be inte-grated into structures—in roofing tiles andshingles, outer walls, and glass windows—generating not only electricity but also shadeand insulation. When used for buildingfacades, PVs can be cheaper than granite ormarble. Building-integrated PV (BIPV) isnow widely used in Europe and is spreadingto other regions as well. The IEA estimatesthat BIPVs could meet nearly one fifth ofannual electricity demand in Finland, morethan 40 percent in Australia, and about halfof the total in the United States.33

Solar thermal systems, which use the sun’swarmth to heat water and space, adornrooftops from Freiburg in Germany toJerusalem in Israel and can pay for them-selves in just a few years through fuel savings.Shanghai and other Chinese cities are becom-ing hotbeds for solar energy, driven by theneed to reduce coal and oil consumption.China now leads the world in the manufac-ture and use of solar thermal systems. Solarpower and heating offer enormous potentialin other developing-country cities as well,where they could provide electricity, heat,


97

Energizing Cities

Green roofs date back thousands of years, the most famous being the Hanging Gardens of Babylon,constructed around 500 BC.

and hot water for families and communitiesin informal settlements that currently have noaccess to the electric grid or other modernenergy services—and for far less than it wouldcost to extend the grid.34

Cities can also tap the insulating proper-ties of the ground beneath them. Heatpumps use the near-constant temperatures ofEarth or groundwater as a heat source inwinter and a heat sink in summer to heat andcool water and space. The U.S. militaryreplaced individual space heating, cooling,and water heating systems with ground-source (also called geothermal) heat pumpsin more than 4,000 housing units in FortPolk, Louisiana, eliminating nearly one thirdof the community’s electricity use and 100percent of the natural gas previously requiredfor heating and cooling. In the world’slargest residential application of this tech-nology to date, the Beijing Linked HybridProject will use heat pumps to heat and coolalmost 140,000 square meters (1.5 millionsquare feet) of new apartments.35

There is evidence that high-temperaturegeothermal water was used to heat buildingsin ancient Pompeii. Today, such sources aretapped for district heating systems in cities inFrance, Iceland, the United States, Turkey,and elsewhere. Paris has the largest such sys-tem in the European Union.36

Although cities have little land availablefor energy crops, they have an enormouspotential resource for biomass energy: urbanwaste. New York City, for example, pro-duces 12,000 tons of garbage per day. Thewaste must be shipped as far away as Ohio,

and disposal costs the city more than $1billion annually. In industrial- and develop-ing-country cities alike, per person genera-tion of municipal waste is increasing withpopulation and lifestyle changes. Due pri-marily to a lack of resources and disposalsites, as much as 90 percent of the waste insome developing-country cities is not col-lected; instead, it is burned or left to rot inthe streets, creating heavy smoke and fumes,water pollution, and disease.37

But one person’s trash is another’s blackgold, and urban waste can be used to pro-duce everything from cooking fuel for indi-vidual households to grid-based electricityfor office buildings and homes or biofuels formodern vehicles. Where waste does make itto landfill sites, methane can be extracted togenerate electricity, reducing release intothe atmosphere of a greenhouse gas (GHG)that is 21 times more potent than carbondioxide. Landfill gas produces electricity inmany U.S. cities, in São Paulo in Brazil, andin Riga in Latvia, and it meets nearly twothirds of power demand for lighting in Mon-terrey, Mexico.38

Waste can also be treated in anaerobicdigesters, which break down almost anyorganic material—from paper and yard wasteto garbage and municipal sewage—into com-postable solids, liquid fertilizer, and a gaseousfuel that can be carried or piped to stoves,heaters, electric turbines, and any devicefueled by natural gas. Most poor people in thedeveloping world spend at least 20 percent oftheir monthly incomes on fuel for cooking.But low-cost, household-sized digesters fedwith feedstock readily available in urban areascan displace dung or firewood, reducing pres-sure on local forests while providing familieswith a smoke-free and healthier environment.And a Tanzanian study found that biogascould save five hours of household labor daily,giving women and children more time for


98

Energizing Cities

A new district with 1,000 dwellings in Malmö, Sweden, meets 100 percentof its electricity needs with solar and wind power.

productive activities.39

On a larger scale, many industrial-countrycities—including Frankfurt, Vienna, andZurich—are converting waste to gas forenergy. In early 2006, San Francisco launcheda pilot project to produce power from dogwaste after finding that it accounted for nearly4 percent of the residential garbage collected.Oslo, Norway, has perhaps the largest systemin the world that uses raw sewage to producespace and water heating. Heat is drawn fromthe sewer and transferred to a network ofwater pipes that feed thousands of radiatorsand faucets throughout the city. And theSwedish coastal city of Helsingborg runs itsbuses on biogas made from local organicwastes. New technologies can convert eveninorganic materials—from hospital and indus-trial wastes to car tires—into electricity andtransport fuels.40

Although the potential is limited in urbanareas, even wind and water can provide somecities with much needed energy. Wind energy,in particular, faces visual and resource sitingconstraints, but these challenges have notalways discouraged its use. Tokyo has installed2.5 megawatts of wind turbines along itswaterfront, and in May 2005 an electricians’union installed the first commercial wind tur-bine in Boston, which will provide electricityfor its regional training center. Cities alongcoastlines or large water bodies can tap localresources from new directions, helping toalleviate transmission constraints. The Mid-delgrunden Windfarm off the coast of Copen-hagen meets 4 percent of the city’s electricityneeds and is the world’s largest cooperativelyowned wind power project.41

Both New York and San Francisco haveproposed projects to use marine energy forpower. And some cities are literally tappinglocal water sources for cooling. Paris pumpswater from the Seine River to run air-con-ditioning systems, and Toronto uses the

deep, frigid waters of Lake Ontario for dis-trict cooling. Toronto’s system has enoughcapacity to cool 3.2 million square metersof office space, or the equivalent of 100office towers.42

Although few cities will meet all theirenergy needs with distributed renewableresources in the foreseeable future, someurban areas are already doing so. A new dis-trict with 1,000 dwellings in Malmö, Swe-den, meets 100 percent of its electricityneeds with solar and wind power, gets itsheat from sea and rock strata and from thesun, and fuels its vehicles with biogas fromlocal refuse and sewage. The planned Chi-nese eco-city on Dongtan Island will tapsimilar resources for an expected popula-tion of 500,000 by 2040.43

Energy efficiency improvements in build-ing design, proper orientation and materials,and more-efficient end-use technologies facil-itate the use of renewable energy for tworeasons. First, because the scale becomesmore manageable, renewables can meet acity’s energy needs more easily; second, as acity reduces its demand for energy, it is in abetter position to bear the higher costs perunit of output that come with many renew-able technologies today.44

While renewable energy technologies arecapital-intensive, they have low to zero fuelcosts, reducing exposure to fluctuations in fos-sil fuel prices. They have far lower impacts onair, soil, and water and, as a result, on humanhealth than conventional fuels and tech-nologies. And they can provide a reliable andsecure supply of power. An analysis of the2003 blackout in the U.S. Northeast foundthat a few hundred megawatts of PV gener-ation strategically placed in and around themajor cities involved would have reduced therisk of the power outages dramatically.45

Renewables also provide local control overenergy supply and generate valuable tax rev-


99

Energizing Cities

enue and local jobs—one of the most press-ing concerns of city mayors, according to a1997 U.N. Development Programme sur-vey. Approximately 170,000 new jobs in Ger-many are attributed to the renewable energyindustry. About 250,000 Chinese areemployed in the solar heating industry, andthe biogas industry has created more than200,000 jobs in India. Further, renewablescan provide energy services where many con-ventional technologies do not or cannot go—into the homes and communities of the verypoorest people.46

Pioneering CitiesWhile cities face formidable challenges inreforming energy generation and use, manyare taking bold steps in this direction—rang-ing from daily municipal operations to spe-cial events and gatherings. (See Box 5–2.)Their actions demonstrate at practical levelswhich policies have proved most effective ina variety of conditions of economic wealth,natural resource endowment, and culturaland political heritage. They also indicate thevital role that cities can play in reducinggreenhouse gas emissions and averting cli-mate change.47

In Barcelona, Spain, after the Green Partywon in city council elections it introducedstrong policies to support renewable energyand reduce reliance on nuclear power. Theprimary focus has been on developing thecity’s solar energy potential—which is 10times as large as its total energy demand.From 1995 to 1999, demonstration projectsand stakeholder consultations took place todevelop policy and a realistic timeline forindustry compliance.48

In 2000, the Barcelona city council man-dated that solar water heating provide 60percent of hot water in new and substantiallyrefurbished buildings. Less than four years

after enactment of the Solar Ordinance,installed solar capacity in Barcelona hadgrown nearly twelvefold; by April 2004,the city’s solar water heating systems savedthe equivalent of almost 16 megawatt-hoursof energy a year, reducing CO2 emissions by2.8 tons annually. The city has sinceextended the requirements to even morebuildings. By early 2006, more than 70Spanish cities and municipalities hadadopted solar water heating ordinances; fol-lowing their lead, the national governmenthas enacted a similar policy.49

In other cities where governmentsencourage increased local reliance on green


100

Energizing Cities

Some 9,000 international gatherings takeplace around the world every year, givingcities a prime opportunity to address cli-mate change in a very public way. Forexample, the Olympic Village constructedfor the 2000 Games in Sydney,Australia,represented the biggest solar-poweredresidential development in the world atthe time.

As part of Beijing’s successful bid forthe 2008 Olympics, city leaders are work-ing to improve local air quality.With assis-tance from the U.S. Department of Energy,the city is trying to reduce coal consump-tion and to increase the use of solar energyfor both electricity and pool heating.

In Germany, a series of Green Goaltargets for the 2006 World Cup Gamesincluded a 20-percent decrease in stadiumenergy use and energy generation fromrenewable sources.These efforts reflectmunicipal desires to attract prestigiousand lucrative special events while avoidingstrains on local infrastructure andresources as well as the global commons.


Box 5–2. “Greening” Special Events

power, one popular mechanism is quota sys-tems, which require that a growing amountof municipal or community energy beobtained from renewable resources, withmarket forces competing to identify the mosteconomical projects. Often referred to asrenewable portfolio standards, these poli-cies can apply to public or private energy util-ities. The publicly owned SacramentoMunicipal Utility District in California—building on its long-running commitment togreen energy—aims to derive 23 percent ofits electricity supply from renewableresources by 2011. And to encourage localPV installations by residential, commercial,and industrial customers, the utility offersincentive payments for every watt installed.50

Cities served by privately owned utilitiesor other actors over which the municipalityhas little control must often follow otherstrategies. In 1995 and 1999, Chicago swel-tered under serious heat waves that broughtrolling blackouts and hundreds of localdeaths. Following a $100-million settle-ment with the private utility ComEd due tothe outages, the city chose to apply thefunds it received toward greater sustain-ability in local energy use in order to reducethe likelihood and impact of future black-outs. In 2001, Chicago negotiated a newpower purchase agreement with ComEd,requiring the utility to provide 20 percentof the city government’s electricity fromrenewable sources by 2006 (although thatwas later changed to 2010).51

Through these and other initiatives,Chicago has started a campaign to become“the most environmentally friendly city inAmerica.” As of 2004, new or substantiallyrefurbished public buildings must meet Lead-ership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) certification as defined by the U.S.Green Building Council. Retrofits of munic-ipal buildings totaling 1.4 million square

meters (15 million square feet) could save thecity $6 million in energy costs annually.52

Chicago’s vision for change is not onlybearing economic fruit, it is also altering thevery texture of the urban environment.Green roofs have sprouted to life atop CityHall and on more than 232,000 squaremeters (2.5 million square feet) of residen-tial and commercial structures. Some250,000 trees planted over the last decadeoffer shade and beauty to local neighbor-hoods. In effect, a city long known for itsindustrial heritage is preparing to seize thenext wave of global economic opportu-nity—one linked explicitly to “green” and“clean” development.53

Another option for cities with private util-ities is evident in the growing movement forgovernments to help a collection of commu-nities meet their energy needs. In the UnitedStates, for example, cities and towns in Cal-ifornia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio,and Rhode Island are now authorized to dothis for local government, area homes, andbusinesses, thanks to recent regulatorychanges. In turn, localities may shop amonga range of energy options. This communityaggregation may allow cities to set more-stringent rules for energy efficiency andrenewables than federal or state standards asa condition of utility contracts.54

Beyond the issue of municipal controland local utility ownership, some cities seekclean local power as a way to keep pace withthe demands of an industrializing society.Since 2000, Daegu in South Korea has pur-sued increasingly comprehensive urban plan-


101

Energizing Cities

Less than four years after enactmentof the Solar Ordinance, installed solar capacity in Barcelona had grown nearly twelvefold.

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/chicago

ning that links renewable energy with localeconomic development. During the1997–98 Asian economic crises, the deval-uation of South Korea’s currency con-tributed to a doubling of energy prices dueto the nation’s large reliance on importedenergy. Against the backdrop of high pop-ulation density and rapid urbanization, thisfocused attention on Daegu’s need to alterits energy model.55

Daegu has established a goal of localrenewables meeting 5 percent of its totalenergy demand by 2010, with long-term tar-gets set through 2050. In addition, the Cen-ter for Solar City Daegu, a joint effort of themunicipality and Kyungpook National Uni-versity, is working to disseminate green tech-nologies. These include PV and solar waterheating installations at schools, on the uni-versity campus, and at sewage and water treat-ment facilities. To help homeowners installsolar roof systems, the city and national gov-ernment are funding up to 80 percent ofinstallation costs. Strong citizen participa-tion has been reinforced by municipal lead-ership in Daegu.56

The need to address environmentalthreats while widening social access to crit-ical energy services are driving efforts inMexico City—home to 20 million people inthe metro area—where a cloud of hazerelentlessly shrouds views of surroundingmountains. In 1998, the World ResourcesInstitute named Mexico City “the most dan-gerous city in the world for children”because of its poor air quality, and the cityremains among the world’s most pollutedurban areas.57

In 2002, officials finally addressed thissituation when they enacted a range of poli-cies that are now organized under MexicoCity’s Proaire initiative for climate protec-tion. Energy efficiency improvements arebeing achieved through the installation of

advanced light bulbs in 30,000 new resi-dential units and 45,000 existing homes.Solar heating systems are due to be installedin some 50,000 residences. Financial sup-porters of Proaire include local electric andwater utilities, the World Bank, corporatefoundations, the Chicago Climate Exchange,and nonprofit organizations.58

Since 2003, Cape Town in South Africahas sought to advance energy efficiency andrenewable energy as a way to bring basic elec-tricity service to poor, underserved neigh-borhoods and to reduce the impact of anational power shortage that is expected tobegin in 2007. The municipal governmentaims for 10 percent of its energy to come fromrenewables by 2020 and has begun energyaudits and efficiency retrofits at public facil-ities. In the Kuyasa region of the city, a pilotproject under the Clean Development Mech-anism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, whichaims to reduce GHG emissions in developingcountries, has insulated ceilings and providedresidents with solar water heaters and compactfluorescent bulbs. The GHG reductionsearned Kuyasa Gold Standard CDM recog-nition in 2005 for exceptional standards insustainable design.59

Numerous other cities are adopting goalsand programs that support sustainable energysystems. (See Table 5–1.) And many citieshave united to form larger networks that canpursue green energy development for both cli-mate protection and urban quality of life. Inmany ways their collaboration—as well asthe actions of regional and state govern-ments—reflects an effort to act in place ofnational governments and the internationalcommunity, which to date have largely failedto resolve major problems associated withconventional energy use.60

Examples of these networks include theU.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement,which encourages cities to lobby the federal


102

Energizing Cities

government for a national climate changepolicy, and the Cities for Climate ProtectionCampaign of ICLEI–Local Governments forSustainability, which focuses on the designand use of climate-related policies amongsome 650 participating local governments.Through such partnerships, city officials areable to share best practices and encourageongoing municipal leadership. And a fewgovernments are now stepping forward toreinforce these efforts. For example, the Aus-tralian government has funded a nationalindependent ICLEI office, which involves216 councils representing 87 percent of Aus-tralia’s population.61

The International Solar Cities Initiative,created to address climate change througheffective actions in cities, has devised anexplicit target to guide “pathfinder” citiestoward major GHG emissions reductions.The target was established by estimating how

much greenhouse gas each person on Earthcan emit annually without overwhelming theability of the atmosphere and biosphere toabsorb it. The target for 2050 is about 3.3tons CO2-equivalent per person. This is aboutas much as the average person in China orArgentina emits today.62

Lighting the WayCities have great potential to influencechange. This power comes not only from themore manageable scale of local populationand energy use but also from their role asnational and regional seats of political power.Cities also frequently represent centers ofpolitical and technological innovation, whereconstituents are closer to these seats of powerand thus retain more influence over policy-makers. And because powerful industries donot wield the same influence at the local level


103

Energizing Cities

Table 5–1. Selected Municipal Energy Targets

City Target

Beijing, China Reduce energy intensity of the city’s economic output by 32 percent between 2004and 2010

Berlin, Germany Reduce energy use in public buildings 30 percent by 2010; incorporate solar waterheating into 75 percent of new buildings annually

Copenhagen, Energy audits required for buildings exceeding 1,500 square meters; all new buildings Denmark must rely on district heating (electric heating banned)

Freiburg, Germany 10 percent of all public and private electricity must come from renewable sources by 2010

Leicester, Reduce municipal building energy use 50 percent from 1990 level by 2025 United Kingdom

Melbourne, Increase municipal use of renewable energy by 50 percent from 1996 levels and Australia private use by 22 percent by 2010

Oxford, 10 percent of homes must use solar hot water or PV by 2010United Kingdom

Portland, Oregon, 100 percent green power for municipal government by 2010; all new city-owned United States construction to meet LEED Gold certification

Tokyo, Japan Minimum 5-percent renewable energy use in large municipal facilities starting in 2004;renewables proposed to supply 20 percent of total energy by 2020


as at national or regional levels, cities canprovide a more even playing field for all.Under such conditions, supporters of cleanpower and related alternatives may find iteasier to introduce groundbreaking changesin cities.

Given that local renewable energy devel-opment can yield significant benefits, what isstanding in the way of change? One majorobstacle is the limited resources available topursue local initiatives. As noted, there arenumerous options for minimizing energyuse and increasing reliance on clean power,but cities need financial, technical, andadministrative support to pursue these strate-gies. Although this is more commonly aproblem in the developing world, it is also aconstraint among municipalities in indus-trial countries.

Investment priorities deserve particularattention in the world’s poorest urban areas.To help achieve more balanced, sustainableeconomic development that simultaneouslymeets people’s needs, nongovernmental orga-nizations (NGOs) and community groupscan encourage governments to link cleanenergy access to poverty alleviation. Bilateraland multilateral program funding must alsomove more quickly from fossil fuels towardrenewables. Initiatives under the CDM andrelated global programs could be used morefrequently for energy projects that reduceGHG emissions.63

The second fundamental challenge isposed by national and international poli-tics. For decades, conventional fuels andtechnologies have received the lion’s shareof global investment in energy infrastruc-

ture. In 2002, the World Council forRenewable Energy noted that the $300 bil-lion of energy subsidies spent every year onnuclear power and fossil fuels is four timesas much as has been spent promoting renew-able energies in the last two decades. Thistrend is all too evident, for example, in theBush administration’s push for next-gen-eration nuclear and “clean” coal technolo-gies, in efforts to boost nuclear power inIndia and China, and in subsidies used bysome developing countries to support fuelslike kerosene and diesel, which make renew-able energy less competitive. Counteringthese developments is going to require apolitical commitment to clear, mandatorytargets for renewable energy use and fortechnology research and development.64

A third barrier is market pressures thatignore environmental and social costs andbenefits in energy prices. As a result, devel-opment of green energy remains at a disad-vantage beyond the most immediatelyprofitable niches, such as wind generation asa hedge against volatile natural gas prices.This is particularly clear in areas where theelectricity sector has been privatized over thelast decade, where governments have oftenfound it necessary to impose firm renewableenergy goals for retail electric providers inorder to ensure green power’s continuedadvance. Such actions highlight national gov-ernments’ crucial role in correcting for pricesand market structures that fail to signal thetrue costs of conventional fuels.65

The effect of market pressure is also appar-ent in the priorities of most electric utilities,which focus on expanding supply rather thanconservation to meet customers’ needs.“Negawatts”—electricity that is never actu-ally produced or sold—would be a viableenergy service to consumers if more govern-ments introduced regulations that encour-aged utilities to pursue conservation.66


104

Energizing Cities

Many sustainability goals can be pursued through policies that do not increase taxpayers’ costs.

The issue of pricing and costs also plaguesthe building sector. Although developers incities like Chicago now have trouble findingthe requisite “anchor” tenants if a new build-ing does not meet certain voluntary greenstandards, this is rarely the case in othermunicipalities. Energy costs often representonly a small share of overall business or house-hold expenses, and cost savings from effi-ciency measures are not always reflected inconventional accounting. As a result, price sig-nals fail to drive change.67

Another fundamental challenge involvesaltering the common skepticism that even alarge number of small-scale, local renewablesystems combined with conservation and effi-ciency will ever be able to produce enoughenergy to meet the demands of a large city. Tosome extent, such mindsets are starting tochange, as evident in the growing movementtoward more sustainable cities and in recentefforts by former President Bill Clinton toencourage climate protection in some of theworld’s largest urban centers.68

Yet a great deal remains to be done incities. As one example, despite some policyefforts to encourage or require green con-struction, the typical new U.S. home stillremains highly energy-inefficient, requiring30–70 percent more energy than new“advanced” green homes. This gap pointsto the need for larger awareness of the long-term gains, both ecological and economic,that can be achieved through more ambi-tious mandates for sustainable practices. Ineffect, a paradigm shift is needed—one thatembraces radical improvements in energyefficiency, with the remaining demand metprimarily by renewable energy.69

Relevant actors and institutions—fromall levels of government to the finance sec-tor—must consider new ways of evaluatingthe life-cycle costs and benefits of renewableenergy and of building design that consid-

ers local conditions and uses local knowl-edge. This will mean involving the author-ities that have the most power to mandatenew requirements and monitor enforcement.It can also ensure the institutional capacity—in the form of financing for “green” homeimprovements, for example—to assist peo-ple who participate in efficiency and renew-able energy programs.70

Contrary to some people’s perceptions,many sustainability goals can be pursuedthrough policies that do not increase tax-payers’ costs, as in Chicago, where greenbuildings receive expedited permitting. Cityplanners can incorporate the “new urban-ism”—which involves building for peoplerather than cars—and related planningapproaches for mixed-use communities thatcombine residential and commercial space.This can minimize energy use and suburbansprawl while making city life more sustainableand enhancing the overall quality of life.71

In addition to education and public aware-ness campaigns, political pressure must bebrought to bear against powerful forces thatfavor the status quo. Positive changes in theenergy sector, particularly in the world’s poor-est urban areas, will require action from notonly municipal authorities but also regional,provincial, and national governments as wellas NGOs and aid and lending institutions.(See Table 5–2.)72

The challenge lies in moving beyondlocal voluntary partnerships toward strongintergovernmental and societal commit-ments for change. Wider civil societyinvolvement will be critical and has alreadyfigured prominently in many recent move-ments for more-sustainable energy use incities. Citizens’ groups can do more by call-ing for national and international changes ininvestment priorities and can work with pri-vate financial institutions favoring cleanenergy as a profitable strategy for minimiz-


105

Energizing Cities

ing business risks from climate change.73

Today cities have an unprecedented oppor-tunity to change the way they supply and useenergy. New eco-cities such as Dongtan inChina may show the way, even as existing

cities turn to technologies rooted in thepast—from adobe architecture to passive solarheating. When complemented by conserva-tion, more-efficient technologies, and newdecentralized, small-scale energy services,


106

Energizing Cities

Table 5–2. Roadmaps for Powering Cities Locally

Obstacle Strategic Response

Lack of control over energy sector

Lack of widespreadaccess to energy service(particularly common inlow-income cities)

Lack of funds or exper-tise to identify andundertake projects

Lack of awareness or understanding of benefits of local greenenergy or how to usetechnologies

Lack of utility involve-ment or of regional,national, or internationalemphasis on renewableenergy development,energy efficiency, con-servation, and GHGreductions


Municipal government can set targets for its own green energy use, procuregoods and services made with local green power, aggregate customer demand,and form power purchase agreements with utilities.

Municipal government can target energy efficiency and conservation in publicand private buildings by requiring energy audits and mandating use of specifictechnologies and construction practices, through city planning and permitting.

Citizens can form cooperatives for local energy development or purchase greenpower.

Governments can support pricing reform and commit to replanting trees toensure wider availability of fuelwood and other biomass resources.

Legalized secondary power arrangements can give urban dwellers access topower sources “owned” by other individuals, thereby avoiding or reducingotherwise prohibitive upfront fees (the utility can set basic technical standardsto enhance safety of energy delivery, while the de facto electricity distributordetermines rates).

Reduced lifeline electricity tariffs (available to low-income users for lower levelsof use) can spread out upfront fees (such as grid connection charges) intofuture payments over time.

Local actors (public or private) can partner with energy service companies or, inlow- to moderate-income cities, bundle projects to leverage microfinance ormulti- or bilateral assistance for the lease or purchase of solar water heaters,PV systems, and safer and more efficient stoves and smoke hoods.

Municipal government can work with local trade organizations, private-sectorchampions, and citizens’ groups on information campaigns, product labeling,professional training, and school curricula.

NGOs and community groups can sponsor demonstration projects.

Municipal or grassroots efforts can coordinate lobbying across locales forchanges in political priorities (toward regional or national targets and commit-ments) to include mandates for both public and private utilities.

States and cities can develop and implement their own policies and bandtogether in multi-state or multi-city agreements to set “de facto” policy.

these efforts can help cities confidently nav-igate the forthcoming peak of cheap oil andnatural gas production while reducing the

impact of climate change. Energy transfor-mation in cities can be the doorway to secu-rity and vitality in urban life.


107

Energizing Cities


Buildings in Rizhao, a coastal city of nearly 3 million on the Shandong Peninsula innorthern China, have a common yet uniqueappearance: most rooftops and walls are cov-ered with small panels. They are solar heatcollectors.1

In Rizhao City, which means City of Sun-shine in Chinese, 99 percent of households in the central districts use solar water heaters,and most traffic signals, street lights, and parkillumination are powered by photovoltaicsolar cells. In the suburbs and villages, morethan 30 percent of households use solar waterheaters, and over 6,000 households have solarcooking facilities. More than 60,000 green-houses are heated by solar panels, reducingoverhead costs for farmers in nearby areas. In total, the city has over a half-millionsquare meters of solar water heating panels,the equivalent of about 0.5 megawatts ofelectric water heaters.2

Kouguan Town Primary School is one ofthe satisfied users of solar energy in Rizhao.Since the wall-hanged solar heat collectorswere installed in 1999, the school has beenrelying on solar energy for all classroom heat-ing in winter and hot water supplies for theentire school all year. After more than adecade, the system is still functioning well.3

The fact that Rizhao is a small, ordinaryChinese city with per capita incomes evenlower than in most other cities in the regionmakes the story even more remarkable. Theachievement was the result of an unusualconvergence of three key factors: a govern-ment policy that encourages solar energy useand financially supports research and develop-ment, local solar panel industries that seizedthe opportunity and improved their products,and the strong political will of the city’s lead-ership to adopt it.

As is the case in industrial countries that

promote solar power, the Shandong provin-cial government provided subsidies. Instead offunding the end users, however, the govern-ment funded the research and developmentactivities of the solar water heater industry.Mayor Li Zhaoqian explained: “It is notrealistic to subsidize end users as we don’thave sufficient financial capacity.” Instead, theprovincial government invested in the indus-try to achieve technological breakthroughs,which increased efficiency and lowered theunit cost.4

The cost of a solar water heater wasbrought down to the same level as an electricone: about $190, which is about 4–5 percentof the annual income of an average householdin town and about 8–10 percent of a ruralhousehold’s income. Also, the panels couldbe simply attached to the exterior of a build-ing. Using a solar water heater for 15 yearscosts about 15,000 yuan less than running aconventional electric heater, which equates tosaving $120 per year.5

A combination of regulations and publiceducation spurred the broad adoption ofsolar heaters. The city mandates all newbuildings to incorporate solar panels, and itoversees the construction process to ensureproper installation. To raise awareness, thecity held open seminars and ran public adver-tising on television. Government buildingsand the homes of city leaders were the first tohave the panels installed. Some governmentbodies and businesses provided free installa-tion for employees, although the users pay for repairs and replacement. After 15 years of effort, it seems the merit of using a solarheater has become common sense in Rizhao,and “you don’t need to persuade peopleanymore to make the choice,” according toWang Shuguang, a government official.6

Rizhao would not be the city it now is

108

Solar-Powered City

CITYSCAPE:

------------

----RIZHAO

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/rizhao1

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/rizhao2

A good environ-ment also bringsmore people toRizhao. The travelindustry in the city isbooming. In the lasttwo years, the num-ber of visitorsincreased by 48 and 30 percent.Since 2002, the cityhas successfully hosteda series of domesticand international watersports events, includingthe International Sail-ing Federation’s GradeW 470 World SailingChampionship.10

The favorable envi-ronmental profile ofRizhao is changing itscultural profile as well,by attracting high-profileuniversities and profes-sors to the city. PekingUniversity, the mostprestigious one in China,is building a residential

complex in Rizhao, for example. More than300 professors have bought their second orretirement homes in the city, working andliving in this new complex at least part of the year. Qufu Normal Unviersity and Shan-dong Institute of Athletics have also chosenRizhao for new campuses. Again, one of thereasons they cited was the environmentalquality in the city.11

—Xuemei BaiCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia

without the clear visionand innovative thinking ofits leaders. Although theprogram was started byhis predecessor, Mayor LiZhaoqian has a specialinterest in continuing it.Before becoming mayor,Dr. Li was vice presidentand professor at Shan-dong University ofTechnology and servedas vice director generalof the Economic andTrade Commission ofShandong Province,where he helped indus-tries improve solarenergy productiontechnology and efficiency.7

Widespread use ofsolar energy reducedthe use of coal andhelp improved theenvironmental qualityof Rizhao, which hasconsistently been listed inthe top 10 cities for air quality in China. In2006, the State Environmental ProtectionAgency designated Rizhao as the Environ-mental Protection Model City.8

Rizhao’s leaders believe that an enhancedenvironment will in turn help the city’s social,economic, and cultural development in thelong run, and they see solar energy as a start-ing point to trigger this positive cycle. Somerecent statistics show Rizhao is on track. Thecity is attracting a rapidly increasing amountof foreign direct investment, and according tocity officials, environment is one of the keyfactors bringing these investors to Rizhao.9


109

Cityscape: Rizhao

Rizhao solar-powered street light

Rizhao City Government


As people drive across the Øresund Bridgefrom Copenhagen in Denmark to Malmö inSweden, their eyes are drawn to the TurningTorso in Malmö’s Western Harbour. Thisapartment tower’s white marble-clad wallstwist 90 degrees as they rise 54 stories abovea city of just under 300,000 people. ArchitectSantiago Calatrava’s design mimics the humanbody in motion. The building, completed in2005, can be seen as symbolizing Malmö’sefforts to move from its recent history ofindustrial pollution and unemployment to an ecologically, socially, and economicallysustainable future.1

Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city, is aninternational port that has survived manytransitions. Founded in 1275 as a Danish city, although its earliest settlements date to10,000 BC, Malmö became part of Sweden inthe seventeenth century. Today, one quarterof Malmo’s residents are foreign-born. Formany of the last 150 years, the city was aprominent shipbuilding center. Kockum’sshipyard, established in the mid-nineteenthcentury, employed more people than any ofthe city’s other industries, which includedleather, textiles, and food processing. Afterthe shipyard closed in the mid-1980s duringa recession, some 35,000 people left Malmöwithin a couple of years.2

In the 1990s, Malmö began to forge a newvision of itself as a “sustainable” city. Amongthe first steps: transforming the Western Har-bour from abandoned industrial sites into amodel of ecological design to host the 2001European Housing Exhibition. The govern-ment invested in cleaning up contaminatedland. The city took responsibility for publicspaces and infrastructure. Sixteen developmentcompanies chosen to participate were in chargeof everything inside their plot boundaries.3

Malmö partnered with E.ON Sweden, a

subsidiary of the largest privately ownedenergy company in Europe, to get 100 per-cent of the area’s energy from local renewablesources: wind, sun, water, and gas fromgarbage and sewage. The Swedish govern-ment granted roughly 250 million krona($34 million) to offset costs for environmen-tal investments.4

A 2-megawatt wind turbine, supplementedby photovoltaic sun shields on one building,provides virtually all electricity to homes inthe Western Harbour and powers heat pumpsthat supply hot water and district heating.The pumps extract heat from seawater in thecity’s canal, from solar collectors installed on rooftops, and from an innovative aquiferstorage system. All apartments in the TurningTorso have units that grind organic waste,which is collected to produce biogas forcooking and to fuel vehicles. Residents in thenew district receive training in how to use theenvironmentally friendly technologies.5

The system that supplies the district withrenewable energy is attached to the city gridsfor electricity and district heating. Malmö’s50-year-old district heating system coversabout 90 percent of the residential area. The Western Harbour exports energy whenproduction is high and demand is low andimports it when more energy is needed. Overthe course of a year, the local renewable sup-ply matches local demand.6

Malmö aims to decrease carbon dioxideemissions citywide on average by 25 percentin 2008–12 compared with 1990 levels,which will mean bringing them 10–15 per-cent below 1999 levels. Malmö has joinedthree other cities—Dublin in Ireland,Hilleröd in Denmark, and Tallinn in Esto-nia—in a three-year project for SustainableEnergy Communities and Urban Areas inEurope, or SECURE, to seek good energy

110

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------MALMÖBuilding a Green Future

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/malmo

solutions and pro-duce local energyaction plans.Malmö’s strategyinvolves extend-ing its districtheating systemand increasingthe use of natural gas forelectricity. The city is also educating citizensabout their role in climate change. Billboardsaround Malmö show techniques for loweringenergy use.7

Malmö seeks to learn from setbacks in theWestern Harbour redevelopment. The firsthomes that were built did not achieve thetargets set for energy efficiency. Engineersand architects have studied these to avoidrepeating the mistakes. Even though the planwas to offer various housing types—for theelderly, large families, people seeking eithercollective housing or less expensive half-completed flats, for example—in the firststage only student housing and fully equippedflats, on the upper end of housing prices,were built. Although this created a low-diver-sity housing area, currently viewed as an areafor the rich, many people who live in otherareas use the public spaces and services in the Western Harbour area. As there are nowroughly 1,000 residents and the target is toone day house 10,000 people, there is stillconsiderable opportunity to add greaterdiversity to future housing stock.8

The city’s environmental initiatives havesparked change. Malmö University wasfounded in 1998 with a focus on the environ-ment, conservation of natural resources,ethnicity, and gender. Since 1997, manyinformation technology and telecommunica-tions companies have opened offices. Malmöhosts a growing number of cultural activities,

sports events,exhibitions, andshows. Newshops, includingfamous retailchains, have setup business.Housing construc-tion is steadilyincreasing, with

1,265 new dwellings built in 2005. Jobless-ness among adults is decreasing: from 16percent in 1996 to 8.8 percent in 2005.Today, 39 percent of people in Malmö have a university or postgraduate education—double the figure in 1990.9

On the negative side, the city is grapplingwith a rise in crime and has yet to integrate itslarge immigrant population. Just 3 kilometersfrom the newly built Western Harbour andclose to the city center, the Rosengård area ishome to 21,000 immigrants. Some 84 per-cent of this area’s inhabitants have both par-ents foreign-born, and 50 different languagesare spoken. The area was built in the 1960sand 1970s as part of a massive social housingprogram. Unemployment is high, and thelanguage barrier makes inhabitants even moreisolated from the rest of Malmö.10

Residents have taken note of the city’s rapidtransformation. Jeanette Andersson, a youngeco-toxicologist said: “Moving to Malmö, as ayoung student, offered me several advantagessuch as good housing and a cheap living. Afterjust a few years the situation had changed andsuddenly people started fighting about apart-ments. You could tell by just walking throughthe city that the population and atmosphere of Malmö was about to change.”11

—Ivana KildsgaardIVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute


111

Cityscape: Malmö

The Turning Torso under construction

Marcus Österberg

112

On a winter night about 2,000 years ago, res-idents of a majestic Greek city were no doubtshaken awake by the massive earthquake. Inquick succession, soil below the buildingsliquefied, the city dropped below sea level,and everything and everyone within it wassubsumed by a tsunami. The year was 373BC; classical Greek civilization was just reach-ing its peak, and this city—Helike, wellknown for its Temple of Poseidon, a tributeto the god of earthquakes and the sea—dis-appeared overnight. For 2,000 years, Helike’slegacy would survive only through Plato’slegend of Atlantis, which was inspired byHelike’s demise.1

Within the past decade, while excavatingdespite another lethal earthquake in Greece,archeologists located ancient remains buriedby the earthquake: rock walls, coins, and pot-tery. Imagine their surprise as they simulta-neously uncovered a nearby town, this one4,000 years old, that had met a fate similar toHelike’s some 2,000 earlier and in almostexactly the same spot.2

The legacies of Helike and its historic

neighbor remind us that natural hazards are—and always will be—a part of our lives. Yet ourunderstanding of disaster risk and our actionsto perpetuate or reduce it can change. Bybreaking apart the ingredients of disaster—natural hazards, vulnerability, risk, and riskmanagement—the ways we can protect our-selves and our cities become more obvious.

Large natural disasters, such as the earth-quake at Helike or the 2004 Indian Oceantsunami, garner media attention, inspireaction, and remain emblazoned in our mem-ories. But the suffering caused by chronicsmall-scale urban disasters (such as local flood-ing, water contamination, and landslides)often escapes the limelight. While cities areincreasingly home to both types of disaster,they can also be great places to tackle theunderlying issues that leave people vulnerableto the risk of disaster.

What hazards create particular impacts oncities, and what can be done to prepare for theonslaught of disasters that appears to lieahead? As human populations swell and ourenvironment continues to change, these basic

C H A P T E R 6

Zoë Chafe

Reducing Natural DisasterRisk in Cities

questions should guide the planning anddevelopment of cities in our increasinglyurban world.

The Rising Toll of DisastersAlthough natural disasters are often presentedas rare and unexpected tragedies, the realityis that they now occur more frequently, affectmore people, and cause higher economicdamages. The number recorded each yearfluctuates, and reporting gaps make dataanalysis difficult, but there has unquestionablybeen a general upward trend in the numberof disasters recorded each year. In 2005, theCenter for Research on the Epidemiology ofDisasters (CRED) recorded 430 natural dis-asters, which killed 89,713 people andaffected 162 million others worldwide. Forcomparison, CRED recorded an average of173 natural disasters each year during the1980s and an annual average of 236 duringthe 1990s. The definition of a natural disas-ter varies between reporting sources, but forCRED it means any incident that kills 10 ormore people, affects 100 or more people, ornecessitates a declaration of emergency orcall for international assistance. Unfortu-nately, no reliable data source catalogues theglobal incidence of natural disasters solely inurban contexts.3

Spurred by population growth, rapidurbanization, environmental degradation, andclimate change, the number of people affectedby natural disasters has increased remarkablyover the past 20 years. In the late 1980s,about 177 million people were affected by nat-ural disasters each year—roughly equal, atthe time, to the entire population of Indone-sia or the world’s 13 largest cities. (See Fig-ure 6–1.) Since 2001, the annual average hasrisen to 270 million—an increase of morethan 50 percent. Now the average number ofpeople affected each year is on par with the

current populations of the world’s 18 largestcities. (CRED counts in the total numberaffected all those injured, made homeless, orrequiring immediate assistance to meet basicsurvival needs during an emergency.)4

Natural disasters have a disproportionateimpact on low-income countries. Over thepast 25 years, a stunning 98 percent of thepeople injured or otherwise affected by nat-ural disasters were living in the 112 countriesclassified as low income or low-middle incomeby the World Bank. These countries accountfor about 75 percent of the world’s popula-tion, including 62 percent of the world’surban dwellers. They were also home to 90percent of the people who lost their lives tonatural disasters during the same time period.This means that less than 10 percent of theindividuals who died from natural disasterslived in the 96 richest countries.5

Urbanization is proceeding at a quick pacein poorer countries. (See Chapter 1.) In 1980,just under 50 percent of all urban dwellerslived in the 112 poorest countries. By 2005,


113

Reducing Natural Disaster Risk in Cities

1986–1900

1991–1995

1996–2000

2001–2005

Num

ber

Affe

cted

(m

illion

)or

Kille

d (t

hous

and)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

AffectedKilled

Source: OFDA/CRED

Figure 6–1. People Affected or Killed byNatural Disasters Worldwide,1986–2005

this figure had changed considerably: 62 per-cent of all city dwellers were found in the 112poorest countries and 38 percent were in the96 richer nations. The trend of increasingurbanization in poorer countries carries overto disaster vulnerability as well: in 1950, 50percent of the urban population at risk ofearthquakes lived in developing countries;by 2000, this proportion passed 85 percent.6

Urban Hazards and Vulnerability

Here are some images of modern cities thatwe do not like to see: a mother protectingher child from driving rain, sidestepping ris-ing currents of raw sewage to reach herhome; teenagers standing atop the skeletonof a felled house, surveying the heaps ofbrick and mangled metal that formed theirneighborhood before the earthquake struck;a family watching helplessly as flames ravishcrowded rows of makeshift shelters, includ-ing their home. But through a combinationof poor urban governance, economicpoverty, inadequate urban planning, andinappropriate building styles, these scenes ofdisaster are plausible endings to any day formany city dwellers.

Disasters are not simple chance occur-rences, as often portrayed in the media. Theyare the product of an ever-changing rela-tionship between natural events (hazards),social and physical conditions (vulnerabili-ties), and the risk management systems thatexist—or all too often do not exist—to pro-tect us. (See Boxes 6–1 and 6–2.) With fewexceptions, people are not killed by highwinds or seismic waves; rather, they are killedby the effects that these natural hazards haveon their houses, their schools, their offices,and their surroundings. Response efforts cansave lives and property but, conversely, alack of prior planning and proper commu-

nication can constitute the final ingredient ina devastating disaster.7

Risk is created through a complex set ofinteractions between our built and naturalenvironments. We often consider whetherthe food we eat is safe and nutritious, thewater we drink clean, or the neighborhood welive in safe. But we seldom stop to considerthe health of our immediate environment or


114


Disaster: A rare or abnormal hazard that affects vulnerable communities orgeographic areas. Causes substantial dam-age, disruption, and possible casualties.Leaves the affected communities unable tofunction normally and requiring outsideassistance.

Natural hazard: A geophysical, atmos-pheric, or hydrological event that has apotential to cause harm or loss: death orinjury, property damage, social andeconomic disruption, or environmentaldegradation.

Risk: The likelihood of a hazard occurringin a specific location and its probable con-sequences for people and property.

Disaster risk management: A range ofactivities to cope with risk. Includes miti-gation, prevention, and preparedness(actions to minimize disaster risk, prefer-ably taken before disaster occurs); relief(actions taken immediately after disasterstrikes); rehabilitation (restoring normalactivities within two years of disaster); andreconstruction (long-term work torestore infrastructure and services).

Vulnerability: The potential to sufferharm or loss. Increased susceptibility tothe impacts of hazards from physical,social, economic, and environmentalfactors.


Box 6–1. Defining Disasters

the condition of our neighbors’ homes—andthese are among the factors that may put usat risk for disaster. With many day-to-daycrises to deal with, poor families often givehigher priority to more-immediate needs thanreducing the risk of disaster.8

High population density concentrates riskin cities. Nearly 3 of every 100 people onEarth live in one of the world’s 10 largestcities. “Slum” populations are growing by25 million people a year, adding to the esti-mated 1 billion people living in informal set-tlements worldwide. As Mark Pelling ofKing’s College London explains, “Urban-ization affects disasters just as profoundly asdisasters can affect urbanization.” Rapidurbanization constantly changes disaster risk.

Part of the population growth in cities todayis due to migration, which can be a source ofvulnerability in itself. When people move tocities, they often lose the traditional ruralnetworks of family and neighbors that theycould rely on during and after a disaster.9

Another significant factor is geographiclocation. Eight of the 10 most populous citiesin the world sit on or near earthquake faults,and 6 of the 10 are vulnerable to stormsurges. (See Table 6–1.) Several are locatednear major volcanoes. Populous cities linemany coasts and will be exposed to sea levelrise due to climate change. Scores of cities arelocated in hazardous areas, as a matter ofhistorical significance or modern expansion.Some cities have colonial origins and were sit-uated in their current locations for reasons ofeconomic access rather than safety. Thesesame cities often carry a legacy of importedcolonial building codes and planning systemsthat are not appropriate for their locations.For example, some of the first buildings con-structed in Mexico City were built to thesame standards as in New York City—a dis-tant city with crucially different soil.10

Even where building codes and planningsystems exist, urban growth tends to beorganic and proceed as necessary rather thanas prescribed on paper. Slums are often filledwith densely built shelters constructed of flam-mable materials, making the area vulnerable torunaway fires. In addition, many residentsrely on open cooking fires, and they usuallylack emergency fire access. Proximity to envi-ronmental contamination only increases thepotential for harm. In almost every largedeveloping-country city with industrial pro-duction, housing is perched precariously on oraround heavy equipment, pipelines, effluentdrains, and toxic disposal sites.11

After a disaster occurs, due to a lack ofother job opportunities or housing options,urban dwellers may be forced to stay in dan-


115


Examples of Natural Hazards:EarthquakeFloodVolcanoWindstorm

Examples of Vulnerability Factors:Poorly planned developmentDeforestation and erosionPrecarious buildings and sheltersLack of insurance or banking servicesProhibitively expensive health careInability to get informationNo access to emergency services

Examples of Risk Management:Write and enforce building codesImprove access to sanitationOffer insurance for all income bracketsCreate skills-training classes for womenBuild strong community networksPrepare emergency kits and disaster plansSpread hazard warnings to all at risk


Box 6–2. Hazards,Vulnerabilities,and Risk Management

Wave/surgeLandslideWildfire

gerous areas of cities despite the risk of futuredisasters. Many residents of KampungMelayu, for instance, a slum outside Jakartathat regularly floods, own land in other partsof Indonesia but return to their difficult lifenear the city out of economic necessity, evenwith the knowledge that disaster will almostcertainly happen again.12

Risky EnvironmentCities are often characterized by their sky-lines—the quintessential celebration of sculp-ture and architecture perched on geographiccontours that is Rio de Janeiro, for example,or the uniform division of city blocks cele-brating nature conquered, as in New York.Because each represents the pulse and cultureof a particular city, it is shocking to see a sky-line crumble—the grand facade shaken loosewithin minutes by a natural occurrence. Butthis has happened before, and it will con-tinue to happen: earthquakes devastated SanFrancisco in 1906; Tokyo in 1923; Valdivia,Chile, in 1960; Managua, Nicaragua, in 1972;Mexico City in 1985; and Bam, Iran in 2003.Peer behind the skyline’s veneer, and it

becomes apparent why cities are particularlyvulnerable to such disasters.13

Each natural hazard varies in its scope andeffects. (See Table 6–2.) Earthquakes, forexample, occur in widely varying strengths,strike at any time of the day, and create effectsthat still baffle geologists or urban planners.Even more predictable hazards, such as hur-ricanes, are not fully understood. They mayrapidly gain and lose strength, veering offexpected trajectories and narrowly hitting ormissing city centers. In 1991 Tropical Cyclone05B, one of the most deadly cyclones to hitIndia, stalled in its path over the city ofBhubaneswar in Orissa, dumping torrentialrain on the area for 30 hours. And in 2005Hurricane Katrina lost strength before itmade landfall to the east of New Orleans,although it still wreaked havoc on that low-lying city.14

What is clear is that natural hazards, com-bined with high levels of vulnerability, rou-tinely turn into major urban disasters. Thetsunami that struck Indonesia in December2004 reached three kilometers inland inthe province of Aceh, devastating the city ofBanda Aceh. (See Box 6–3). Lava sluiced


116


Table 6–1. Ten Most Populous Cities in 2005 and Associated Disaster Risk

Disaster Risk

City Population Earthquake Volcano Storms Tornado Flood Storm Surge

(million)Tokyo 35.2 x x x x xMexico City 19.4 x x xNew York 18.7 x x xSão Paulo 18.3 x xMumbai 18.2 x x x xDelhi 15.0 x x xShanghai 14.5 x x x xKolkata 14.3 x x x x xJakarta 13.2 x xBuenos Aires 12.6 x x x


directly through the city of Goma, in theDemocratic Republic of Congo, when avolcano erupted there in 2002, leaving300,000 homeless. And landslides provokedby heavy summer rains routinely devastateneighborhoods flanking the steep hills ofRio de Janeiro.15

Unintentionally, many cities actuallyincrease disaster risk. The concentration ofheat and pollutants from power plants, indus-trial processes, and vehicles in cities con-tributes to a well-documented phenomenoncalled the “heat island effect,” which canexacerbate heat waves and other warmingtrends. Most pronounced over megacities—those with at least 10 million people—thiseffect causes a city to be up to 10 degrees Cel-sius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than sur-rounding areas. In New York City, where theheat island effect has been observed for acentury, average night-time temperatureshover just over 7 degrees Fahrenheit abovethe temperature in surrounding suburbanand rural areas. Beyond making temperaturesuncomfortable, heat islands can—especially

during the summermonths—increase air condi-tioning demand, lead to moreair pollution, and add toinjuries and deaths related toheat stress. (See Chapter 7.)16

Urban buildings and thelayout of cities can contributeto vulnerability as well.Antennas and electrical equip-ment atop buildings canattract lightning; the effects ofa lightning strike can extendfor kilometers if sensitiveequipment is hit. Indeed,every major city is at risk forlightning strikes, accordingto reinsurance agency MunichRe. The layout of the streets

at the foot of these buildings can also encour-age extreme weather events. Straight streetslined with tall buildings create canyon-likeenvironments that whip up strong turbu-lence and wind gusts. They can even lead tohailstorms and heavy localized rainfall. Look-ing forward, these are vulnerabilities that canbe avoided in areas of new growth or recon-struction, given smart planning and dedi-cated leadership from a city government keenon keeping its residents safe.17

Cities do not stop relying on their imme-diate environmental resources as they developand expand; in fact, with more inhabitants liv-ing in a finite area, cities need to enhanceecosystem services to prevent severe naturaldisasters. Without trees to purify the air andstabilize soil, without open space to absorbstorm water and provide wildlife habitats,and without natural coastal habitats to pro-tect them from storm surges, cities becomemuch more unpleasant and dangerous placesto live.

A prime example of the latter point comesfrom Sri Lanka, where coral reef mining,


117


Table 6–2. Selected Urban Disasters, 1906–2006

EconomicDate City Disaster Deaths Losses

(estimated (billion number) 2005 dollars)

2005 New Orleans hurricane 1,800 125.02005 Mumbai flood 400 0.42003 Bam (Iran) earthquake 26,300 1.12003 Paris heat wave 14,800 4.72001 Bhuj (India) earthquake 19,700 5.52000 Johannesburg flood 100 0.21999 Istanbul/Izmit earthquake 15,000 14.11995 Kobe, Japan earthquake 6,400 128.21985 Mexico City earthquake 9,500 7.31976 Tangshan (China) earthquake 242,000 19.21970 Dhaka (Bangladesh) flood 1,400 10.11923 Tokyo earthquake 143,000 31.81906 San Francisco earthquake 3,000 10.9


http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/goma

sand dune grading, and mangrove cuttingincreased wave energy, building damage, andloss of life during the Indian Ocean tsunami.A study of land use around Galle, a major SriLankan city whose vibrant markets and cricketstadium were devastated by the tsunami,showed that areas protected by intact man-grove forests and coral reefs suffered signifi-cantly less damage than those with degradednatural defenses.18

Dealing with LossesWhen hazards combine with vulnerability inurban areas, the results can be extremelycostly, both in their impacts on human livesand in economic terms. Economic costs seturban disasters apart from rural ones: with aconcentration of people and infrastructure,the economic impacts of a disaster are boundto be high. The Kobe earthquake that hit


118


When an undersea earthquake in the IndianOcean triggered a massive tsunami on Decem-ber 26, 2004, the Indonesian province of Acehwas hit hardest. Of the 230,000 people believedto have died in a dozen countries along the rimof the Indian Ocean, close to 170,000 (74 per-cent) perished in Aceh alone.The provincialcapital, Banda Aceh, suffered greatly: 61,000 died,nearly a quarter of its population of 265,000.

Tsunami waves carried debris inland at leastthree kilometers in Banda Aceh, and more insome places.Two years later, the affected ribbonof coast still evokes memories of Hiroshima in1945—lifeless communities, twisted skeletonsof buildings, rutted and cratered roads. Just abit further inland, however, life seems perfectlynormal—coffeehouses are bustling, teenagersare busy text-messaging, and motorcycles,becaks (motorcycle taxis), minibuses, and carscreate a daily cacophony of traffic.

Meuraxa, a harbor area noted for its densewarren of roads and houses, was nearly obliter-ated.As far as the eye could see, almost everybuilding was washed off its foundation orreduced to rubble. Beside a short bridge con-necting this area to the mainland, however, amosque withstood the waves.Within a yearafter the tsunami, damage to the mosque hadbeen repaired: its exterior repainted in whiteand green, the Koranic verses on its facadehighlighted in gold.

Why was this mosque, among others else-where in Aceh, able to parry the onslaught of

the waves? The answer is sturdy construction—a reflection of the mosque as an anchor of dailylife in this religious land. Islam came to Aceh inthe eighth century, spreading later to the restof what is today Indonesia.

Although a handful of private houses—undoubtedly those of wealthier people—alsowithstood the waves, the vast majority of homesalong Banda Aceh’s coast did not. In many cases,profiteering contractors used bricks of inferiorquality and other substandard materials, predis-posing the structures to collapse.

Shockingly, post-tsunami reconstruction suf-fers from some of the same problems, perpetu-ating Aceh’s vulnerability to future disasters. Ina number of cases, unscrupulous reconstruc-tion contractors were found to have builtflimsy schools and homes. Instead of layingproper foundations, they simply proppedwooden stilts on stones.The timber and bricksused were substandard and warped.

Reconstruction has been slow but is nowpicking up some speed—by April 2006, some47,000 new houses had been built across Aceh(141,000 had been destroyed), and reportedlybetween 3,500 and 5,000 additional homes arenow being built each month. Banda Aceh stillfaces years of rehabilitation and serious chal-lenges to ensure that reconstruction does notfuel future vulnerability to disaster.

—Michael Renner


Box 6–3. Banda Aceh and the Tsunami

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/bandaaceh

Japan in 1995 caused $128.2 billion (2005dollars) in damage, one of the costliest nat-ural disasters ever recorded. Hurricane Kat-rina in 2005 led to $125 billion in damagesto the Gulf Coast.19

Windstorms usually bring along substan-tial amounts of precipitation—often leadingto flooding and landslides—and secondaryhazards can be the main cause of losses. WhenTyphoon Nari hit Taipei in September 2001,heavy rains caused flooding in the city’sunderground railroad stations, closing off animportant traffic artery for weeks. Even withrelatively slow wind speeds, this transporta-tion shutdown was largely to blame forinsured damages of $500 million. The samewas true for Tropical Storm Allison, whichcaused $1.5 billion in damage in Houston in2001, mostly through flood damage to hos-pitals, many of which had storage roomsbelow ground level.20

With massive investments in urban infra-structure, the private sector has vested inter-ests in reducing losses wherever possible. Theinsurance industry, in particular, is keenlyinterested in disaster prevention and model-ing. Extraordinary losses from active hurricaneseasons over the past few years have driveninsurance companies to pass on their expensesto urban homeowners and businesses alike.Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance subsidiaries,for example, lost $3.4 billion from the 2005U.S. hurricane season.21

Several corporate groups are now focusingon risk management, including disaster mit-igation. The American Insurance Group, Inc.released a statement saying that it woulddevelop projects to keep greenhouse gases outof the atmosphere—following $2.1 billion ininsured losses from hurricanes in 2005. TheCorporate Network for Disaster Response,formed in 1990 in the Philippines, is a net-work of 29 businesses groups and corporatefoundations that works toward disaster mit-

igation and prevention, conducts disasterassessments, delivers relief supplies, and mobi-lizes post-disaster donations.22

But business investments in disaster pre-vention are often predicated on the govern-ment’s abilities to keep crucial infrastructure(such as electricity and water) online. Lossesfrom power disruptions following a natural dis-aster can account for as much as 40 percent ofthe total insured loss for businesses, accordingto a report by the Lawrence Berkeley Labo-ratory. If a business suspects that there is agood chance that the electric utilities andwater supply will be nonfunctional for a con-siderable time after a hurricane hits its area, itwill be discouraged from taking preventativeand protective measures because it will beunable to operate without vital services.23

Climate Change in the CityUrban disaster risk management and plan-ning require a discussion of climate change fortwo reasons: first, cities produce large amountsof greenhouse gases and, second, they willbe considerably affected by climate change.

The vast majority of the world’s carbondioxide emissions can be traced to cities, eventhough cities cover only 0.4 percent of Earth’ssurface. We are already seeing hints of theways that climate change will affect cities byamplifying natural hazards: since 1880, theduration of heat waves in Western Europe hasdoubled and the number of unusually hotdays in the region has nearly tripled, accord-ing to the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorol-ogy and Climatology. And the U.N.Environment Programme estimates that thedevastating heat wave that hit Europe in2003 meant that climate change effects costthe world $60 billion in that year alone—up10 percent from the previous year.24

Several models show the potential impactsof sea level rise on specific cities, some of


119


which are already occurring. New Orleans islosing coastal wetlands to rising seas at a rateof one and a half football fields each hour.Boston is slated to be significantly affected byclimate change by the end of this century,according to a 1997 U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency estimate, given that sealevel is already rising by 28 centimeters (11inches) per century and is likely to rise another56 centimeters by 2100. In New York City,sea level rise could affect the city’s water sup-ply by increasing the salinity of the waterdrawn in by a pump station on the HudsonRiver. Worse, the pump station is most neededduring drought periods, when the salinityproblem will be at its worst. It could costbetween $224 million and $328 million to fixthis problem.25

Some countries are already implementingprojects to deal with climate change effects.People in the Netherlands have built amphibi-ous houses that bob up and down on sturdypiles as water level changes. In Venice, theadjustable barriers of the controversial MOSEproject (from Modulo Sperimentale Elet-tromeccanico) seek to prevent tidal floodingthat currently engulfs the city’s tourist center50 times a year—a phenomenon that wouldworsen with sea level rise—despite concernsfrom environmentalists that the project willhave a negative effect on water exchange withthe surrounding Adriatic Sea.26

Yet most people who will be affected by sealevel rise live far from Venice or the Nether-lands. With a one-meter rise in sea level, forexample, Bangladesh stands to lose 17.5 per-

cent of its country, and 13 million peoplethere would be affected, while Egypt andViet Nam would each need to tend to 8–10million displaced residents. Of the 33 citiesprojected to have at least 8 million residentseach by 2015, some 21 are coastal cities thatwill certainly have to contend with sea riseimpacts, however severe they may be.27

There are also projects under way to drawdown the impacts that cities have on global—and local—climates. Preserving and encour-aging tree cover and green space are twoimportant actions that can cool local climatesand help absorb greenhouse gases. (See alsoChapter 5.) Cities around the world varywidely in the amount of green space thatthey have per capita. Nearly 42 percent of Bei-jing is covered with greenery right now, forexample, and efforts are under way to bringthat figure to 45 percent by 2008.28

In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley hastaken a position of great leadership instrengthening the environmental attributes ofthe city. He oversees the planting of about30,000 trees each year and has added 500,000trees to the city since he took office in 1989.Despite efforts by the Casey Trees Founda-tion and other dedicated urban forestrygroups, this is not the case in Washington,DC: whereas trees used to cover about onethird of the city, they now cover just onetenth of the area. This is due primarily tothe loss of 64 percent of the heavy tree coverbetween 1973 and 1997. During these years,there was an increase in storm water runoff,more frequent basement flooding, and moresewer backups.29

In the absence of national leadership on cli-mate change issues in the United States, thepopularity of two relatively new initiatives—the Clinton Climate Initiative and the USMayors’ Climate Protection Agreement—indicates that some city governments arecommitted to reducing greenhouse gas emis-


120


In the absence of national leadershipon climate change issues in the UnitedStates, some city governments arecommitted to reducing greenhousegas emissions independently.

sions independently. Riding on a “greatersense of urgency” about climate change, theClinton Initiative is leading a coalition of 24major cities that have joined together to shareideas on how to limit greenhouse gas emis-sions and bargain for cheaper energy-effi-cient products. The Initiative is targeting 40cities—each with more than 3 million inhab-itants—that are responsible for 15–20 percentof the world’s total emissions.30

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels began the USMayors’ Climate Protection Agreement theday that the Kyoto Protocol on climatechange came into force—without the UnitedStates as a signatory. Buoyed by the convic-tion that cities and towns across the countrycould lead the way in tackling this globalproblem, despite the federal government’sdecision not to engage with the issue on aninternational level, Nickels asked mayors topledge that they would take local action tomeet or exceed the targets set out by theKyoto Protocol. By early October 2006, lessthan two years after the program launched,313 mayors—representing constituencies ofover 51 million Americans—had signed up.31

Government’s Key RoleEven with modeling systems and weatherstations available in some parts of the world,it can be difficult to tell exactly when anabnormal weather-related hazard becomes alife-threatening emergency. Heavy down-pours are characteristic of the monsoon sea-son in Mumbai, India’s seaside financialcapital. But at some point on July 26, 2005,a day when well more than 60 centimeters(two feet) of rainwater inundated the city, thesummer storm gave way to disaster. The com-muter train lines, which crisscross Mumbailike pulsing veins, stopped. Office workersdrowned in their cars on their way home.Eighteen slum dwellers made homeless by

the floods were trampled to death the nextday, caught in a panicked mob after rumorsof a tsunami or flash flood circulated amongthose seeking higher ground.32

Two key mistakes by the Mumbai gov-ernment left the city, and especially the 92percent of its residents who live in slums,vulnerable to floods during heavy monsoonrains: First, garbage overwhelmed the archaicsewer system, plugging pipes designed tofunnel water out of the city. Second, thisbathtub effect was exacerbated by develop-ment over mangrove swamps at the city’sedge, which demolished the natural floodprotection the forests had once provided.Mumbai’s experience serves as a warning: weneed to protect and enhance existing envi-ronmental assets around cities, while alsoplanning infrastructure to meet the needs ofgrowing populations.33

Many cities expand in size and geographicextent in ways not planned or expected bygovernment officials. They have populationsthat far exceed the capacity of existing infra-structure networks, which creates dangerousconditions. Densely packed settlements canprove deadly, as their layout often inhibitseffective evacuation in an emergency. JanePruess, a planner who visited Sri Lanka afterthe 2004 tsunami, observed that there seemedto be higher fatality rates in high-densityneighborhoods that had narrow, interruptedlanes and alleys. Some 10,000 people died inone community in Sri Lanka alone, in partbecause of densely packed, poorly constructedresidential and commercial buildings and verynarrow paths for movement. As densityincreases, an individual’s feeling of controlover risk can fade, because there are so manyunprotected shelters surrounding any oneparticular dwelling that damage could spreadeasily from one shelter to the next.34

Risk can also increase as housing and crit-ical infrastructure extend away from dense


121


areas toward more risky open land. In Lon-don, a new business and commercial centeris being built in the former docklands area,which is at greater risk to storm surges thanother parts of the city. In Santa Tecla, El Sal-vador, a national court order overrulingmunicipal law allowed a developer to buildnew housing on a risky slope, which laterslid during an earthquake, killing those livingbelow the development.35

Indeed, many people would blame themost tragic “natural” disasters that haveoccurred in cities on lax government policiesor oversight. After the devastating floods inMumbai, Gerson D’Cunha, founder of civicgroup Agni (Fire), said: “The past has caughtup with us, about which little can be done. Itis bad weather that has caused part of thetragedy, but it is bad government policy thathas compounded the bad weather.” Mumbaiis one case in which quick growth of the cityled to the disaster management agency beingunable to provide basic supplies and servicesfor residents—this is common among rapidlyexpanding cities. In other cases, cities growtogether and merge without effectively inte-grating their disaster agencies. This leads toconfusion and an inability to coordinate aid.36

One group that aims to support such over-stretched local authorities is CITYNET, a20-year-old network for local authorities thatpromotes sustainable urban improvement ini-tiatives in the Asia-Pacific region. It maintainsa Web site where its 63 member cities and 40member organizations can offer and ask forassistance after a disaster—such as thetsunami, which affected Colombo andNegombo in Sri Lanka, and the 2005 Pak-istan/Kashmir earthquake that affected Islam-abad. After the tsunami, CITYNET was thefirst international organization to dispatchlocal government officials to assist with plan-ning and water purification in Banda Aceh,where a third of the municipal staff had died

during the disaster. And in Sri Lanka,CITYNET facilitated the construction of twocommunity centers using donations from cit-izens in Yokohama, a member city in Japan.37

Another important way that local andnational governments can encourage appro-priate disaster risk management in cities isby writing legislation to mandate the estab-lishment of preparedness and risk reductionactivities. When Hurricane Mitch hit CentralAmerica in 1998, killing at least 11,000 peo-ple in 10 countries, it sparked the introduc-tion of several new pieces of legislation ondisaster management in the region.38

Box 6–4 spotlights a few of the notableexamples of how disaster preparedness, pre-vention, and mitigation can save lives andprotect property. Other important experi-ences specifically demonstrate the financialbenefits of investing in preparedness: ThePhilippines government has put in place avariety of preventative measures against floodsand volcanic mudflow, with benefits amount-ing to 3.5–30 times the projects’ costs. Sev-eral studies have also calculated the savingsthat could have been realized if preventa-tive measures had been taken. In Dominicaand Jamaica, for instance, if projects to pro-tect schools and ports had been put in place,the countries could have avoided hurricanelosses in 1979 and 1988 that were two tofour times the cost of the mitigation projects.The U.S. Geological Survey has estimatedthat economic losses worldwide from naturaldisasters in the 1990s could have beenreduced by $280 billion if just $40 billionhad been invested in preventative measures.39

Simple SolutionsLovly Josaphat lives in Cité Soleil, the largestslum in Haiti’s capital city, Port-au-Prince.Speaking to writer Beverly Bell, Josaphatdescribed the confluence of problems in the


122


slums: “When it rains, the part of the Cité Ilive in floods and the water comes in myhouse. There’s always water on the ground,green smelly water, and there are no paths.The mosquitoes bite us. My four year old has

bronchitis, malaria, and even typhoid now.…The doctor said to give him boiled water, notto give him food with grease, and not to lethim walk in the water. But the water’s every-where; he can’t set foot outside the housewithout walking in it. The doctor said that ifI don’t take care of him, I’ll lose him.”40

Millions of people live today in conditionssimilar to those described by Josaphat. Eco-nomic poverty prevents them from buyingnutritious foods or medicine and from recov-ering belongings lost during disasters. And sothey must cope with the risk they are exposedto any way they can. (See Box 6–5.)41

At the same time, there are plenty of inspi-rational examples of people helping them-selves, their neighbors, and even strangersto better prepare for everyday urban disastersand major disasters to come. Around theworld, neighborhoods and communities rou-tinely come together to learn about the risksthey face and to forge social networks that willprotect them in a time of disaster. On TutiIsland, in the center of Sudan’s capital, Khar-toum, residents set up communication,health, and food committees each flood sea-son. River patrol volunteers warn residentsabout rising water levels and organize searchand rescue teams when necessary. In SantaDomingo, capital of the Dominican Repub-lic, residents are often exposed to earthquakesand hurricanes, as well as routine environ-mental health risks from uncollected trash. Sixorganizations formed a household communitywaste collection business, addressing a sig-


123


Medellin, Colombia: After a devastatinglandslide engulfed the city in 1987, killing500, local people and government workersused the Colombian National System forDisaster Prevention and Response to edu-cate and collect financial commitments,creating a safer living environment andintegrating risk management strategiesinto development plans.The number oflandslides in Medellin decreased from 533in 1993 to 191 in 1995.

China: The government invested $3.15billion on flood control measures overfour decades in the late twentieth century,averting possible flood-related losses ofabout $12 billion. Despite a near-tripling inthe country’s population, from 555 millionin 1950 to 1.3 billion in 2005, deaths fromflooding dropped from 4.4 million peoplein the 1930s and 1940s to 2 million in the1950s and 1960s and finally down to14,000 in the 1970s and 1980s.

Seattle: Seattle Project Impact, a public-private partnership formed by the citygovernment in 1998 and funded by theFederal Emergency Management Agencyuntil 2001, retrofitted schools, taught resi-dents about earthquake risks, and mappedearthquake and landslide hazards in themetro area.When a magnitude 6.8 earth-quake hit Seattle in February 2001, no students were injured at the retrofittedschools nor was there damage to the 300homes that residents had retrofitted withguidance from the initiative.


Box 6–4. Selected Examples of Disaster Prevention Projects

Economic losses worldwide from natural disasters in the 1990s couldhave been reduced by $280 billion if just $40 billion had been invested in preventative measures.


124


“We are always trying to improve, little by little,step by step, in order to become more secure.”This statement by a slum dweller living in SanSalvador characterizes the coping strategiesused to deal with disasters and risk. Copingstrategies have mainly been studied in ruralareas, especially in relation to droughts, wheredisaster and development specialists havelearned to appreciate their value. However,there seems to be comparatively little interestin coping strategies in urban areas.This is unfor-tunate, as poor households’ views and actionsregarding disasters and risk can yield importantinsights for restructuring development aid.

Interviews with 331 people living in 15 disaster-prone slums in El Salvador showed agrand diversity of coping strategies to reducerisk: slum dwellers build retaining walls with oldcar tires; they remove blockages from riversand water channels; they take jobs outside theirown settlement to avoid the effects of local dis-asters; they temporarily move their families tothe highest room in their dwelling; or they create communication structures for earlywarning.They also adopt emotionally orientedstrategies, such as relying on their faith or simply accepting their high risk.

But coping strategies go beyond reducingrisk: they also include self-insurance—securitysystems created during “normal” times to help gain access to financing sources or otherrecovery help in the event of a disaster.An example of self-insurance is to buy andmaintain physical assets, such as constructionmaterials, that can easily be sold if needed.Other examples of Salvadorans’ self-insuranceinclude having many children, putting money“under the mattress,” encouraging family mem-bers to move to the United States, joining religious institutions (which offer help after disasters), and contributing to communityemergency funds.

In the slum communities visited, self-insur-ance appears to play a more significant role thanformal insurance. Only 26 of the 331 people

interviewed had access to the Salvadoran socialsecurity system. Property insurance is not avail-able. However, while there is a general concep-tion that slum dwellers do not have a culture of insurance, some cases showed the contrary.Through deals with entrepreneurs, residents canobtain certificates of employment that enablethem to pay into the social security system,even though they are not formally employed.

Most intriguingly, the research revealed thathouseholds spend an average of 9.2 percent(ranging from 0 to 75 percent) of their incomeon reducing disaster risk (about $26 out of anaverage monthly income of $284).This is inaddition to construction materials that areobtained for free, family members’ free labor,the opportunity costs of the considerable time spent on risk reduction, and the negativeimpacts of some coping strategies (such as high interest paid to informal money lenders).

Post-disaster expenses add up as well:replacement of belongings washed away duringfloods and landslides, recovery efforts, tempo-rary income losses, and the gradual loss ofinvestments put into the incremental buildingof housing and community infrastructure. If the“little-by-little, step-by-step” development pro-cess of slums cannot keep pace with the fre-quency of disaster impacts, then the outcomecan be increased insecurity and “poverty traps.”

Current urban coping strategies are impor-tant for sustainable settlement development,but they appear to be less deliberate, not aseffective, and more individually oriented than inrural areas, with a stronger focus on housingconstruction and land issues. It is crucial thatdevelopment efforts encourage—and eventu-ally scale up—strategies that increasecapacities to manage urban disasters and disas-ter risk in the short and the long term.Wherethese do not exist, alternative mechanismscould be offered.

—Christine WamslerLund University, Sweden


Box 6–5. Coping Strategies in Urban Slums

nificant risk and uniting diverse groups ofresidents around a common cause.42

Innovative visual techniques have beendeveloped to learn about risk in communitymeetings. Risk-mapping activities, for exam-ple, can be used as a simple tool to calculatehow far community members must travel toreach safety. Traditional stories can be turnedinto plays and songs about how to reduce riskand can provide memorable messages aboutdisaster preparedness. One such project usesa Vietnamese story about a mountain genieand a storm genie, in which the mountaingenie emerges victorious despite the storm.43

Simple technological applications of riskreduction are available as well. Dr. AhmetTurer has invented a way of decreasing excesswaste while also reducing the number of dan-gerous buildings in Turkey, where 95 percentof the population lives in an earthquake-prone area and half of the buildings in thefour largest cities are masonry houses. Hehas designed a way to convert old tires intowall reinforcements, with only a sharp knifeneeded to install the improvement. He plansto use media connections to broadcast videosof the technology at work in an earthquakesimulator. Encouraging the construction ofsafer housing and shelter by using locally rel-evant disaster-resistant construction tech-niques can have the dual effect of makingsuch shelters safer for the inhabitants whilealso providing an example of constructionmethods that others in the city will see andhopefully adopt.44

Three celebrated techniques for support-ing self-help are microfinance, microcredit,and microinsurance. These financial toolsenable those with limited income or assets tosafely save money or gain access to capital.(See Chapter 8.) Under microcredit schemes,a group of community members will pay duesto a shared account at regularly scheduledmeetings and then take turns withdrawing

from the account to begin a business or coverunexpected expenses. Likewise, microinsur-ance works by pooling risk either at the com-munity level or through existing insurance ormicrofinance companies.

With only 1–3 percent of families in low-and middle-income countries carrying insur-ance against natural disasters compared with30 percent in high-income countries, andwith only 2 percent of natural disaster lossesin developing countries covered by insurancecompared with half the costs in the UnitedStates, microinsurance is a promising—andrelatively new—way for poor people to coverlosses of livestock, crops, and belongings in anatural disaster. When implemented beforedisaster strikes, microcredit and microinsur-ance schemes can effectively reduce financialrisk—which in turn can lead to reduced riskand quicker recovery.45

While this combination is often associatedwith rural areas in developing countries, it isapplicable to urban regions and industrialcountries as well. Grameen Bank founderMuhammad Yunus, writing just after Kat-rina struck New Orleans, pointed out that“economic apartheid had created deepinequalities and resentment,” in the area. Henoted that before the hurricane, groups inNew Orleans were exploring starting a micro-credit program and planning to introduceentrepreunership training programs into localhigh schools.46

In Bhuj, India, a city severely affected byan earthquake in 2001, around 12 percent ofthe population is now covered, directly or


125


Microinsurance is a promising—andrelatively new—way for poor peopleto cover losses of livestock, crops,and belongings in a natural disaster.

indirectly, through a microinsurance schemerun by the All India Disaster Mitigation Insti-tute. Most policyholders are microenterpriseowners with annual incomes of $520–650,paying premiums of less than $2 per year.There are concerns, however, about the via-bility of this and other microinsuranceschemes, since many members of a singlecommunity may be affected by a disaster,meaning they will simultaneously require cap-ital to pay for health services and rebuildtheir livelihoods.47

From Information to ActionThe images of disaster victims that we see areinvariably taken in the aftermath of a cata-strophe: houses and roads in disarray, peoplehurt and traumatized. It is easy to forget thatthose affected often had no warning. Theywere at work, at school, cooking dinner,socializing, sleeping—going about theireveryday lives. Sometimes, if the hazard is aweather event, warnings can be issued withtime to prepare. Less frequently, the warningsare carried beyond the reach of technology—by mouth, on motorbike—to those in themost precarious situations. But often, thereis simply no warning.

The range of technology available to giveurban warnings varies drastically by country.China recently established its first permanentdigital earthquake monitoring network inShanghai, hoping to avoid a repeat of thedevastation caused by the 1976 Tangshanearthquake, which measured 7.8 on theRichter scale and claimed at least 242,000lives. But many officials in countries in Africa,Asia, and Latin America struggle with littlemore than out-of-date and incompatiblepaper maps.48

Recognizing the discrepancies in the capa-bilities of various warning systems, severalinnovative programs are maximizing the assis-

tance of technologies that can be used glob-ally. The International Charter on Space andMajor Disasters, initiated in 1999, allowsqualified rescue and security personnel torequest images taken from space of regionsexperiencing a disaster. The charter has beenactivated 85 times, including during urbanfloods that displaced 60,000 people in Dakar,Senegal, as well as in Prague in 2006, when—thanks to government preparations—floodscreated less devastation than in earlier years.While the International Charter cannot beinvoked for disaster risk reduction needs, plan-ners can anticipate having its valuable resourcesavailable to speed disaster response.49

In some cases, information is available butis not disseminated in time for action to betaken. An example that planners hope willnever be repeated comes from the DemocraticRepublic of Congo, where a vulcanologistnamed Dieudonne Wafula sensed in 2002that an eruption of the Nyiragongo volcanooverlooking the city of Goma was imminent.He sent e-mails to international experts aweek before the eruption, giving them per-tinent information, and then also contactedlocal authorities, all of whom failed to acton the information. More than 100 peoplewere killed and 300,000 displaced as lavafilled the streets, cutting the city in half.50

While many cities still lack disaster man-agement plans, including for temporary shel-ter and evacuation, some are proactivelyaddressing their vulnerability to natural haz-ards. Shanghai, for example, has begun tobuild a system of public earthquake shelters.These are located above ground, away fromtall buildings, and will have water and powersupply systems as well as wireless communi-cation capabilities.51

Implementation can be as crucial as plan-ning, however, and complex operations suchas evacuations must be carefully considered.When Hurricane Rita threatened Houston


126


less than a month after thousands of peoplein New Orleans suffered through botchedemergency management, officials in Texaspledged that they had improved evacuationsystems. But with the city depending on mostresidents to provide their own means of evac-uation, Houston’s highways proved to behazardous and frustrating: swarmed with traf-fic jams, drivers struggled against serious fuelshortages. The evacuation turned fatal whena bus caught fire in the traffic jam and 23elderly patients died.52

Compare this with the standard experi-ence of a Cuban awaiting the approach of ahurricane. Three days before the storm is pre-dicted to make landfall, Cuban forecastersissue national warnings and begin to checkstate-run shelters. Localized warnings are tar-geted to high-risk areas, and residents—wholearn hurricane preparedness in school andpractice evacuation drills each hurricane sea-son—evacuate to shelters within 12 hours ofthe storm’s predicted arrival. Neighborhoodsare cleared of debris and houses boarded up,per national legal requirements. Similarly, inJamaica volunteers forge the crucial linkbetween national warnings and local action bycalling residents on cell phones, checkingwater levels, and borrowing vehicles to evac-uate incapacitated neighbors.53

Government preparedness alone will noteasily reduce vulnerability and risk, nor willpurely grassroots efforts. The best instancesof sustainable risk reduction come througheffective partnerships and open communica-tion. As American journalist Ted Koppel pro-claimed, “we need to begin setting up anetwork that reaches from the federal gov-ernment to the state level, from the states tothe cities and townships and from everypolice, fire and sheriff’s department into eachand every neighborhood.” And in the absenceof such a network, we need a grassroots ini-tiative that will unite neighbors, involve the

private sector, and translate needs upward tothe government.54

Until that happens, we are at risk of repeat-ing the past. Just hours after the 1906 earth-quake struck the San Francisco Bay area, theOakland Tribune published this statement: “Itmay be a thousand years before there is suchanother disturbance in this locality, but theconsequences of this one is an admonition notto repeat the errors of the past.” Nearly 100years—and countless disasters—later, speak-ing just days after the 2004 Indian Oceantsunami, U.N. Under Secretary-General JanEgeland reiterated the need to learn frompast calamities: “The best way to honor thedead is to protect the living. Good inten-tions must be turned into concrete action.”55

Both statements are testaments to theimmense amount of work that remains to bedone in order to protect cities from futuredisasters. As we witness each year, natural dis-asters continue to occur, in both expectedand unexpected locations. Though ourknowledge of and ability to predict naturalhazards grows constantly, there is much stillto learn. Our ability to monitor and com-municate these hazards and their effects onlyprovides us with a clearer picture of the dev-astation wrought by natural forces aroundthe globe, and that information must becommunicated in such a way that it inspiresaction. Maxx Dilley, a geographer with theDisaster Reduction Unit at the U.N. Devel-opment Programme, points out that hazardinformation must be targeted to plannersand disaster managers: “What you need areplanner-friendly common views, as opposed


127


Shanghai has begun to build a systemof public earthquake shelters aboveground, away from tall buildings.

to highly specialized scientific papers.”56

As the population of many cities aroundthe world continues to soar, the vulnerabil-ity of their infrastructure and inhabitants willgrow as well unless measures are consciouslytaken to avoid a “business-as-usual” approachto disaster risk management.

Urban disaster risk reduction goes hand-in-hand with the aims of poverty reduction,and it can easily be linked to internationalefforts to achieve a better standard of livingfor the growing number of urban dwellersstruggling to make ends meet. A central tenetof slum improvements, for example, shouldbe the locally appropriate provision of bettersanitation and shelter, improvements thatwill prevent small-scale natural hazards fromsparking urban disasters.

Among the myriad other actions that gov-ernments, organizations, businesses, and indi-viduals should set as priorities to reducedisaster risk are the following: • Foster a “culture of prevention” where dis-

aster prevention, preparedness, and miti-gation are streamlined into all planningand budgeting processes.

• Direct special attention to the urban poorin developing countries—those who aremost at risk. Focus on efforts that will worksimultaneously toward poverty alleviationand sustainable development.

• Protect and enhance environmental assetsas a means of risk reduction. Take cli-mate change and its effects on cities seri-ously, as millions of people are already at

risk because of it.• If a city, neighborhood, business, or fam-

ily has not already done so, plan ahead.Any disaster management and planningdone prior to the onset of a natural hazardwill give those affected a crucial head starton recovery.In January 2005, more than 160 gov-

ernments and 40,000 individuals met inKobe in the Hyogo section of Japan for theWorld Conference on Disaster Reduction,less than a month after the tsunami thatdevastated Thailand, Indonesia, and othernations in the region. At the end on themeeting they signed the Hyogo Frameworkfor Action 2005–2015: Building theResilience of Nations and Communities toDisasters. The national governments thatsigned on are expected to actively worktoward disaster risk reduction and to pub-lish the results of their efforts through theconvening body, the secretariat of the Inter-national Strategy for Disaster Reduction.57

The Hyogo Framework clearly links dis-aster risk reduction to sustainable develop-ment, stating that disasters “pose a majorobstacle” to development goals, especially inAfrica. Many cities have suffered significantsetbacks to development projects and socialprograms when disasters destroyed infra-structure or when resources had to be trans-ferred to fund recovery efforts. In this way,disasters can hit cities twice as hard—inca-pacitating people and the city systems thatserve them and stalling or reversing worktoward a better future.58

When a natural hazard hits an urban area,disaster does not have to automatically fol-low. In many cases, the knowledge andinformation needed to understand hazardsand decrease social and environmental vul-nerability already exist. For example, a newoperational framework guides aid agencieson how to best incorporate disaster risk


128


Disasters can hit cities twice—incapacitating people and the city systems that serve them and stalling or reversing work toward a better future.

reduction into housing and settlementdevelopment projects. It recommends waysto build safe housing, generate incomethrough local risk reduction, make housingaffordable to the most vulnerable families,and develop financial tools to sustain the aidagency itself.59

As cities swell in size, converting suchinformation into mitigation, prevention, andpreparedness projects will have significantbenefits for city officials and for the residentsthey serve. Governments, the private sector,

communities, and individuals have the oppor-tunity—and indeed, the responsibility—togenuinely commit to reducing urban disasterrisk. With such a commitment, lives can besaved and property protected.

Efforts to increase disaster resilience shouldbegin at home, but they cannot end there.Effective urban disaster risk managementhinges on advocacy for risk awareness, goodgovernance, proper technical and commu-nication infrastructure, and the empower-ment of all those who are at risk.


129



When water levels in the Ciliwung Riverbegin to rise, residents in flood-prone districtsin Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, brace for thecoming disaster. As water gates in Depok andManggarai reach capacity, those who havebeen warned gather their belongings to higherground, where they wait out the flood onsecond stories and rooftops. Trash from pol-luted rivers and diseases, including diarrheaand fever, spread rapidly with the rising flood-waters. People living in riverbank slums sufferthe worst consequences: floods could spellthe loss of their homes or even their lives.

This scenario is all too common in Jakarta’s78 zones regularly affected by flooding. With40 percent of its land below sea level and 13rivers flowing through it, this city of 8.4 mil-lion people on the marshy northern coast ofJava has long struggled with floods. Neighbor-hoods such as Kampung Melayu, Jatinegara,and Cawang experience yearly inundation—often just a few feet, but sometimes as deep as several meters. According to one riverbankresident, who works in a small kiosk in frontof his house, “many people prefer to live hereeven though they must evacuate at least twicea year.” 1

The problems have intensified with rapidurbanization and development. Constructionalong the riverbanks has destroyed nativevegetation in many areas, leading to erosionand silting of the riverbeds. As a result, sec-tions of the Ciliwung, the city’s largest river,have been reduced to a fraction of its originalwidth and depth. And as more area is coveredby cement and asphalt, less rainwater is able toseep into the ground, so it runs into the river.In 2002 Jakarta experienced the worst floodsin recent history; they affected over half thecity, forcing some 300,000 people to fleetheir homes and leading to at least 30 deaths.2

While deterioration of the watersheds that

feed the rivers has increased flooding pres-sures, water quality has also become a seriousproblem. With 14,000 cubic meters of house-hold garbage and 900,000 cubic meters ofindustrial waste emptied into Jakarta’s riverseach year, and with riverfront inhabitantsusing it for laundry, bathing, and their ownhuman waste, the Ciliwung has been calledthe “longest toilet on Earth.” 3

The Ciliwung crosses several jurisdictionalborders, beginning its 117-kilometer journeyin the highlands of Bogor before winding its way down to the ocean. Much of theincreased runoff is due to development in thehigh altitudes of Bogor, Puncak, and Cianjur.In some areas, flooding is most pronouncedwhen heavy rainfall occurs in these upstreamareas, even when skies are clear in the capital.In 2005 the Jakarta government offered tohelp neighboring districts improve river man-agement and protect water catchment areasthat soak up rainfall and prevent erosion.4

Several major initiatives to improve urbanriver management are now under way. In2004, the Department of Public Works beganconstruction of a 24-kilometer canal knownas Banjir Kanal Timur to act as a floodplainfor the city’s northern and eastern sections.The Ministry of Forestry has begun rehabili-tating 17 river catchment areas across theislands of Java and Sumatra as part of its$1.6-billion reforestation program, includingkey areas surrounding the Ciliwung. Animproved early flood warning system andemergency response plan is being developedfor the Ciliwung and Cisadane Rivers. Com-munity groups are involved in reforestationand preservation of undeveloped land in areassuch as the historic Condet district of Jakarta;others have volunteered to scour sections ofthe Ciliwung for trash, to demonstrate theimportance of keeping the river clean.5

130

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------JAKARTA

River Management

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/jakarta

The Indonesiangovernment estab-lished a partner-ship with Dutchcounterparts in2002 to devisean “integrated”river manage-ment plan toaddress flood control, waterquality, and the social issues related to river-bank encroachment. The Dutch governmenthas helped finance projects to map the bor-ders of the Ciliwung, reconfigure humansettlements and public spaces near the rivers,and improve water quality through betterwaste management.6

The Bidara Cina neighborhood, which hadbenefited from the internationally recognizedKampung Improvement Program to improveliving conditions in low-income urban neigh-borhoods, is now the site of a pilot project totest the new river management scheme. Thishas introduced dikes, roads, sanitation facili-ties, and improved drainage systems. Effortsto move residences away from the banks ofthe river have met with less success, however.7

Low-income settlements along the rivers—often singled out by officials as a source ofriverbank encroachment and pollution—arecommonly most affected by floods. Althoughthe government budgeted $45 million in2005 to develop low-income housing, thisnumber falls far short of what is needed. Relo-cation has proved to be highly contentious, as residents question compensation levels andthe housing alternatives offered. Many urbanpoor are not eligible for compensationbecause they lack official land rights and legalresidency status.8

In some instances people receive evictionorders at short notice, despite having lived in

a location fordecades. Com-munity groupscharge that all too ofteninformal settle-ments are simplydestroyed andthat residents are frequentlyabused by secu-

rity forces in the process, displacing thousandsof people without providing viable alterna-tives. In Muara Angker, local fishers orga-nized to oppose their proposed resettlement,claiming that officials turned a blind eye tothe real culprits—upscale apartment com-plexes and golf clubs built in adjacent areas.9

Having only just emerged from threedecades of authoritarian rule and a rockytransition period, Indonesian citizens stillmistrust the government, and corruptionremains a serious problem. Many communityorganizations question the sincerity of thegovernment’s commitment to achieving anintegrated solution. They claim that the gov-ernment inconsistently enforces and imple-ments the river management plans by focusingon informal settlements and domestic sourcesof pollution rather than on commercial con-struction and industry polluters, which providegovernment revenue. Groups also maintainthat participatory processes intended to fostertrust and bottom-up approaches are domi-nated by elite members of the community andthat the large-scale, high-cost projects bringopportunities for corruption. Given the slowrate of progress, it is no surprise that manyJakartans remain skeptical.10

—Biko NagaraInternational Policy Studies,Stanford University, Stanford, CA


131

Cityscape: Jakarta

Flooding in Kampung Pulo, Jakarta, in January 2006

Accion Contra la Faime


Mumbai has the distinction of having almosthalf its population of more than 12 millionliving in slums or informal settlements. Today,these very slums are pioneering a new con-cept: policing with people’s involvement.1

Commissioner of Police A. N. Roy saysthat slums do not get the attention theydeserve from any part of the government,including the police. “Do we assign 50 per-cent of our resources to policing slums eventhough they make up half the population?”he asks. He also points out that the majorityof crimes do not take place in slums. Most of the complaints registered with the policeare not offences that would come before acourt—minor scuffles and disagreements,often over things like the common water tap,or a fight between children, or a drunkenhusband beating up his wife.2

Roy believes that policing needs to becustomized, which led him to the idea ofslum panchayats—a Hindi word for councilof five respected elders chosen and acceptedby a village to take decisions on key issues. Asslum dwellers needed ways to handle minoroffences, and as the police do not have theresources to fully meet this need, he thoughtthe best solution was to get slum dwellers todevise their own policing.

As Roy considered what should be done,he met with A. Jockin, president of theNational Slum Dwellers’ Federation (NSDF).Together they came up with ideas on how toinvolve the community. The police, Jockinsays, were generally unresponsive to the issuesthat concerned slum dwellers. They were alsoparticularly indifferent to women’s concernsand often refused to entertain complaintsbrought to the police station by women.3

“We felt we should find a way to involvewomen in this attempt to change the policingsystem in slums,” says Jockin. With this as a

central thought, in 2003 Roy and the NSDFlaunched the slum panchayats in Pune, 170kilometers southeast of Mumbai, where Roywas Police Commissioner at the time. Thefirst slum panchayats in Mumbai were estab-lished in October 2004.4

A slum panchayat has 10 members: 7women and 3 men. In addition, the local“beat cop”—the police officer assigned to thearea by the local police station—also becomesa member. Roy believes that women are bet-ter equipped to deal with disputes than men,which explains why women are in the major-ity in the panchayat. Jockin concurs: “We feltif women were involved, this would not justempower them but also bring about an attitu-dinal change in the community.” He addsthat NSDF and its alliance partner, MahilaMilan (Women Together), chose the mem-bers of the panchayat to ensure that theywere viewed as credible and approachable.5

Each panchayat covers a population ofroughly 10,000. Every member of the pan-chayat is given an identification card. Thepanchayats have the authority of law andmoral authority in the community. Roy notesthat they really are in a position to resolvedisputes, many of which are not crimes butcould become so if they were not resolved.6

Thirty-four-year-old Malti Ambre is amember of the slum panchayat in Mankhurd,a northeastern suburb of Mumbai. Thismother of three, who has studied only up tograde seven, says that the panchayat in herarea has reduced petty crimes “hundred percent.” Proudly displaying her identificationcard, Ambre says that the presence of womenhas made a difference because “women are at home for 24 hours and they know what isgoing on in the slum.” One of their mainachievements, she says, is closing down theillicit liquor dens despite resistance from the

132

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------MUMBAI

Policing by the People

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/mumbai

men and even from some of the local police. “Our men woulddrink away all they earned at these dens andthen come home and beat up their wives,”she says.7

Explaining how the panchayat works,Ambre says that they summon both sidesinvolved in a dispute, listen to both points ofview, and then work out a compromise. Theyalso explain to those involved in the disputethe benefits of reaching a settlement in thepanchayat instead of registering an officialcomplaint with the police. The latter wouldinvolve a great deal of expense, as the matterwould go to court and would take muchmore time to settle. Most of the complaintsthat come to the panchayat have to do withminor disagreements between people orwithin families.8

In 2005, the police and the nongovern-mental groups involved in this experimenttook stock. “All the panchayats were notfunctioning effectively. In fact, out of 131,only 81 were working well,” admits Roy. Inthe more efficient ones, however, the numberof offences registered with the police haddeclined noticeably. “There is general har-mony in the community and the difference is


133

Cityscape: Mumbai

Mumbai slum dwellers involved in daily chores

REUTERS/Punit Paranjpe

palpable. This is more important than crimestatistics,” says the Police Commissioner.9

The other important “collateral benefit,”according to Roy, is the change in the atti-tude of the slum dwellers toward the police.This has happened because both sit at thesame table, unlike in the past, when the slumdwellers would have to plead with the policeto register their complaints. The panchayathas also made the police realize that moreeffective policing was possible through suchcollaboration. Roy adds that without theactive participation of groups like NSDF, the slum panchayat would not work. In addition, notes Jockin, the panchayats haveshown how community women can changethe policing system.10

“One test of success,” says Roy, “is thatsome of the slum women call me directly. The confidence they now have is one of thebiggest successes. This is democracy workingat the grassroots. The panchayats shouldfunction like people’s committees. The policeshould just facilitate.” 11

—Kalpana SharmaDeputy Editor, The Hindu, India

134

Unoma is nine years old. She lives in Asaba,Nigeria. Her home, next to the River Niger,is one small room in a low-income settlementshared with her unmarried aunt and five othergirls. Four other families share the house.Unoma and her neighbors have no access toclean water and no toilets. She does not go toschool. Unoma begins her 15-hour day at6:00 a.m. cleaning the house. She then spendsthe day selling food she has prepared—carry-ing up to five kilos of fufu on her head all day.After selling for nine hours, she returns to col-lect water for the house and cook. She collects300 liters of water from a borehole and finallygoes to sleep at 9:00 p.m. She is always verytired and often gets ill. But Unoma still hopesto go to school one day.1

For millions of young people just likeUnoma all over the world, cities are places ofhope and growth, but also despair and death.

For a tiny minority, cities and towns are placesof long life, health, and, for some, luxury. Butfor the majority, cities are places that theyhope will give them and their children betteropportunities—yet often they find only pol-lution, disease, and insecurity.

The future of our planet now seems irrev-ocably urban, and we need to be sure that thisurban life is healthy, equitable, and sustain-able. Charting a healthier course for citieswill require planning with a people-orientedview. It will require creative local governanceto harness the human and environmentalresources of a city, and urban communitiesbold enough to resist the momentum ofmany currently destructive trends. This chap-ter discusses the public health challenge ofurbanization. It looks at existing health prob-lems in cities and reviews some innovativesolutions to them.

C H A P T E R 7

Carolyn Stephens and Peter Stair

Charting a New Course for Urban Public Health

Carolyn Stephens is a senior lecturer in environment and health at the London School of Hygiene &Tropical Medicine and a visiting professor in the Federal University of Paraná in Brazil. Peter Stair, a for-mer MAP Fellow at Worldwatch Institute, is a Master’s candidate in the Department of City andRegional Planning, University of California–Berkeley.

The Health Challenge of Urbanization

The earliest city dwellers had difficulty withtheir new urban home. Tuberculosis, typhus,bubonic plague, and smallpox arose in manyearly cities. People often lived shorter lives onaverage than their rural ancestors. For exam-ple, evidence suggests that people during theStone Age lived longer than those in ancientRome centuries later. Likewise, the rapidgrowth of European cities during the mid-1800s was hard on people’s health. There issome evidence that life expectancy in Londonthen was lower than in the rest of England.2

Today, as people move into low-incomesettlements vaster and denser than ever before,they are struggling to prosper in environ-ments at least as challenging as the cities of

Victorian Europe. These are places unableto draw in enough fresh water or to channelexcrement away safely. People live in dilapi-dated, intensely crowded homes. They havelittle access to health services, and few are ableto get the education or jobs that could takethem out of their situation. Although citieshave gained a reputation as healthy places tolive, the urban poor very often have higherrates of infant deaths and under-five mortal-ity than their rural counterparts. (See Box 7–1on the myth of the healthy city.)3

In poorer countries, only an urban minor-ity lives in healthy living conditions and hasaccess to good health services, education,and employment. In some towns and cities inAfrica, Asia, and Latin America, up to 80percent of the population lives in extremepoverty—with all that this implies in terms of


135


The myth of the healthy city has been linked for decades to a problem of data aggregation—where total health statistics are sometimes pre-sented for cities with populations greater thanthose of nation states. Megacities suffer particu-larly from a problem of super-aggregation, inwhich health data on the whole city tell onlypart of the story. Each city’s health will dependon a range of contextual factors, just as anational health profile does.

A key predictor is often the overall state of“development” of the city—measured in pro-portions of people with clean water, sanitation,adequate housing, and access to health measuressuch as vaccination and primary care. Thus amegacity with a large proportion of people liv-ing in poverty will have a health profile thatreflects the profile of these people. However,there is another problem: megacities accountfor only about 9 percent of total urban popula-tion of approximately 3.2 billion citizens. Justover half of the world’s city dwellers live in set-

tlements with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants,and we still know little of the health situation insmaller towns and cities internationally.

In every town and city, data that have beenbroken down by income group tell a differentstory of urban health—it is the tale of urbaninequality. Within cities and towns, disaggre-gated data show that there are inequalities inliving conditions and in access to services suchas health, water, and sanitation. There are alsoinequalities in access to education and work.Thus it is hard to generalize about urban healthprofiles, as each city and town may have a dis-tinctive pattern of development and distribu-tion of resources. Even a rich town in a richcountry may have sharp inequalities that affecthealth drastically—for example, a classic studyin New York found that black men in Harlemwere less likely than men in Bangladesh toreach the age of 65.


Box 7–1. The Struggle to Collect Good Data on Health in Cities

living conditions and health. (See Box 7–2.)In wealthier countries, where most peoplehave adequate living conditions, urbaninequalities show themselves in social out-comes such as educational attainment andemployment and in health outcomes relatedto social inequality, such as violence. But inpoorer countries, urban areas often have theworst of all worlds—contaminated air, land,and water; deep poverty; and a health profilethat includes both the infectious diseases ofdeep poverty and the so-called diseases ofmodernity (obesity, cancers, and heart dis-ease). In these cases people carry a “doubleburden” of disease that poses an even moredaunting challenge for human health on anurban planet.4

The poorest people in these countriessometimes include previously isolated indige-nous rural peoples who have been forced offtheir land into the worst areas of towns andcities. These communities have lost their wayof life and often are forced into the mostmarginalized roles in cities. Their health indi-cators can be the poorest among the poor.

For example, indigenous San communitiesin Botswana who have been moved off theirtraditional lands into resettlement camps inisolated towns face multiple challenges totheir health and well-being. Their environ-ment plays a vital role in their identity and wayof life as an indigenous community; radicalchanges in that environment destroy thesocial structure of communities at the sametime that members are forced into main-stream society at the bottom of the socialand economic hierarchy, vulnerable to alco-holism and HIV/AIDS. The San are the onlylanguage group in Botswana whose HumanDevelopment Index score, as calculated by theU.N. Development Programme, fell duringthe 1990s.5

Both the physical and the social environ-ment of cities and towns today affect urban


136


Both historically and today, the biggest tollof urbanization has been concentrated on the poorest residents of a city. In theabsence of amenities such as spacioushousing, flushing toilets, running water, andregular garbage collection, shantytowndwellers around the world spend theirdays maintaining cramped homes, walkinglong distances to a menial job, acceptingcontaminated water when they have to, and living day-to-day in some of theplanet’s least secure and dirtiest neigh-borhoods.

Often they must also tolerate sharpinequalities of wealth and influence thatseem to keep the whole city out ofbalance. Residents of villas de emergenciain Buenos Aires, for example, are com-pelled out of desperation to inhabit thenotoriously polluted banks of the Recon-quista and Matanza Rivers, which smellnauseating and are “overrun with rats,mosquitoes, flies, and other insects.” Lessthan a mile away, right on the edge ofanother shantytown, some of the wealthi-est residents of the city live in gated com-munities of lawns, swimming pools, andsecurity guards.

One effect of living in such unequalsocieties is that the poorest people mustlive in environments that concentrate hazards and multiply health problems. InDhaka, Bangladesh, for example, the wealthycan afford to buy land at prices inconceiv-able to most of the city’s population.As a result, 40 percent of the people arecrammed onto just 5 percent of the landarea. Some of the most desperate of thesesettlers, victims of eviction or floods else-where, live on a ledge precariouslysituated between a toxic factory and apoisoned lake.


Box 7–2. Cities Out of Balance

health. The overall quality of the urban envi-ronment is important for health, and so is theextent of inequality within an urban envi-ronment, as just described. Some problems ofthe urban physical environment, such as ambi-ent air pollution, may affect almost every-one in a city. Other problems, such ascontaminated water, indoor air pollution, orlack of sanitation, may disproportionatelyaffect some groups more than others. (SeeChapter 9.) Urban violence may also affectsome urban dwellers more than others. Rapidurbanization in most cases exaggerates theseproblems, as cities are unable to build enoughinfrastructure and provide enough jobs for aninflux of migrants, many of whom may befleeing war or drought.

Today, the lack of facilities to provide cleanwater and adequate sanitation are major prob-lems—with huge health repercussions. (SeeChapter 2.) Largely due to contaminatedwater and poor sanitation, digestive-tract dis-eases are a leading cause of death in the worldand a major urban health problem.6

Crowding is another major health hazardfor the urban poor. People in low-incomesettlements often live in highly crowdedhomes, with four or more people per room,often shift-sleeping and with many childrenper bed. Contact-related diseases such asmeasles, tuberculosis (TB), and diarrhea areall linked to living in crowded environments.Notably, some richer cities have such deeppockets of disadvantage that diseases relatedto poverty and crowding have re-emergedduring periods of increased inequality withinthe city. A study looking at TB in New Yorkfrom 1970 to 1990, for example, found anincrease in childhood TB in the period andthat children living in areas of the Bronxwhere over 12 percent of homes are severelyovercrowded were 5.6-fold more likely thanchildren in other New York neighborhoodsto develop active TB.7

Although undernutrition is generally con-sidered to be a rural problem, the urbanpoor—forced to pay high prices for foodshipped into the city, and often unable togrow their own food—can often have themost difficulty obtaining enough nutritiousfood. This has major impacts on urbanhealth—particularly for children. A recentanalysis of child health in 15 countries insub-Saharan Africa found that differencesin child malnutrition within cities weregreater than urban-rural differences andconcluded that these were a major prob-lem for the region.8

Deficiencies of calories or protein are notthe only food-related problem faced by theurban poor. The cost of importing fresh rawfruits and vegetables from rural outskirts canbe high, and for working women and men,street foods are more available. These foodsources create their own health risk, with bio-logical contamination a frequent cause of par-asite infestation and diarrhea. Also, densefatty, sugar-rich, and salty foods can often bea more economical—or more readily avail-able—source of calories. In urban healthterms, however, this has impacts on malnu-trition too: obesity now ranks alongside under-nutrition in many urban areas, with risks ofdiabetes and cardiovascular disease becom-ing more common in many towns and cities.9

Cooking food properly can decrease therisks of biological contamination. But somecooking methods can also lead to anotherurban health hazard. Both rural and urban


137


In poorer countries, urban areas often have the worst of all worlds—the infectious diseases of deeppoverty and the so-called diseases of modernity, a “double burden” of disease.

poor families often cook with biomass orcoal-burning stoves without proper ventila-tion. This creates a major threat to health, par-ticularly for mothers and infants. In urbanareas, however, crowding combines with useof these stoves in poor settlements. The healthimpacts are huge. The World Health Orga-nization (WHO) estimates that indoor airpollution created by stoves that burn solidfuels is responsible for 1.6 million deaths and2.7 percent of the global burden of disease—many of them affecting the urban poor.10

The industries that power urbanizationalso create quantities of air pollution in con-tained population centers. (See Table 7–1.)And the combustion of solid fuels (biomass

and coal) in millions of homes can contributeto ambient air pollution. In developing coun-tries, this domestic pollution combines withthe greater cocktail of coal-burning industries,diesel trucks or cars, and small, two-strokemotorcycles. Globally, urban air pollution isestimated to kill 800,000 people each year.Notably, about half of these deaths may occurin China.11

Urban industries do not simply pollutethe air—they often contaminate the land andwater of the city. This can create a paradoxi-cal kind of urban development: an immedi-ate economic benefit, but at great expense forthe health of current and future residents. Aswith other urban health problems, pollution


138


Table 7–1. Air Pollution Types and Effects and Urban Pollution Hotspots

Air Pollutant Description Health Effects Hotspots

Large suspended particulates (PM 10)

Small particulates (PM 2.5, especially sulfur dioxide)

Carbon monoxide

Nitrogen oxides

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Lead


Soot from combustion;soil from erosion

By-product of burningsulfurous coal anddiesel fuels

Incompletelycombusted fuel

Atmospheric nitrogenoxidized during high-temperature combustion

Evaporated or incom-pletely combusted fuel;evaporated solvents,paints, adhesives

Combustion of gaso-line with added lead

Can enter lungs and irritatebronchi

Smaller particles penetrate moredeeply into lungs, causing asthmaand bronchitis; tied to somecancers; can contribute to smogformation

If concentrated in containedarea, can cause asphyxiation

Reacts with VOCs (and carbonmonoxide) to form ozone,which irritates eyes and respira-tory tracts and increases preva-lence of asthma

Often the limiting component of ozone formation; benzenecauses leukemia

Debilitates cognitive functioning

Northern cities in China,which rely on high-sulfurcoal for heating andindustrial processes

Northern cities in China

Along roads during rush hour in car-reliant,high-altitude cities,during winter

Car-reliant cities duringhot summers

Urban areas crowdedwith older car models

African cities where leadis still commonly used toincrease octane

impacts may be worse for the poorer peoplewho both live around and work in theseindustries—in both rich and poor countries.The urban poor may get work—but at whatrisk? Bhopal in India was perhaps the mostnotorious example of this kind of urban haz-ard and inequality: in 1984 more than 40 tonsof methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesti-cide plant, immediately killing at least 3,800of the city’s poorest people and causing sig-nificant morbidity and premature death formany thousands more. Not only does thiskind of urban industrial development often failto move people out of poverty, it can harmthousands of lives over the long term.12

In many areas, poorly planned urban trans-port systems are another paradoxical urbandevelopment. They can increase commerceand the accessibility of jobs, but if they relyon motorized movement they can also pro-duce other health hazards. Motorized formsof transport cause ambient air pollution andcontribute to a massive toll in road trafficcrashes. WHO estimates that each year about1.2 million peoplearound the world dieas a result of road traf-fic crashes, and perhapsas many as 50 millionmore are injured. Astudy in Kumasi,Ghana, found thatpedestrian road trafficcrashes were the singlelargest cause of injuryin the town. Even incities in conflict, suchincidents are an impor-tant cause of death byinjury. In Maputo,Mozambique, roadtraffic crashes were thebiggest cause of fatalinjuries reported in

2000. In some cities, these are the main causeof death for young people, followed by urbanviolence.13

In many cities and towns of Africa, Asia,and Latin America, “modern” diseases suchas asthma, heart disease, and cancer are arriv-ing in places that have yet to fully get a han-dle on “old” diseases such as tuberculosis,cholera, and diarrhea. Figure 7–1 illustratesthe double burden of disease brought bydirty industrial development and pollutingmotor vehicles in Kolkata, India. Up to 40percent of people still live in poverty, but theroute to development is sought throughhighly polluting industries, and providingbasic services to millions of people remains adream. The Figure shows the cause of deathby age—demonstrating, albeit crudely, thatif people in Kolkata survive the insults ofcontaminated water, they live on to experiencethe severe risks of highly contaminated air.This “double burden” is particularly exag-gerated in unequal cities in Africa, Asia, andLatin America, where affluent people are


139


<5 5–14 15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+

Perc

ent

of M

orta

lity

in A

ge G

roup

0

4

8

12

16

Diarrheal disease

Asthma, bronchitis, emphysema

Source: Stephens 1999

Age at Death

Figure 7–1. The Urban Double Burden of Disease in Kolkata, India

increasingly dealing with expensive modernmaladies such as diabetes and heart diseasewhile lower-income people are still plaguedby undernutrition and infectious disease.14

There is another risk in cities that is noteasily addressed with simple interventionssuch as improved living conditions or infra-structure: urban violence, which is in epi-demic proportions in many cities both Northand South. In some cities violence has actu-ally started to reverse overall trends of healthimprovement, particularly for young people.For example, a longitudinal study looking attrends in mortality for 15–24 year olds inSão Paulo and Rio de Janeiro from 1930 to1991 showed a steady improvement in ado-lescent health until the 1980s, when deathrates started to rise again due to violence.The death rate due to violence can be up to11 times higher for young people from thepoorest communities than for youngstersfrom a wealthier community.15

In Brazil, urban violence takes an enor-mous toll on poor young men in terms of bothmortality and morbidity: death rates fromhomicide in Brazilian state capitals in 2003 foryoung men aged 20–24 was 133 per 100,000.This means that 1 child in every 1,000 will bea victim of homicide in these cities, a ratehigher than that of any childhood cancer. TheUnited States has a similar problem, with vio-lence affecting principally economically dis-advantaged young urban men from ethnicminorities, who are disproportionately repre-sented in jails and in homicides.16

Injuries related to traffic accidents andviolence are now respectively the second and

fourth causes of hospitalization in Braziliancities. This makes trauma treatment a toppriority for urban health services in this coun-try and challenges health systems that aregenerally better prepared for infectious orchronic diseases.17

The fear of violence can also be a signifi-cance hindrance to mental well-being. Long-term anxiety, stressful life events, lack ofcontrol over resources, and lack of social sup-port are all key preconditions for depression.Poor women in cities are often the most vul-nerable group.18

Of all the urban challenges to public healthin the future, perhaps the one that will affectmore people than any other is global climatechange. More frequent and extreme droughtsare likely to test cities’ ability to provide ade-quate food and water. More-intense floods arelikely to destroy the precarious housing ubiq-uitous in slum areas and to increase outbreaksof waterborne diseases. Fatally strong heatwaves are likely to become more frequent,while tropical diseases are becoming viablefurther from the equator and higher up moun-tains. Cities such as Nairobi and Harare, oncelocated strategically beyond malaria’s reach, arelikely to lose their favorable position.19

Higher temperatures that many scientistsassociate with climate change have alreadyhad an impact on mortality rates in cities. InChicago, 700 people died in a matter of daysduring a heat wave in 1995. In the summerof 2003, the toll was far higher: the deathsof more than 52,000 people in Europe weretied to the record-breaking heat in manycountries there. In cities, the stress on peo-ple’s health from the unprecedented heatwas no doubt aided by the “heat islandeffect”—the higher temperatures experi-enced in urban areas everywhere due to theconcentration of buildings, paved areas, andother infrastructure and the waste heat fromcars and factories. (See Chapter 6.)20


140


In some cities violence has actually started to reverse overalltrends of health improvement,particularly for young people.

Why does it matter if there are all thesehealth problems in cities when urbanites sup-posedly have the best access to medicine?There is one pervasive health myth abouttowns and cities that decades of research doesnot seem to shift—that people might get illin urban areas but at least they have access tohealth services. Technically, this is true: thereare more health services concentrated intowns and cities than in more geographicallydispersed rural areas. Hospitals are also usu-ally found in cities—which should mean thaturbanites have access to emergency and spe-cialist care when they need it.

Yet the evidence suggests that the urbanpoor have little access to even basic health careat public facilities when they need it and thatpreventive programs such as vaccination arenot reaching these people. Studies in India,for example, suggest that while “60% of thechildren aged 12–23 months in urban Indiaare fully immunized; coverage among urbanpoor children is a dismal 43%.” The urbanpoor also are more likely to use private healthservices than public ones—having no choicebut to use their hard-earned resources to payfor illnesses created by the dense, pollutedenvironments they are forced to live in.21

The Move Toward Healthier Cities

While urban living has the potential toimmerse people in a dense array of hazards,it is also true that wealthier cities like London,Berlin, and Tokyo—once home to the world’sleast healthy living conditions—have achievedhistorically unprecedented qualities of life. Acombination of improved housing condi-tions, better nutrition, cleaner food, and newmedical treatments brought a significant andconstant decline in death rates across Englandand the United States, and then France, Ger-many, Italy, and Japan. Better scientific under-

standing of infectious disease and improvedsanitation systems were linked to a gradualend to outbreaks of cholera, while improve-ments in London’s housing conditionsbetween the 1830s and 1920s brought a sub-stantial decline in the number of deaths fromtuberculosis.22

By improving the road system and railconnections, introducing more extensiverefrigeration, and improving agriculture,clean and healthy food became more readilyavailable in cities like London. Death ratesfrom typhoid, which spread via contami-nated food, fell dramatically between 1840and 1900. Over the same time, cities devel-oped more professional and standard sys-tems of garbage collection, as London’smunicipal government finally identified city-wide garbage collection as a fundamentaltask for a healthy city.23

Today, children born in urban areas ofEurope, the United States, New Zealand,and Japan will see a doctor as soon as theyneed to if they fall ill. They are more likely tobe vaccinated against diseases such as measles,polio, mumps, and rubella, and as they growup they are more likely to live in adequatehousing, go to school, and find work that isnot hazardous. They have a better chance ofsurviving past the age of five. And as theybecome adults they will have better access tomedical facilities in the case of illness.24

During the twentieth century, people liv-ing in cities have not had to repeat the entireexperience of dirty industrialization. There issome evidence that Latin America accom-plished an urban epidemiological transitionover a much shorter period of time througha combination of preventive health interven-tions such as vaccination, some public healthinfrastructure, and macroeconomic improve-ments that provided jobs and put food onpoor people’s tables. The more urbanizedthe country, the faster mortality rates fell.25


141


But facilitating a similar transition for allurban dwellers, even as it is under way today,is still a daunting challenge. Moreover, macro-economic changes can affect urban peoples’lives very quickly and can be beneficial for theurban poor or not. Fundamentally, citydwellers everywhere rely on the macroecon-omy for their well-being, and shifts in nationalprosperity can be felt more sharply by theurban poor due to their profound depen-dence on the economy for everything fromaccess to food to education and work. Themovement of a major industry from one loca-tion to another can change conditions pro-foundly: it can provide jobs and better livingconditions for people in one city, while thoseleft behind in another city can see a drop intheir living standards and well-being.

It may be that trends in macroeconomicinequality will have severe effects on the urbanpoor. There is some evidence of this from twovery different contexts: Studies in the UnitedStates looking at trends in mortality betweenthe 1970s and 1990s found that AfricanAmericans living in cities experiencedextremely high and growing rates of excessmortality compared with rural and wealthiercommunities. A similar study in five Africancountries of rising death rates for childrenunder the age of five between the 1980s and1990s found that in Zimbabwe the increasewas largest among urban children.26

In this context, what can we do to encour-age the move toward healthier cities? There isevidence that urban inequalities decrease whenlocal governments listen to low-income resi-dents and when such individuals are included

in urban plans and actions. Inequalities mayalso lessen when health is used as a criterionto establish priorities for urban policy. InKolkata, India, for example, an environmentand development plan was based on health pri-orities and on a consultation weighted towardthe views and needs of the poorest citizens.This did not change the city overnight, but itgradually put the needs of the urban poor onthe policy agenda. There are also many suc-cessful stories of self-help in water and sani-tation—where health and city equality haveboth improved when local governments workwith local people. (See Chapter 2.)27

Donors, too, who are seeking to help theurban poor can better support health by lis-tening to them. Looking for a set of bestpractices, the World Bank embarked on aninstitute-wide analysis of 45 participatoryurban development programs in the 1990s.The final report concluded that communityparticipation was absolutely essential for anyslum upgrading projects. The authors notedthat the people who must move their homesto make way for roads, public spaces, andsewage lines “must be involved in the deci-sion making process if they are to cooperatewith it.” The report further concluded thatcommunity participation was “the singlemost important factor in overall quality ofproject implementation—efficiency, effec-tiveness, timeliness, responsiveness, andaccountability.”28

In some countries, such as Brazil, recentlocal and national government strategies havesystematically supported governance and bud-get setting that gives priority to the needs ofthe urban poor and that puts public serviceshigh on the overall agenda. (See Chapter 9.)Local government support to the efforts oflow-income city dwellers can have effects ona surprising range of health challenges. InIlo, a small port town in Peru, for example,air pollution policy finally got on the agenda


142


Asking the most disenfranchised people in any city about theirpriorities can stimulate change inalmost all urban health problems.

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/ilo

when communities were included in debateswith the local mining company, and access topublic services increased dramatically as com-munity concerns were included in local plan-ning and budgeting. Green spaces increased,water contamination decreased, and sustain-able development gradually rose in impor-tance on the agenda. The mayor during thisperiod noted that Ilo’s people and their mobi-lization put the environment, poverty, andequity high on the agenda—all themes thataffect urban health.29

It is not just inequalities in the physicalenvironment of cities that can be improvedwith more involvement of citizens. It isnotable that some of the most intractableproblems of urban inequality—such as urbanviolence—are often only tackled in this way.It is young people who are most affected byurban violence, and the urban poor are oftenin constant threat of violence—either fromyoung people in other poor areas or from thepolice. Interestingly, young people them-selves often have the solutions. For example,young men from one of the most difficultfavelas of Rio de Janeiro started a musicalalternative to drug gangs, eventually spread-ing their combination of music and educationto other favelas and starting a health educa-tion program for young women and men.30

Film and music can often engage youngpeople in these towns and cities in ways thatmore conventional approaches cannot. Andstories can be told from the perspective ofyoung people who feel that their lives areignored. Health lessons can come throughthis, while shared visions are exchanged.

Inequalities exist in even one of the world’smost famous new cities: Curitiba, Brazil.Touted as a healthy, social, and sustainablecity, Curitiba has achieved world fame for itsvision. But it is also home to thousands ofpeople living in favelas, and like other citiesit is affected by violence and drug wars. Yet

here, too, young people have come up withan answer. In 2006 Alex Roberto and hisfriends from a poor neighborhood in the citymade a film about “the ignored society,”conveying to the city government their visionfor a healthier city. In this film, the young peo-ple asked their city to listen to the people ofthe poorer communities—not to ignore theirpart of the urban world, but to include themin the vision of this beautiful city.31

Asking the most disenfranchised people inany city about their priorities can stimulatechange in almost all urban health problems.Their solutions are often the cheapest andmost appropriate ones in particular situa-tions. Involving the poor can also revealhealth problems—and solutions—that mostplanners have never thought of. A 1997study that asked homeless women in Kolkataabout their greatest health threat, forinstance, revealed an enormous burden ofurban sexual violence. One intervention thatthe women really valued was some lightaround the water posts and toilet blocks toilluminate the unsafe areas at night. Boththe issue and the solution would not haveoccurred to city planners had they not askedthe advice of the women who were the leastheard in this vast city.32

Old Stories and New Solutions We know that many of the solutions appliedby urban planners in the past would alleviatea good deal of the health problems of today’stowns and cities. But now, perhaps for the firsttime, we are also aware that urban systems andstructures need to be environmentally sus-tainable if we are to secure the health of peo-ple living in cities in the future. Sustainability,as we now know it, is something that theurban planners of the past did not think of asthey pursued industrial development. Fortu-nately, there are some ways cities can be both


143


healthier and less environmentally destructive.Perhaps the first sustainable challenge is to

make a city that breathes life and does notconsume more than it needs. Plants are vitalto this—whether they exist within urbanboundaries or not, they are a vital part of acity’s metabolism. They provide the foodthat replenishes cities. They produce theoxygen people breathe and they filter the airand water fouled by cities. In many cases, theyabsorb much of the organic waste that citiesdispose of.

There are health benefits to ensuring thaturban areas contain more of the plants theyneed within their own borders. In cities,plants can absorb air pollution before it doesharm to people, reduce the heat island effect,filter sullied water before it enters a stream orriver, help dispose of sewage before it poisonsother ecosystems, and even help ensure acontinuous supply of fresh food—all at apotentially low cost. Greening a city can thusreduce the ecological footprint of its resi-dents while also improving their health.

Unfortunately, most cities around theworld are reducing the amount of greenspaces within their borders. Cities in the east-ern United States, for example, have lost 30percent of their tree cover over the last 20years. Buildings and roads take priority, mak-ing some areas into “pavement ecosystems”that are even more lifeless than deserts.33

Different species of plants can bringdiverse benefits to urban areas, but cropssuch as tomatoes, carrots, and lettuce havethe most obvious value for people. Freshvegetables and fruits are essential for pro-viding people with enough vitamins andfiber, yet the cost of maintaining their fresh-ness en route from rural areas is often morethan poor residents can afford.

Urban agriculture can be one of the mosteffective ways to improve health in a varietyof urban areas. Food harvested in cities can

provide cheap, reliable nutrition, as well as anextra source of income for the poorest resi-dents. Urban agricultural systems are alsooften the cheapest way to handle sewagewastes, which can provide a nutrient-richsource of irrigation water as long as care istaken to eliminate pathogens that pose a riskto health. In wealthier countries, commu-nity gardens are a cheap way to improveruined properties and to foster communitycooperation. (See Chapter 3.)

Plants, and large trees in particular, can alsoimprove urban air quality. Plants naturallyabsorb pollutants such as nitrogen oxides,carbon monoxide, and ozone, and their leavescan filter dust and particulates from the air.Moreover, because trees can shade the asphaltand pavement that contributes to the urbanheat island effect, they can help lower thetemperature of a city and, with it, reduce therate of ozone formation.

Although trees can only filter out a smallportion of the pollutants released into largecities, the effect of an entire municipal forestcan add up. The trees in New York City, forexample, remove about 1,821 tons of air pol-lution a year, providing a value to society ofabout $9.5 million. A computer simulation inAtlanta, Georgia, found that a 20-percentloss of the city’s urban forest cover would leadto a 14-percent rise in ozone concentrations.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhas suggested urban tree planting as a way toreduce ozone formation in cities that are outof compliance with ozone standards.34

Some evidence suggests that urban treesand green space can also help decrease vio-lence in a neighborhood. A study of policerecords in Chicago found that after randomlyassigning people to live in 98 different apart-ment buildings with varying degrees of veg-etation surrounding them, the greener theapartment block, the fewer crimes werereported—both property and violent.35


144


http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/newyork

Availability of green space is also linked tourban equity. In Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosamade the provision of green public spacesone of the centerpieces of his administrationwhen he was mayor. “With economic devel-opment lower-income groups get goodswhich once seemed inaccessible to them,”he noted. “But they will never have access togreen spaces unless governments act judi-ciously.” Bogotá’s program was remarkablydecentralized: citizens participated in the sit-ing, design, and creation of new city parks.36

A novel example of links between medi-cine, health, and urban green spaces is Mum-bai’s new 37-acre Mahim Nature Park.Previously the area was a treeless garbagedump, with poor communities living on oneside and a polluted creek on the other. Thecity government is using the park as a way toencourage residents of Mumbai to planttheir own green spaces closer to home. Butthis is not just about health as an abstractconcept: at the center of the park there aremore than 100 species of ayurvedic plants formedical use.37

As with community gardens, communityefforts to plant green spaces can bring men-tal health benefits. One study of a communityeffort to preserve the Truganina ExplosivesReserve in Altona in Australia found thatparticipants visited doctors less frequently,perceived their health as better, felt safer intheir community, felt they had more oppor-tunity to share their skills, and had a greatersense of belonging. One participant who hadsuffered from depression said the work was“like a dose of medicine.” Another said, “Youbecome part of what is around you; you seepeople enjoying themselves and you benefitfrom that vicariously.”38

In many urban areas, transport is one of thecentral causes of the “double burden” of dis-eases. Former Mayor Peñalosa of Bogotá hasnoted, “As developing country cities become

more economically developed, the automobilebecomes the main source of deterioration ofthe quality of life.” Cars become the leastcontrollable air polluters. Wide, fast, and dan-gerous roads are “like fences…making thecity less humane.” And cars demand, “unlim-ited investments in road infrastructure, whichdevour scarce public funds [for] water andsewage supply, schools, parks, and meeting theother basic needs of the poor.”39

Air pollution from cars remains one of thebiggest problems in a number of big citiesaround the world. In Mexico City, threequarters of air pollution comes from cars.Contained by a basin and an old volcanocrater and at 2,000 meters above sea level,a gray-brown noxious haze often hangs stag-nant over the city.40

Compounding these chronic health prob-lems, collisions between cars and pedestri-ans are the single most common type ofaccidental death and injury in the world. Theproblems can be especially bad in cities wherepeople are rapidly starting to use cars. Vehi-cle fatality rates nearly tripled in Beijing dur-ing the 1990s, making car accidents theleading cause of death among people under45 there and the leading cause of working-lifeyears lost. WHO has identified traffic as oneof the greatest dangers to poor urbanites.Not surprisingly, people who will never owna car in their lives—many of whom are forcedto walk for miles each day along dangerousroads—are at the greatest risk.41

If cities and town were instead designedwithout preference for automobile travel,they could be the places where people walk


145


Food harvested in cities can providecheap, reliable nutrition, as well as an extra source of income for the poorest residents.

and cycle to better health. (See Chapter 4.)WHO has estimated that physical inactivityalready causes 1.9 million deaths a year as theresult of heart ailments, cancer, and diabetes,and this number is rising as people increas-ingly travel by car instead of foot. In theUnited States, where childhood obesity anddiabetes are growing problems, the propor-tion of children or adolescents walking orbicycling to school dropped from 48 per-cent to less than 15 percent between 1969and 2001. At the same time, childhood obe-sity and diabetes are on the rise.42

Cities that are oriented toward walkingcan encourage physical activity where peopleare dying for lack of it. In the United States,residents of highly walkable communities gotan hour more exercise each week and were 2.4times more likely to meet the physical activ-ity requirements for a healthy life. Otherstudies have found that residents of walkablecommunities are at a lower risk for beingoverweight or obese.43

Our Holistic Urban Future?Improved transport or greener environmentsalone cannot bring good health to citydwellers. Community involvement in urbandecisionmaking can improve cities immenselyby putting people’s views on the urban plan-ning agenda, but again that alone is notenough. We also need a holistic vision of theurban space—we need to put intersectoral

collaboration and sustainability on the agenda.Cities and towns all over the world are nowthe nub of overconsumption, as well as beingthe heart of darkness for millions of peoplewith little chance of escaping urban poverty.

There are two urban worlds emerging.There is the urban world of the wealthy, whoare imprisoned in their gated communitiesand live long lives whether they are born intoAsian, African, or American cities. And thereis the world of the economically and sociallydisenfranchised, who work desperately toescape their poverty while risking their livesevery day in their homes, on the roads, andin their workplaces. There are many differ-ences between these two worlds, but per-haps the main one lies simply in the numbers:the wealthy urban world is for a tiny minor-ity; the disenfranchised urban world is forthe vast majority.

Perhaps the most startling thing aboutthese urban worlds is that they are not sepa-rated in space or time. In every city the peo-ples of these worlds live alongside each other.They breathe the same air and may travelalong the same streets. They also have, inessence, the same set of aspirations: to live welland long and to give their children a betterfuture. Our urban future sets us perhaps thebiggest challenge as human beings that wehave ever had to face. We have to bring theseworlds together and to move them bothtoward a sustainable future or there will be nochance of healthy lives for those living intomorrow’s cities.

There is no easy solution to the challengesof urban health internationally. The major-ity urban world demands, rightly, that theirhealth involves their basic rights to cleanwater, sanitation, adequate housing, educa-tion, access to health services, and work thatwill be safe and remunerative. Interventionstoward this would guarantee survival for theurban millions who die unnecessarily today.


146


There are two urban worlds emerging:the urban world of the wealthy,imprisoned in gated communities,and the world of the economically and socially disenfranchised, who work desperately to escape poverty.

But alongside this, our urban future needscreative new solutions too: there are no sim-ple interventions that will address urban vio-lence, for instance. Technical interventionswill not address an urban health problemthat is rooted in complex social injustice.Obesity and mental health problems alsoneed a new lens. Cities that isolate us fromnature and from each other cannot bedescribed as healthy cities for the twenty-first century.

Equity is perhaps the key to the morecomplex social problems of cities—and it alsocan lead toward sustainability. (See Chapter9.) A city where all peoples live together inpeace, sharing the same spaces and the sameresources, is far from today’s urban reality. Acity where people think of the next generationand the planet as a whole is also far from thisreality. But neither vision is impossible—either to imagine or to achieve.

Perhaps we can only achieve both urbanhealth and urban sustainability with a newvision of the planet and of each other—avision based on the reality of our urban future.

Maybe we need a real renaissance of vision—a new urban ethic that is taught and sharedbetween all of us, one that builds on theethic of the ancient worlds we have livedthrough. An ethic that is anti-materialist,resource-sharing, peaceful. An urban ethicthat connects us all and essentially arguesthat “No man is an island, entire of itself...anyman’s death diminishes me, because I aminvolved in mankind; and therefore neversend to know for whom the bell tolls; it tollsfor thee.”44

What will Unoma and all her contempo-raries think of our urban world? Will theyever live in a healthy urban setting—withadequate water, food, and shelter and free ofrisks of ill health and early death? Urbanhealth has no easy solutions. But for manyproblems it is not technical knowledge thatwe lack but political will, social solidarity,and a commitment to sustainability andequity. In the cities that have political and cit-izen commitment to these values, we see ahealthier, more sustainable, and more equi-table urban space.


147



From a distance, Kibera—the largest informalsettlement in Kenya’s capital city, Nairobi—isvisually stunning. Seen from the air, its corru-gated iron sheets twinkle like stars scatteredon the ground. Step a little closer, though, andthe first thing that will hit you is the stench ofhuman waste.

On a typical day in Kibera, the smell ofchips, mandazi (a local doughnut), and roastmeat mingle with the odor of raw sewage.Plastic bags, some used as “flying toilets”(bags that people defecate in and throw onrooftops or just in the streets), litter the lanesthat separate each shack. Occasionally youmay stumble upon someone lying on theground intoxicated with changaa, a lethallocal brew. But for the most part, it is abustling settlement, where restaurants andbusinesses thrive.

Some seven kilometers southwest ofNairobi’s central business district, Kiberacovers approximately 225 hectares split by theNairobi-Kisumu railway line and surroundedby middle-income housing estates, a dam,vacant land, and a lush golf course. Kibera, acorruption of the Nubian term “kibra,” meanswilderness or bush. What was once a spraw-ling, sparsely populated settlement inhabitedby retired Nubian soldiers who were allocatedthe land by the British Army in 1912 hastoday become one of the most crowded placesin this city of nearly 3 million people.1

Kibera—one of nearly 200 informal settle-ments or “slums” in Nairobi—is estimated to have more than 1,200 people per hectare,most of whom live in tiny wattle, daub, andtin shacks with no electricity, no runningwater, no breathing space. Population esti-mates for the area range from 400,000 toover 600,000, making it the densest, mostpopulous slum in the city. A recent surveyfound that over 80 percent of inhabitants live

in single rooms that measure, on average, 9.4 square meters and are shared by fivepersons. Water sold by vendors is affordableonly in small quantities. One pit latrine isusually shared by 75 people. Fewer than halfthe residents have access to a bathroom, somany bathe in their one-room hovel. Over80 percent of residents are tenants in illegalstructures, paying an average monthly rent of $12.2

Although most people reported that theydid not live in Kibera out of choice, theycited affordability as the most critical deter-minant of whether they would stay. InNairobi’s skewed housing market, in whichmore than 80 percent of residents are tenants,rental options for low-income families rangefrom shacks in slums to single rooms in mul-tistory tenements. A one-bedroom apartmentin Nairobi’s Umoja estate, intended for thelower end of the housing market, costs a littleless than $100 a month, out of reach formost Kiberans, nearly half of whom earn$70–140 a month and a third of whom earnless than $70. In response to the housingsqueeze, unauthorized multistory tenementswith shared toilet and washing facilities arespringing up within and on the outskirts of slums; most are not built to housing stan-dards or building codes.3

Patrick Obwaya, 53, who earns 5,500Kenya shillings ($77) a month as a securityguard, arrived in Kibera over 20 years agoand lives there still with his three teenagesons in a dark, mud-walled shack with norunning water or toilet. His bed and those of his sons are separated by sheets, an extra-ordinary feat, as the shack is no more than 12 square meters. One of his sons sleeps onPatrick’s bed when he is on night duty, a kindof slumberland musical chairs. On his walls,next to newspaper cutouts of Mother Teresa

148

Life in Kibera

CITYSCAPE:

------------

----NAIROBI

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/nairobi

and Jomo Kenyatta,Kenya’s first president, isa photo of him and hiswife at their wedding.It’s been 20 years sincehe lived in the westernKenyan village wherehis wife lives.4

The scale of depri-vation in Kibera is sohuge that nongov-ernmental interven-tions have onlymanaged to margin-ally improve accessto basic services.Schools, health facili-ties, and water points remain inadequate.A study found that 14 public primary schoolswere situated within walking distance of Kib-era, but they could only accommodate 20,000of the 100,000 primary school–age childrenin the area. To have significant impact, thepublic sector must get more involved.5

Government efforts remain mired in con-flict and confusion, however. The Kenya SlumUpgrading Programme, initiated in 2000 inan agreement between the government ofKenya and UN-HABITAT, has remainedlargely unimplemented, mainly because noone can agree on the best way forward.6

Suspicions arise due to Kenya’s corruptland allocation system. Even the most wellintentioned housing projects have beenmarred by political patronage, nepotism, andprofit extraction. Kibera residents fear thatany attempts to “redevelop” or “upgrade”their homes will leave them homeless, asupgrading may lead to land speculation thatprices them out of the upgraded settlements.All units in a recent National Housing Cor-poration project were allocated or traded to

the middle classes.The housing unitswere built to mid-dle-class standards,which increased their market value,encouraging benefi-ciaries to sell or tradein their units.7

The answer toNairobi’s slum problemlies in stronger andmore integrated inter-vention by governmentministries and agencies.The government needs to step into the distortedrental market with effec-tive regulation and to

invest in low-cost public housing. Ownershipsolutions, such as communal titling, couldprevent titles from being traded to non-slumdwellers. This does not require huge foreignloans. Most countries that have reduced slumpopulations and slum growth used domesticresources to do so.8

A common view among policymakers inKenya and other countries is that once ruralareas are made more enticing, rural-to-urbanmigration—and slum growth—will becurbed. But history has shown that urbaniza-tion is irreversible and closely linked to devel-opment. People move to Kibera because itmeans better access to employment opportu-nities. Slums like Kibera are sites of immenseopportunity and enterprise, places of transi-tion where dreams of escaping poverty arefirst nurtured. But they are also sites ofimmense misery and poor health and envi-ronmental conditions.9

—Rasna WarahFreelance Writer, Kenya


149

Cityscape: Nairobi

A vegetable vendor in Kibera

Hiroshi Sato


Petra, in southern Jordan, has been a center ofhuman activity for more than 9,500 years andwas declared a UNESCO World Heritage Sitein 1985. The city flourished for three centuriesunder the Nabateans, from 200 BC to 100 AD,with a population of 20,000–30,000 at thecrossroads of trade routes. After the last Naba-tean king died in 106 AD, Petra began a slowdecline. For centuries, only a few Bedouintribes lived in the area. Seeds of change wereplanted in 1812, when a Swiss explorer redis-covered the city, paving the way for archeo-logical missions.1

The modern fortunes of Petra are tied to itsarcheological significance and related tourism.The region’s population surged from 4,610 in1979 to approximately 20,000 in 1994 and anestimated 26,000 in 2006. The largest urbancenter in the area is Wadi Musa, built on thehillsides surrounding the wadis, or gorges, ofMusa and Sadr. The traditional village lies onthe lower and midrange slopes, while new,functional three- and four-story residentialbuildings dot the higher mountainsides, dis-persed among derelict grazing lands.2

The town center comes to life during thetourist season, with Internet cafes and a largenumber of hotels—both international chainsand small, locally owned inns. The ruins ofthe original stone dwellings are either aban-doned or used as animal shelters. The dustywhite sprawl of Wadi Musa contrasts starklywith Petra’s carefully planned buildings,which strike visitors with their size, colorfulfacades, and the sheer magnitude of effort itmust have taken to build them.

The rise of small urban centers and the pres-sures on Petra’s archeological site promptedthe government in 1993 to delineate the“Petra Region”—with the Petra Archeologi-cal Park at its center, surrounded by WadiMusa and five other small settlements. The

area covered approximately 3,000 households.3

The Petra Region Planning Council (PRPC)was set up by the government in September1995 to manage the 1,000-square-kilometerregion, including the park. PRPC representa-tives were selected from among the local community, relevant governmental agencies,activists, and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs). The council’s responsibilitiesincluded building roads, streets, sidewalks, andutility infrastructure; running environmentaland tourism sites; managing and protecting theenvironment; and ensuring people’s welfare.4

Although the council provided a forum toengage the community in debate and to dev-elop policies, it struggled to influence urbandevelopment and the preservation of culturaland natural heritage. It was formed to central-ize development efforts, but instead it splin-tered them, as the PRPC’s mandate to managethe park overlapped with those of relevantministries and government departments andof nongovernmental agencies.

Unplanned development was causingproblems. In response, the government com-missioned a study in 1996, which noted that in Wadi Musa “recent rapid and largelyuncontrolled growth has resulted in theemergence of urban characteristics previouslyunknown in the region.” Employmentdepends on the growth of tourism, the singlelargest source of income. Buildings haveencroached on agricultural areas, changingthe terraced topography into sporadic built-up areas between patches of grazing land.Pollution is damaging the ancient buildingsand local residents’ health. Wadi Musa’scesspits have discharged into the wadis,degrading the water and at times causing foul odors.5

To streamline policy planning for Petra,the government of Jordan established the

150

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------PETRA

Managing Tourism

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/petra

Petra RegionAuthority (PRA)in 2001 headedby the Ministerof Tourism. Thisoffice developeda zoning planwith provisionsfor land use, ownership, landscaping,transportation, roads, and waste manage-ment. While the plan marked an importantchange, critics argued that the governmentfailed to discuss it in advance with local resi-dents and did not account for sensitive areaswith high impact on the national park.6

Again, internal conflicts ensued due to over-lapping mandates and ineffective policies. In2005, the government passed a law linking thePRA directly to the Prime Minister’s Office,giving it higher-level executive authority.7

Conflict has limited the effectiveness of thePRA and its predecessor the PRPC, which hassucceeded in zoning some land and issuingbuilding licenses but has yet to producebuilding regulations. New buildings in WadiMusa, which many consider eyesores, con-tinue to lack local character. Even the PRAhas built large new offices overlooking theArcheological Park, in a stark pink hue. Alsooverlooking the park is the Al Hussein binTalal University, a series of monotonous beigestone buildings that dominate the landscape.8

The PRA has had little success encouragingbusiness development or promoting income-generating projects in the poorer villages.Some land surrounding Petra has not beenzoned, including the area from the CrownePlaza Hotel to Um Seyhoun and the scenicroad to Beidha. Although the governmentclaimed these lands for their ecological andcultural importance, they are incrementallybeing sold to private developers.9

The institutionalframework has pro-duced policy grid-lock. According toone defender ofPetra’s archeologicaland cultural heritage,Aysar Akrawi of thePetra National Trust,

regulations and zoning laws have not beenrevised to reflect the increasingly vulnerableenvironment or the impact on ancient build-ings. “Wadi Musa,” she said, “is a buffer toPetra, and they [the PRA] have not takeninto consideration the high impact it has onthe park. The six towns surrounding the parkmust be considered a buffer zone and not anurban center in the development plans.” 10

The Petra region, and Wadi Musa in parti-cular, continues to develop rapidly. But thefortunes of the region are unpredictable, asthey depend on the fluctuating number ofvisitors to Petra, which in turn depends on theperceived political environment in countriesbordering Jordan. The continuing challengefor Petra, as for many other cities, is to forge abalance among economic, environmental, andsociocultural development goals. This chal-lenge requires effective institutions. The PRA,as currently structured, is not up to the task.11

Fortunately, the management of somenational park areas in Jordan has been “sub-contracted” to NGOs. The Dana NatureReserve is one successful example. The Petraregion would probably benefit from a similararrangement that streamlines policymakingfor the park and the buffer zone while regu-lating the urban areas to promote sustainabletourism and economic development.12

—Dana FirasJordanian author on sustainable development


151

Cityscape: Petra

Al Hussein bin Talal University

Petra National Trust

152

The wealth of a nation depends in large mea-sure on the economic health of its cities.Cities make countries rich. Highly urbanizedcountries have higher incomes than othernations, more stable economies, strongerinstitutions, and more ability to withstandthe volatility of the global economy. Citiesaround the world are playing a growing rolein creating wealth, enhancing social devel-opment, attracting investment, and harness-ing both human and technical resources forachieving unprecedented gains in productiv-ity and competitiveness. Cities are also enginesof rural development. For example, improvedinfrastructure between rural areas and thecities that rely on them increases rural pro-ductivity and enhances rural residents’ accessto education, health care, markets, credit,information, and other services.

For the first time in history, more thanhalf the world’s people will soon live in urban

areas. Cities are both surrounded by and madeup of communities. Geographic or territorialcommunities have a shared destiny, repre-sented by a municipal or local or, in indigenouscommunities, band or tribal form of govern-ment. They may include the built-up ordensely populated area containing the cityproper, suburbs, and continuously settledcommuter areas. They may be larger or smallerthan a metropolitan area.1

Strong local economies are the foundationof strong communities that can grow andwithstand the pressures created by an increas-ingly urbanized world. And strong com-munities require a holistic approach thatnot only provides the traditional deliver-ables of economic development—jobs,income, wealth, security—but also protectsthe environment, improves community infra-structure, increases and develops local skillsand capacity, strengthens the social fabric,

C H A P T E R 8

Mark Roseland with Lena Soots

Strengthening Local Economies

Mark Roseland is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Community Development (CSCD) and a pro-fessor in the Department of Geography at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Lena Sootsis a researcher at the CSCD.

and respects heritage and cultural identity. Inthis way, strong local economies also providea foundation for strong national economies.Cities and towns provide enormousuntapped opportunities to strengthen localeconomies by pioneering new approachesto sustainable development and communitymanagement.2

This chapter explores various approachesto strengthening local economies, some of thetools and strategies available, the actorsinvolved in local economic development, anda development framework that addresses thisbroad range of concerns.

Economic Benefits—At What Cost?

Whether human settlements are villages,towns, suburbs, or megacities, local economicdevelopment has a critical impact on the sus-tainability of urban areas. Whenever agricul-tural or forest land is cleared for otherpurposes, whenever roads are built orexpanded, whenever a new shopping centeror subdivision is created, whenever an urbanarea is “redeveloped”—in short, wheneverthe natural or built environment is changedthrough human action—the health of com-munities and the planet is affected.

The economic development that gener-ates these changes in the natural and builtenvironment should benefit urban residentsby improving their economic lives. Weaklocal economies are expensive for residentswho suffer from poverty and its associatedconsequences, such as malnutrition and dis-ease. Yet despite the enormous potential ofcities to reduce poverty, recent evidenceshows that the wealth they generate doesnot automatically lead to poverty reduc-tion. On the contrary, inequalities withincities are on the rise, particularly in Africaand Latin America. Poverty is a severe, per-

vasive, and largely unacknowledged featureof urban life.

Even “successful” national economies canbe expensive in terms of local human, social,health, and ecological costs. China’s recentgains in economic growth and productivityprovide a vivid illustration, as China is nowhome to 16 of the 20 most polluted cities onthe planet. Economic gains there have inmany cases exacerbated environmental prob-lems in the cities.3

In 2001, for example, people living in theChinese city of Huashui welcomed the firstchemical factories to open in that area as asource of jobs and economic growth. How-ever, their perspective changed as stillbirthsincreased and as more children were bornwith deformed limbs, unable to cry or blink,or with learning disabilities. As more chem-ical factories moved in, residents saw a “deathzone” expand around the industrial area,killing trees and crops as far as 10 kilometersaway. After four years of having their concernsdismissed by government and factory offi-cials, on March 20, 2005, residents blockedthe main road leading to the factories withhomemade bamboo tents and mounted slo-gans on the factory walls that read: “Give usback our land” and “We want to survive.”Three weeks later, an estimated 10,000 policeofficers and desperate residents faced off onenight in a pitched battle that lasted for hours.This rare case of citizen outrage about deeplyvested interests resulted, several months later,in the closure of the last of the area’s 13 poi-son-spewing factories.4

China Daily reports that there were50,000 environment-related riots, protests,and disputes in the country in 2005, anincrease of nearly 30 percent. Many werelinked closely to other divisive and sensitivesocial issues, including the nation’s increas-ing wealth gap. Analysts blame these envi-ronmental flash points on a top-down


153


single-party system obsessed with economicgrowth. Governments worry about instabil-ity when economic growth is not very fast,but the Huashui example shows how suchgrowth can also lead to social and environ-mental instability.5

Though an extreme example, what hap-pened in Huashui demonstrates that stronglocal economies must do more than con-tribute to national revenues—they need toalso generate local improvements in socialand environmental conditions. Many gov-ernments continue to assume that poverty ismainly a rural phenomenon and that peoplewho live in or move to cities escape its worstconsequences, including hunger, illiteracy,and disease. This view is reflected in mostnational poverty reduction strategies, whichremain rural-focused, and in internationaldonor assistance to cities, which continues tobe modest in both scale and impact. As aresult, development projects during the lasttwo decades have had the net effect of increas-ing poverty, exclusion, and inequality in cities.The notion that cities are islands of privilegeand opportunity is supported by statistics onhealth, education, and income, which gen-erally reflect better outcomes in urban areas.But they fail to reveal the severe inequalitywithin cities and the various dimensions ofurban poverty that are not captured byincome-based indicators, such as politicalexclusion and poor-quality, hazardous, inse-cure housing. (See Chapters 1 and 9.)6

Cities around the world can be thoughtof as lying on a continuum of economicdevelopment—from wealthy cities such asNew York, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Lon-don, and Stockholm to poorer cities such asLima, Harare, and Mumbai. Yet within eachwealthy city there is also a poor city (as evi-denced, for example, by the 2005 riots inthe outskirts of Paris), while seasoned trav-elers can attest that within most poor cities

there are also wealthy enclaves. Sustainabledevelopment looks very different in eachof these contexts. It means economic devel-opment that, on the one hand, encompassesmultiple bottom-line objectives to enablecontinued prosperity without compromisingthe planet’s natural support systems or, onthe other hand, alleviates poverty and cre-ates sustainable livelihoods so that peoplecan live secure, healthy, and dignified lives.

From Global to Local Economies

Urban economic challenges are often ignoredin part because of our flawed understandingof the economic system itself. Most conven-tional economic development efforts arerooted in the belief that economic benefitstrickle down—from the rich to the poor,from the state to the city, from the market tothe consumer. But such trickle-down strate-gies may actually exacerbate the very problemsthey are designed to ameliorate. Rather thantrickling—or even pouring—economic devel-opment down, weaknesses in the trickle-down effect illustrate that there is a strongcase for economic development to also be“from the bottom up.”

Yet the past several decades have witnessedunprecedented economic expansion and theemergence of the “global economy.” Inter-national development efforts of the last 20years have focused on facilitating the inte-gration of developing countries into thisglobal economy through mechanisms such asthe structural adjustment programs and poli-cies of the International Monetary Fund andthe World Bank, which were designed, amongother objectives, to alleviate poverty throughmacroeconomic restructuring.

Recognizing the failures and shortcom-ings of past approaches to economic devel-opment, the United Nations Millennium


154


Declaration, adopted in September 2000,committed nations to a new global partner-ship to reduce poverty. Eight MillenniumDevelopment Goals were set to be achievedby 2015, with the aim of not only addressingissues of extreme hunger and poverty butalso promoting gender equity and the basichuman right to health, education, shelter,and security.7

There is a consensus that there have beenmore failures than successes. In light of this,in 2005 the UN Millennium Project pre-sented its final recommendations, Investing inDevelopment: A Practical Plan to Achieve theMillennium Development Goals, calling forboth an increase in aid from western countriesand a reallocation of funding priorities indeveloping countries. More interesting, how-ever, is that the report also called for more aidto be given at the local level. With an empha-sis on local assistance, the Earth Institute atColumbia University in New York has alsostarted the Millennium Villages Project, a“bottom-up approach to enabling villages indeveloping countries to lift themselves outof the poverty trap.” The 12 underlying prin-ciples of this project include communityempowerment through participation and lead-ership, local-level capacity building, and thestrengthening of local institutions.8

Many international development effortsseek not only to integrate developing coun-tries into the global economy but to global-ize the economy itself. Capital mobility,increasing trade, and the decline of nationalstate regulation have made individuals and thecommunities they live in more vulnerablethan before. Conventional approaches to eco-nomic development at best only address theconditions under which local economies con-nect more or less favorably to external eco-nomic circuits. For example, “clusterstrategies” that emphasize the competitiveadvantage of a local commodity are con-

cerned with how to plug local economiesinto the high value-added parts of globalcommodity chains. While these strategies areimportant, they do not guarantee sustain-able, equitable, local outcomes.

In North America and Europe, the globaleconomic expansion of recent decades hasbeen felt in local communities in a variety ofways. Perhaps the most noticeable and cur-rently debated result has been the commer-cial retail “big box” boom—that is, theproliferation and increasing dominance ofmultinational superstores.

As an example, consider Wal-Mart, theworld’s largest retailer. If Wal-Mart were acountry, it would be the twentieth largest inthe world; if it were a city, it would be thefifth largest city in the United States. Its crit-ics have long complained that Wal-Mart is abad employer, neighbor, and corporate cit-izen. But the company might be changing.In 2004 Wal-Mart launched a long-term sus-tainability initiative with leaders and execu-tives from virtually every branch of thecompany formed into entrepreneurial teamsfocusing on areas such as packaging, realestate, energy, raw materials, and electronicswaste. They partnered with environmentalconsultants, nonprofit organizations, andother groups that helped them examine busi-ness practices through the lens of restorationand sustainability.9

In October 2005, Wal-Mart’s CEOannounced three new goals for the company:to rely 100 percent on renewable energy,create zero waste, and sell products that sus-tain resources and the environment. In April2006 Wal-Mart was one of a handful of majorretailers and energy companies urging theU.S. Congress to impose mandatory carboncaps on their businesses. It has also becomethe world’s largest supplier of organic food,not only reducing its ecological footprint butmaking organics more accessible for everyone.


155


If global forces such as Wal-Mart are signingon to save the planet by supplying organicproduce and lobbying for carbon caps, whybother trying to strengthen local economies?10

There are several critical reasons to pursuesuch a strategy. First, economic developmentrooted in local ownership and import sub-stitution has clear benefits in terms of stop-ping economic leakage, a term that refers tocommunity income that is spent outside thelocal economy. For example, each time a res-ident shops in a different town or larger cen-ter, the amount spent represents dollars andincome lost to the home community. Thereare two basic forms of leakage: immediate andsecondary. Immediate leakage occurs whenmembers of a community travel to anothercenter and use their locally generated incomesto make non-local purchases. Secondary leak-ages occur when a resident makes a purchasein the community but the product was pur-chased or manufactured outside the com-munity. Money spent outside the communityrepresents a loss to the local economy.11

A 2004 study of a Chicago neighborhoodfound that a dollar spent at a local restauranthad 25 percent more local economic impactthan a dollar spent at a chain store. The localadvantage was 63 percent more for local retailand 90 percent more for local services. Otherstudies have found that local businesses yieldtwo to four times the multiplier benefit com-pared with non-local businesses. The under-lying reason that local businesses have thispositive impact is that they spend more locally,particularly on management, business ser-vices, and advertising, and they enjoy theirprofits locally. These four items can constituteone third or more of total expenditures.12

Second, locally owned businesses aremore likely to be a stable generator of wealthfor many years, often for generations, andthey are more likely to adapt to rather thanflee the introduction of reasonable labor

and environmental standards. During busi-ness downturns, they are less likely to relo-cate production to lower-cost regions, andin boom times they are less likely to move fora slight increase in the rate of return oninvestment. This anchoring of locally ownedbusinesses minimizes the incidence of sud-den, calamitous, and costly departures, whichare often followed by massive unemploy-ment, shrinking property values, lower taxrevenues, and deep cuts in schools, police,and other services, which in turn throwsstill more people out of work. This is far lesslikely in a regional economy made up ofprimarily locally owned businesses.13

Third, while big-box stores such as Wal-Mart expand commercial choice and offergood consumer value, some studies havefound that these stores do little to contributeto local economies. As noted, compared withlocally owned stores, multinational chain storessiphon revenues out of communities througheconomic leakage. By displacing local busi-nesses, they also contribute to increasingunemployment and decreasing overallincomes. Studies have found that big-boxretailing triggers a decline in total economicactivity despite increasing overall sales. A studyby the Department of Agricultural Econom-ics and Rural Sociology at Pennsylvania StateUniversity found that the presence of Wal-Mart “unequivocally raised family povertyrates in the US counties during the 1990srelative to places that had no such stores.”14

Fourth, in North America a prevailingmyth is that in order to foster economicdevelopment a community must acceptgrowth. The truth is that growth must be dis-tinguished from development: growth meansto get bigger, development means to getbetter—an increase in quality and diversity.Local governments will often subsidize super-store development through infrastructureexpansion in the name of economic devel-


156


opment, only to facilitate more sprawl andmunicipal debt. Two alternatives for devel-opment without growth are supporting exist-ing businesses and increasing the number oftimes a dollar is spent in the community.Local purchasing is the primary means bothof supporting existing businesses and ofincreasing the economic multiplier, resultingin a more efficient, self-reliant, economicallyresilient community.15

Finally, strong local economies reduce thenegative ecological impacts of global trade, inparticular fossil fuel emissions from long-dis-tance transport. For example, “food miles”refers to the distance food travels from whereit is grown to where it is ultimately purchasedor consumed. Locally produced food is clearlymore sustainable and more environmentallydesirable than food with frequent flyer miles.

Reclaiming Local Economic Control

There are few limits to what can be achievedwhen people work together for their mutualbenefit. Since the 1800s, people have beenforming cooperatives in order to meet a widerange of local needs. (See Box 8–1.) Fromagricultural producer cooperatives and con-sumer co-ops to worker co-ops and socialcooperatives aimed at delivering health careand social services, cooperative enterprisescan be found in nearly every country. In thecontext of increasing urbanization, coopera-tives offer a community-based strategy forreducing poverty.16

The International Labour Organization(ILO) defines a cooperative as “anautonomous association of persons united


157


Situated in the north of Italy, just below thefoothills of the Italian Alps, Emilia Romagna is a region of 3.9 million people. Bologna, theregion’s most populous city, is the commercialand communications hub of the area and has re-emerged in recent decades as one of themost vital and livable cities in Italy, with astrong sense of history, art, and culture. Butbeyond its cultural pleasures, this region is aunique example of a living cooperative econ-omy. The region has more than 15,000 cooper-atives in both the commercial and civil sectors,which collectively contribute over one third of the region’s gross domestic product.

In the 1970s, Emilia Romagna was near thebottom of Italy’s 20 regions in terms of eco-nomic performance.Today, it ranks first. It alsocurrently ranks tenth out of 122 economicregions in the European Union (EU) and has aper capita income 30 percent higher than thenational average and 27.6 percent higher than

the EU average.What makes this region particularly fascin-

ating is that its economic success in the pastseveral decades is a result of ideas and prac-tices that should be considered the antithesisof mainstream economic ideology. Coopera-tives are the foundation of the region’s eco-nomic makeup—the strongest sectors includeretail, construction, agricultural production,housing manufacture, and social services. Mostpublic works, including large-scale engineering,construction, and heritage restoration projects,are carried out by building co-ops.

With one of the highest qualities of life in all of Europe and strong economic perfor-mance, the Emilia Romagna region of Italy is aworking example of community-based alterna-tives to the global market economy and livingproof that strong local economies are possiblethrough cooperation.


Box 8–1. Emilia Romagna—A Cooperative Economy

voluntarily to meet their common economic,social and cultural needs and aspirationsthrough a jointly owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.” Cooperatives thuspractice a unique form of economic partici-pation that is based on membership ratherthan amount of investment. (See Box 8–2.)17

Within cities, worker cooperatives—busi-nesses owned and controlled by their employ-ees—are the most common form ofcooperative enterprise. Decisions for the oper-ation of the business are made democrati-cally on the basis of one member/one vote.Common forms of worker co-ops includemanufacturing plants, retail stores, commu-nications companies, technical firms, and var-ious forms of service providers. Workercooperatives typically form as a result of agroup of people organizing to create employ-ment for themselves and to overcome barri-ers to employment such as disabilities or racial,gender, or ethnic prejudices. Alternatively,worker co-ops form as a result of an existing

company that has “mutualized” by sellingshares to its employees, who then take overownership and management of the business.18

Argentina provides a good example of thepower of cooperation in saving the local econ-omy. During the 2001 economic crisis, manyArgentines decided to take collective actionto save their jobs and their livelihoods. Byoccupying bankrupt factories and businesses,the workers turned their workplaces intocooperatives without upper management orunions. The National Movement of Recov-ered Companies spread across Argentina as abottom-up approach to economic recoverywith the motto: “Occupy, Resist, Produce.”There are now roughly 200 worker-run fac-tories and businesses in Argentina, employingover 15,000 people. Most of these coopera-tives started during 2001.19

In 2002, the Ghelco Ice Cream Factory insouthern Buenos Aires went into bankruptcy.The workers were owed thousands of dollarsin back pay. So they formed a co-op andstopped the owners from removing themachinery and dismantling the factory byprotesting in front of it. Three months ofprotest led to an offer for the co-op to rentthe factory. Five months after that, the factorywas seized by the Buenos Aires legislatureand given to the co-op. Now the factory isrun by 43 members of the co-op who earnmore than they ever did, and they have bet-ter working conditions. The co-op does nothave to pay high managerial salaries, unlikethe previous owners; in addition, it gets tokeep the large profits that used to end up inthe owners’ pockets.20

Historically, cooperatives have not onlyenabled people to lift themselves out ofpoverty, they have also become a way forlow- and middle-income people to continueaccumulating economic advantages theywould not be able to achieve individually.Beyond this, co-ops can contribute to


158


Voluntary and Open MembershipDemocratic Member ControlMember Economic ParticipationAutonomy and IndependenceEducation,Training, and InformationCooperation among Co-operativesConcern for Community


Box 8–2. International Co-operativeAlliance Principles for Co-ops

Improving access to financialresources is an important componentin the fight against poverty.

strengthening the social fabric of commu-nities and can build social cohesion amongcommunity members as well as facilitate theequitable distribution of resources. In a pressrelease on the occasion of the UnitedNations International Day of Cooperativesin 2001, Secretary-General Kofi Annanunderscored the role of cooperatives indevelopment, noting “the values of cooper-ation—equity, solidarity, self-help andmutual responsibility—are cornerstones ofour shared endeavour to build a fairerworld…. The cooperative movement willbe an increasingly adaptable and valuablepartner of the United Nations in pursuingeconomic and social development for thebenefit of all people.”21

Community-Based FinanceFinance plays a fundamental role in the processof economic development—capital invest-ments and growth in financial assets are impor-tant factors in the development of economiesof low-income countries. Yet access to capitalis not easy for those who live in poverty. Peo-ple are often blocked from climbing out ofpoverty not by a lack of skills or motivation butby their lack of access to capital.

Poor people are often forced to rely oninformal financial relationships, which areusually erratic, insecure, and costly to bor-rowers. Improving access to financialresources is thus an important componentin the fight against poverty, and microfi-nance has proved to be an important tool inthis regard. “Microfinance” refers to theprovision of financial resources and servicesto people who are generally excluded fromtraditional financial systems based on theirlow socioeconomic status. Generally itincludes the provision of loans, savings, andother basic financial services that poor peo-ple need to protect, diversify, and increase

their sources of income.22

In 1997, delegates from 137 countriesgathered in Washington, DC, for a Micro-credit Summit and launched a campaign toreach 100 million of the world’s poorest fam-ilies, especially women, with credit for self-employment and other financial services bythe end of 2005. According to the State of theMicrocredit Summit Report 2005, by the endof 2004 a total of 3,164 microcredit institu-tions had reached 92,270,289 clients, 72percent of whom were among the poorest ofthe poor when they took their first loan.23

Nearly 84 percent of these poorest clientswere women. Assuming five persons per fam-ily, the loans given to the 66.6 million poor-est clients affected some 333 million people.Just over half of the 3,164 institutions report-ing were in Asia, 31 percent were in Africa,12 percent were in Latin America and theCaribbean, and just under 5 percent were inNorth America, Europe, the newly indepen-dent states, or the Middle East.24

Contrary to some opinions, poor peopleare very good at saving their money. In fact,their savings represent a higher proportionof their net assets than the savings of theirhigher-income counterparts do. With accessto well-designed savings products and ser-vices, low-income people can accumulatewealth and begin to climb the ladder out ofpoverty.25

The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh hasbecome the international model for micro-credit programs. Its central feature is its creditprogram, which provides small loans to thepoor for self-employment activities. The pro-ject was initiated in 1976 when MuhammadYunus, head of the Rural Economics Pro-gram at the University of Chittagong,launched a research project on the possibil-ity of designing a credit delivery system toprovide banking services to the rural poor.The Grameen Bank Project began with the


159


following objectives: • to extend banking facilities and services to

poor men and women;• to eliminate the exploitation of the poor by

money lenders;• to create opportunities for self-employ-

ment;• to bring the disadvantaged, mostly

women, within an organized format inwhich they can understand and managethemselves; and

• to reverse the vicious cycle of “low income,low savings and low investment.”After initial success in the village of Jobra,

the project soon expanded to other villages.In 1983, government legislation transformedthe project into an independent bank.26

The unique and innovative lending schemeof the Grameen Bank requires borrowers tovoluntarily form small groups of five peopleto provide mutual, morally binding groupguarantees in lieu of the collateral required byconventional banks. Initially, only two of thefive group members are able to apply for aloan. Access to credit for the other membersdepends on the successful repayment of theseinitial loans. Although the Bank monitorsborrowers fairly closely, organizing the bor-rowers into groups provides incentives forpeer monitoring.

The success of the Grameen Bank isastounding, as the Nobel Committee notedwhen it awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prizeto Muhammad Yunus for his pioneering workin this field. As of April 2006, it had a totalof 6 million borrowers, 96 percent of whomare women. The bank has 2,014 branchesworking in 65,847 villages with a total staffof 17,816. Since it started, the total amountof loans dispersed is 271.94 billion taka($5.46 billion). Of this, 241.63 billion taka($4.83 billion) has been repaid. The loanrecovery rate is 98.4 percent.27

Because of the interconnection between

financial power, poverty, and women, micro-finance has an important role in empoweringwomen and improving economic equality.(See Box 8–3.) In many countries, particu-larly in low-income regions, women havefew ownership rights. Cultural norms andexpectations place additional constraints onwomen’s access to assets and income-gener-ating opportunities.28

Studies have shown that income earned byfemale borrowers has more beneficial effectson the well-being of children and householdmembers generally than income earned bymale borrowers. And microcredit lending bythe Badan Kredit Kecamatan in Indonesiahas been found to increase women’s partici-pation in decisionmaking, reduce fertility,and improve household nutrition.29

Particularly in low-income regions of theworld where poverty rates are high, microfi-nance can be an important tool for improvingthe socioeconomic conditions of communities.It helps to foster financially self-sufficient pri-vate sectors and create wealth for low-incomepeople. As it does this, microfinance createsnew consumers and markets for existing busi-nesses as well, thus contributing to the over-all integrity of local economies.

Community-based financial systems arenot only found in low-income countries strug-gling with widespread poverty. In countriessuch as the United States and Canada, thereare community-oriented financial institutionsthat have a vision of social and environmen-tal as well as economic benefits.

In a financial climate dominated by bigbanks, community credit unions demonstratethat financial benefits can coincide withbroader community values and objectives. Acredit union is a nonprofit financial institutionthat is cooperatively owned and controlled byits members and managed through the elec-tion of a volunteer Board of Directors. Creditunions offer the same financial services as


160


banks (savings, investments, loans, and soon), but they generally market themselves asproviding superior member services becauseof their community orientation. As cooper-ative institutions, their policies are set up tobenefit the interests of their memberships asa whole. Credit unions typically pay higherinterest rates on shares and charge lowerinterest rates on loans than traditional finan-cial institutions.

Worldwide, there are over 157 millioncredit union members in 92 countries.Canada has the highest per capita use ofcredit unions, with over one third of the pop-ulation enrolled as members. As community-based financial institutions, credit unionsensure that financial investments are not onlyeconomically successful but also in line withthe broader social objectives and values of thecommunities in which they operate. As such,

credit unions strengthen local economies byproviding positive social and economic returnsto communities.30

The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver,Canada, is home to many people battlingdrug addictions, mental illness, and home-lessness. Most local residents are low-incomeearners with little to no access to traditionalfinancial services. Without identification toopen a bank account or enough money tokeep one open, people find themselves unableto attain any level of financial security, andmany rely on costly private check-cashingfacilities. With the help of VanCity SavingsCredit Union (see Box 8–4), Pigeon ParkSavings opened its doors in 2004 as a providerof low-cost, reliable financial services in asupportive environment. People can nowcash or deposit checks and use a variety offinancial services otherwise unavailable to


161


Unitus is a nonprofit organization based in Redmond,Washington, with a mission to fightglobal poverty by increasing access to microfi-nance. Using the example of the Grameen Bankand under the guidance of Muhammad Yunus,the Unitus Acceleration Model was developedcombining best practices from venture capitaland investment banking to create large-scale,poverty-focused microfinance institutions.

Unitus shares the following success story of one of their clients:

“Susan grew up in a poor rural area of Kenya.She was…forced to drop out [of school] afterfourth grade when her family could no longerafford the school fees. Her parents kicked herout when she became pregnant at 17. Hopingto find work, Susan and her infant son movedto Nairobi, where she married and had adaughter. Her husband left her when theylearned she was HIV-positive. Unable to findwork and with no means to support her two

small children, Susan ended up in prostitution.“Susan learned about Jamii Bora, a Nairobi-

based microfinance institution, from neighborsin her slum. She completed their business train-ing, which improved her business skills and gaveher the confidence to begin her clothes mend-ing and sales business. Jamii Bora’s microfinanceservices enabled her to quit prostitution andmove her family into a safer house….

“With each increasing loan, Susan buysmore raw materials in bulk at lower costs, thusincreasing her business’s profitability. She isconvinced she would not be alive without JamiiBora’s medical insurance and access to HIVmedication, and can’t imagine what would[have] become of her children…. Susan has sav-ings for the first time and is striving to earnenough to ensure her children’s education sothey can break free from the chains of poverty.”


Box 8–3. The Power of Microcredit—A Personal Story

Downtown Eastside residents. Pigeon Park’sbanking system runs entirely on VanCity’snetwork, which also provides the operatinginfrastructure, technical support, adminis-trative services, and security.31

Cooperatively owned credit unions are

not the only form of community-based finan-cial structures. Shorebank Pacific is a char-tered, commercial bank in Washington Statewith a commitment to environmentally sus-tainable community development. It is theresult of an innovative partnership betweenEcotrust, a nonprofit environmental organi-zation dedicated to fostering a conservation-based economy, and Shorebank Corporationof Chicago, a pioneer in developing inner-citycommunity projects. To track financialprogress, clients and loans are reviewed by abank scientist who uses a scoring system ofsustainability principles.32

Buy Local,Trade FairAlthough a significant proportion of goodsused in cities are also produced there, citiesare by no means self-sustaining entities. Interms of local economic activity, urban cen-ters rely heavily on rural areas for resourcessuch as fuel and food. The trading systemsthat facilitate the production, distribution,and consumption of goods in urban areasthus affect more than just the economieswithin cities.

In the context of an increasingly globalizedeconomy, strengthening local economiesmeans having strong local networks and trad-ing systems that support economic activitywithin and among communities and that con-tribute to the overall health and well-being ofthese areas. Promoting trading systems thatcontribute to strong local economies allowscities and communities to participate in andcontribute to the larger, global economicsystem in ways that are sustainable, equitable,and just.

Fair trade is a rapidly growing move-ment (see Table 8–1) that seeks to chal-lenge unequal international trade relationsand that makes trade beneficial to disad-vantaged and vulnerable producers. It does


162


The Vancouver City Savings Credit Union(Vancity) in British Columbia is an exam-ple of a community-based “triple bottomline” financial institution. Established in1945 on the premise of “banking with theunbankable,” Vancity is a cooperativelyowned credit union with over $10 billionin assets and more than 340,000members. Member ownership ensuresthat the institution offers favorable socialand environmental benefits to the commu-nity without compromising financial returns.

In the 1960s,Vancity was the first finan-cial institution to offer loans to womenwithout requiring a male cosigner. Beyondfinancial considerations,Vancity supportscommunity members in socially and envi-ronmentally conscious choices. It was thefirst financial institution in Canada to offerspecial financing for hybrid vehicles andenergy-efficient home renovations. Everyyear it awards hundreds of grants to com-munity groups on environmental andsocial justice projects. Other initiativesinclude an EnviroFund Visa card thatdonates 5 percent of its annual profits to local environmental projects. Since1990, more than $1.45 million has gone to such initiatives.

Vancity also offers its employees someof the best benefits packages in the indus-try. In 2005, it was named “Best Place toWork in Canada” by Maclean’s magazineand “Best Work Place in Canada” by Cana-dian Business magazine.


Box 8–4. Vancity Credit Union,Vancouver, Canada

this by establishing direct and positive linksbetween producers of the South and con-sumers of the North. Fair trade attempts tolevel the global playing field by enablingpoor producers to be part of a trading sys-tem that ensures a fair and stable price fortheir products. It also offers producers andtheir organizations support and services andpromotes the use of ecologically sustain-able production practices.33

Similar to certification in organics or laborstandards, fair trade involves the implemen-tation of voluntary global production stan-dards. Fairtrade Labelling OrganizationsInternational (FLO) is the primary body thatsets the labeling standards to be met by pro-ducer groups, traders, processors, whole-salers, and retailers. Although most commonlyassociated with rural production, FLO setsstandards for hired labor situations as well,including standards for working conditions,employee returns, discrimination policies,and child labor. In the context of manufac-turing and the production of goods withincities, the concept of fair trade can play a sig-nificant role in creating strong localeconomies.34

For many years, coffee was the main prod-uct sold with the fair trade label. Now atleast 20 different products—from tea and

chocolate to sporting goods, textiles, andhandicrafts—are exported from developingcountries to more than 20 countries inEurope and North America plus Australia,New Zealand, and Japan. There are now 531producer organizations certified with FLO,representing some 1 million farmers andworkers from 58 countries in Africa, Asia,and Latin America. There are 667 registeredtraders, consisting of exporters, importers,processors, and manufacturers from 50 coun-tries all over the world.35

Strongly linked to the cooperative move-ment (see Box 8–5), fair trade is helpingcommunities build the financial resources tosustain livelihoods and alleviate poverty. It isalso building community capacity, fosteringstrong relationships within communities, andpromoting sustainable and equitable systemsof production and trade.36

As recent mass protests in Seattle, QuebecCity, Prague, and Genoa demonstrated, con-cerns about corporate dominance in the globaleconomy cover more than just the issue of fairtrade. A localism movement has emerged pro-moting alternative approaches to global eco-nomic development, particularly with respectto energy, materials, and food. Campaigns topromote the localization (or “de-globaliza-tion”) of business and trade are sprouting upall over North America and Europe, espous-ing the social, economic, and ecological ben-efits of more localized economies.

Although the definition of “local” varies—from bioregions to geopolitical boundaries—the idea is consistent: local is better. Thebenefits of localized economies are many:they support local businesses and keep moneyand profits within communities, they re-establish producer-consumer relationshipsand build social cohesion, and they reducethe negative ecological impacts of globaltrade, namely fossil fuel emissions from long-distance transport.


163


Table 8–1. General Sales of Fair TradeLabeled Products

Year Amount Growth

(tons) (percent)1997 25,9721998 28,913 11.31999 33,495 15.82000 39,750 18.72001 48,506 22.02002 58,813 21.22003 80,633 42.02004 125,596 56.0


The Business Alliance for Local LivingEconomies (BALLE) is a growing allianceof businesspeople around the United Statesand Canada who join networks dedicated tobuilding “local living economies” with a goalto green and strengthen their local economies.Businesspeople organize themselves into local

business networks—each fully autonomous—and share a commitment to living economyprinciples. BALLE provides support and toolsto catalyze, strengthen, and connect localbusiness networks. Members of local net-works join together to: • support the development of community-

based businesses;• encourage local purchasing by consumers

and businesses;• create opportunities for business leaders to

share best practices; and• advocate public policies that strengthen

independent local businesses and farms,promote economic equity, and protect theenvironment.37

Countless cities all over North Americaare working to promote the importance ofstrengthening local economies. The San Fran-cisco Locally Owned Merchants Alliance, forexample, has over 50 members and works topromote locally owned independent retailersin the area. The Buy Local Philly campaign issponsored by the Sustainable Business Net-work of Greater Philadelphia and is a networkof more than 200 local and independentlyowned businesses. The city of Portland, Ore-gon, has a Think Local First Campaign toraise public awareness of the benefits of amore localized economy. Vancouver, Canada,has started a Buy Local, Support Yourselfcampaign to encourage local purchasing andsupport local fashion, food, art, and more.38

As the world faces the emergence of peakoil and related energy challenges, cities needto reduce their dependence on outside mar-kets and fossil-fuel-dependent transportationsystems. What is needed are more localizedsystems of production, distribution, and con-sumption. Local trading systems not onlyallow cities to increase self-sufficiency, theyalso contribute to strengthening localeconomies by giving communities the abilityand resources to meet their own needs.


164


After the devastation of Hurricane Mitchin 1998, the Center for Development inCentral America began to search for waysto tackle the massive unemployment prob-lems that had emerged in one of Nicara-gua’s relocated cities, Nueva Vida (NewLife) in Cuidad Sandino.

Through the establishment of amarketing partnership with Maggie’sOrganics, an organic clothing company inMichigan in the United States, a sewingcooperative with the women of NuevaVida was formed.The idea behind the co-op was to create fair trade employ-ment in a region dominated by free tradezones and sweatshops with substandardlabor conditions.

In 2001, the women’s worker co-opbecame incorporated as CooperativaMaquiladora Mujeres de Nueva Vida Inter-nacional—Women’s International SewingCooperative of Nueva Vida—and in 2004it was certified as the world’s first worker-owned free trade zone.This designationnot only allowed the co-op to provide fair wages, good working conditions, andemployee control, it also enabled them tocompete on a level playing field with tradi-tional sweatshops in the free trade zone.With the successful establishment of thecooperative, the workers’ goal now is toput a percentage of the co-op’s profitstoward social projects in the community.


Box 8–5. A Women’s Fair TradeSewing Cooperative in Nicaragua

Local Economy ActorsWho are the local economic actors and whatare their roles in strengthening localeconomies? Local authorities are clearlyimportant players. They build and maintaininfrastructure that is essential for economicactivity, and they set standards, regulations,taxes, and fees that determine the parametersfor economic development. Local authori-ties procure large numbers of services andproducts and can influence markets for goodsand services.

Like private enterprises, local authoritiesserve as public enterprises to produce “prod-ucts” that are sold on the market. Theseproducts include environmental services(such as water, waste management, and landuse control), economic services (transporta-tion infrastructure, for example), and socialservices (such as health and education). Localauthorities also operate under the consider-able constraints of most public agencies: lim-ited resources, jurisdiction, imagination,courage, time, and so on. For them to fulfilltheir potential in strengthening localeconomies, they need community organiza-tions as partners.39

Local authorities are an influentialemployer and consumer in most communi-ties. All community members have a legiti-mate interest in knowing what measures theirlocal authority is, could, or should be takingto strengthen the local economy. These mightinclude local studies of indicators, assets,imports, or subsidies; local training via entre-preneurship programs linked to incubators forlocally owned businesses; help for those try-ing to purchase locally with a directory, abuy-local campaign, time dollars, or a localcurrency; local investing of municipal funds;and local public policy such as smart growthzoning or a living wage bylaw.40

In many low-income countries, local

authorities have neither the resources northe power to provide support of any kind tolocal business, let alone dedicate time andresources to overall localization initiatives.Cities with developed formal economies andstronger local authorities fortunately havemore options.

Local tax shifting is one local authoritystrategy with enormous potential tostrengthen local economies. Taxes generaterevenue for governments, but they can alsoserve as an effective tool of governance, sup-porting community values and goals. Themain principle of tax shifting is simple: tax“bads,” not “goods,” so that markets work todirect the economy where we want it to go.Tax pollution, waste, urban sprawl, andresource depletion, for example—not jobs,income, investment, good urban develop-ment, and resource conservation. There aremany successful examples of tax shifting inScandinavian countries, which have beenusing this tool for at least a decade. Localauthorities in Canada and elsewhere are rec-ognizing the benefits of tax shifting and arebeginning to examine its potential.41

For example, a 2005 study at Simon FraserUniversity in Vancouver examined six poten-tial areas where the city could shift taxes inone municipal precinct: carbon emissions,drinking water, parking, solid waste, stormwa-ter runoff, and sewage. The results were stag-gering: tax shifting on average could lead toa 23-percent reduction in environmentallyharmful activities and could generate an extra$21 million in tax-based revenue. The surplusfunds could in turn provide tax grants, sub-


165


Local trading systems contribute tostrengthening local economies by giving communities the ability andresources to meet their own needs.

sidies, and rebates for environmentally friendlyand sustainable development programs.42

The private sector also has a significant roleto play in strengthening local economies.Business culture in general is starting to takeon a different shape in light of public pres-sures and today’s social and environmentalrealities. Over the last 10–15 years the sociallyresponsible business movement has takengreat strides in raising awareness that busi-nesses need to serve the common good ratherthan simply maximize profits. There is grow-ing recognition among companies and orga-nizations that they have a social obligation tooperate in ethically, socially, and environ-mentally responsible ways. Using “triple-bottom-line” accounting, some companiesare measuring their performance in terms ofsocial and environmental as well as economicresults. Many business leaders are discover-ing the economic advantages to under-standing and aligning business strategies withthe values of stakeholders.43

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) isnow a recognizable catchphrase in businesscircles, with standards that serve as a guide toconducting business in socially and environ-mentally responsible ways. General princi-ples of CSR fall into the categories of ethics,accountability, governance, financial returns,employment practices, business relationships,products and services, community involve-ment, and environmental protection.44

Most examples of CSR are found in high-income countries, although, as noted earlier,the fair trade movement is changing busi-ness practices in the developing world ascompanies realize the social and environ-mental costs of doing business. Fair tradestandards embrace the principles of CSR,including environmental protection, com-munity benefits, and fair wages.

Emerging business trends such as CSRrepresent a significant shift in thinking about

business. Indeed, socially and environmen-tally responsible businesses play an importantrole in sustainable economic development,particularly at the local level. Given thatmost business transactions take place in cities,it is essential that sustainable economic devel-opment within urban centers include thecommitment of businesses to adopt prac-tices that consider people and the planet aswell as profit.

In addition to local authorities and theprivate sector, people in their daily lives are ofcourse important actors in local economicdevelopment in their multiple roles as work-ers, consumers, voters, volunteers, and advo-cates. People who are disengaged limit theirconstructive interaction and participation intheir communities. Some may express theirdisengagement by looking elsewhere to dobusiness or by sending their children away tolearn and work; others may give up com-pletely and relocate to another community,another city, or another country. It is throughparticipating in local communities that peo-ple can take the necessary measures to createsustainable economies, so citizen engage-ment is an essential component of strength-ening local economies.

Community Capital:Using All Our Resources

Alternative economic theories and ideas arenot new: in 1973 E. F. Schumacher pro-posed the idea of “new economics” in hisinfluential book Small is Beautiful: Econom-ics As If People Mattered, promoting small-scale development based on meeting people’slocal needs. Since then, alternative local eco-nomic approaches have been put forward inboth industrial and developing countries—approaches that are rooted in communityand designed to meet local needs and objec-tives. These have emerged in response to


166


the negative effects of globalization and as apolicy approach to sustainable developmentat the community level. Community eco-nomic development (CED) and sustainablelivelihoods are two examples of these alter-native strategies.45

Community economic development pro-vides a conceptual means of addressing sus-tainable economic development at thecommunity level. Its core principles include acommunity-based approach to development;direct and meaningful community participa-tion; integration of economic, ecological, andsocial aspects of local development; asset-based development based on communitystrengths and resources rather than deficien-cies; and support for community self-reliance.Its distinguishing features are captured in thisdefinition: CED “is a process by which com-munities can initiate and generate their ownsolutions to their common economic prob-lems and thereby build long-term communitycapacity and foster the integration of eco-nomic, social, and environmental objectives.”46

Just as sustainability has prompted a shiftin transportation and energy planning awayfrom traditional concerns with supply to anew focus on managing demand, the focusof economic development needs to shiftfrom traditional concerns with increasinggrowth to one of reducing social depen-dence on economic growth—or what couldbe called EDM, economic demand man-agement. This has distinct implications forsustainable community development, par-ticularly regarding employment and com-munity economic development.47

Community economic development notonly promotes initiatives that contribute to theeconomic health and viability of communities,it also emphasizes environmental considera-tions and the importance of social considera-tions in broader economic thinking. Examplesof sustainable CED initiatives include:

• car cooperatives to reduce the cost andnecessity of car ownership (Bremen, Germany);

• sustainable employment plans to createjobs, spur private spending, and reducepollution through public investment inenergy conservation and audits (San Jose,California);

• new product development to encouragemanufacturers to develop environmentallyfriendly products through municipalresearch and development assistance(Gothenberg, Sweden);

• increases in affordable housing supplythrough zoning codes that promote a vari-ety of housing types, including smaller andmultifamily homes (Portland, Oregon);

• experiments with local self-reliancethrough establishment of closed-loop, self-sustaining economic networks (St. Paul,Minnesota);

• community-supported agriculture projectsto preserve farmland and help farmers whilemaking fresh fruits and vegetables avail-able in city neighborhoods (Vancouver;London, Ontario; New York City);

• creation of local currencies such as LETS,Local Exchange Trading Systems, whichseek to recirculate local resources andstrengthen social ties (Toronto; Ithaca,New York; United Kingdom);

• a local ownership development project witha revolving loan fund to encourageemployee-owned businesses, which are con-sidered more stable over the long term andmore likely to hire, train, and promotelocal residents (Burlington, Vermont); and

• a community beverage container recyclingdepot that employs street people—“dump-ster divers”—and provides them with skills,training, and self-esteem (Vancouver).48

Closely related to CED is the sustainablelivelihoods approach to poverty alleviation,which aims to address the immediate as well


167


as the long-term needs of individuals andhouseholds and which takes into considera-tion the social and environmental as well asthe economic sustainability of livelihood activ-ities and strategies. The idea of sustainablelivelihoods provides a framework to under-stand the practical realities and priorities ofthose struggling in poverty—that is, whatthey actually do to make a living, the assetsthey are able to draw on, and the everydayproblems they face.49

Beyond income generation, successfulstrategies under a sustainable livelihoodsapproach should serve to improve access toand control over local assets and help to makeindividuals less vulnerable to shocks andstresses (such as illness, natural disasters, or jobloss) that could otherwise exacerbate situa-tions of debt and poverty.50

Historically, the sustainable livelihoodsframework has been used primarily in thecontext of rural poverty alleviation. But thesame framework can easily be applied to sit-uations of urban poverty and livelihood gen-eration. In fact, a sustainable livelihoodsapproach is necessary in order to tackle issuesof urban poverty over the long term. Accord-ing to the ILO, 184 million people in theworld do not have jobs, although this figurereaches at least 1 billion if underemploymentis also taken into account.51

The concepts of community economicdevelopment and sustainable livelihoodstogether provide a useful framework for analternative approach to economic develop-ment that emphasizes the development ofstrong local economies.

Will the cumulative effects of the smallinitiatives described here be enough to createcommunities and economies with enoughresilience and strength to withstand the pres-sures and problems of an increasingly urban-ized world? As noted in the beginning of thechapter, conventional approaches to eco-nomic development leave little room forstrengthening local economies. Strong localeconomies are those that not only generaterevenue but also take into consideration theequitable distribution of wealth within com-munities and the environmental implicationsof economic activities. How does the overallapproach to economic development need tochange in order to facilitate the developmentof strong local economies?

Cities, communities, and local economiesare multidimensional, with a complex inter-action of social, economic, ecological, and cul-tural factors. Some analysts think of localeconomies in terms of assets or capital. Theterm community capital, conventionally usedto refer just to economic or financial capital,has more recently been used to include nat-ural, physical, economic, human, social, andcultural forms of capital. Strengthening localeconomies means focusing attention on thesesix forms of capital:• Minimizing the consumption of essential

natural capital means living within eco-logical limits, conserving and enhancingnatural resources, using resources sustain-ably (soil, air, water, energy, and so on),using cleaner production methods, andminimizing waste (solid, liquid, air pollu-tion, and so on).

• Improving physical capital includes focus-ing on community assets such as publicfacilities (hospitals and schools, forinstance), water and sanitation provision,efficient transport, safe and high-qualityhousing, adequate infrastructure, andtelecommunications.


168


How does the overall approach to economic development need to changein order to facilitate the developmentof strong local economies?

• Strengthening economic capital meansfocusing on maximizing the use of existingresources (using waste as a resource, forexample), circulating dollars within a com-munity, making things locally to replaceimports, creating a new product, tradingfairly with others, and developing com-munity financial institutions.

• Increasing human capital requires a focuson areas such as health, education, nutri-tion, literacy, and family and communitycohesion, as well as on increased trainingand improved workplace dynamics to gen-erate more productive and innovative work-ers; basic determinants of health such aspeace and safety, food, shelter, education,income, and employment are necessary pre-requisites.

• Multiplying social capital requires attentionto effective and representative local gov-ernance, strong organizations, capacity-building, participatory planning, and accessto information as well as collaboration andpartnerships.

• Enhancing cultural capital implies attentionto traditions and values, heritage and place,the arts, diversity, and social history.52

Strengthening local economies requiresmobilizing people and their governments toshore up all these forms of community capi-tal. Community mobilization is necessary tocoordinate, balance, and catalyze communitycapital. This approach to stronger localeconomies requires some relatively new think-ing about broad questions of community sus-

tainability and self-reliance, as well as more-specific innovations concerning communityownership, management, finance, organiza-tion, capacity, and learning. This approach isincreasingly referred to as sustainable com-munity development and includes both com-munity economic development and sustainablelivelihoods strategies.

While individual actions and lifestylechoices, such as buying organic produce, areimportant personal contributions, strength-ening local economies requires a collectiveshift in individual actions and political choices.Community mobilization has been effective insome contexts and some regions. The coop-erative economy of Emilia Romagna in north-ern Italy, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh,Vancity Credit Union in Vancouver, theWomen’s International Sewing Cooperative ofNueva Vida, and the campaigns for local tradeacross North America are all examples of thepotential of community mobilization to helpstrengthen local economies.

Strong local economies are a fundamentalpart of sustainable communities. They givecommunities the capacity and resources toaddress specific and immediate problems suchas the provision of health care, adequatehousing, clean water and sanitation, and dis-aster prevention and response. Human set-tlements—large and small, rich andpoor—need strong local economies to with-stand the pressures created by an increas-ingly urbanized world.


169


http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/emiliaromagna


Vankovka, the former engineering works ofFriedrich Wannieck, became a Czech indus-trial architectural heritage site in 1992. Whenit was built in 1864, Vankovka stood outsidethe historic city center. But thanks to con-struction all around it, the site eventuallyfound itself at the heart of a larger citydowntown, on a busy street between themain bus and railway stations. During theindustrial period, Brno was a center of tech-nical invention, and Vankovka at its heightrepresented the city’s innovative and techno-logical progress.1

Following the Velvet Revolution thatbrought an end to communist rule in 1989,traditional markets were lost. Central plan-ners in Eastern Europe had built industrialplants in the city’s core and high-rise housingestates along tram and bus lines on the out-skirts. When production declined, nearly onethird of the industrial zones—mostly situatedin the southeast part of the city—became“brownfields”: obsolete and permanentlyunderused sites such as former factories andmilitary bases.2

Brno now wants to hark back to its roots.In the early 1990s, the city began preparingthe South Centre project to develop a newcity quarter on the extensive underused landbetween the core of the historic city and theproposed new railway station. In the easternsection of this site stood the former Vankovkaengineering works and iron foundry. Thederelict buildings were a blight on the city’sfrequently traveled transportation corridors.

The idea to revitalize Vankovka was firstput forward in 1993 during Brno’s 750thanniversary celebrations. The following year agroup of activists from various bodies set up afoundation, which later became the VankovkaCivic Association, with the aim of aiding thereconstruction and revitalization of the site

for business, cultural, and educational pur-poses. The Project for Public Spaces, a non-governmental organization (NGO) fromNew York, supported this work, recognizingthat Vankovka could be transformed into acharming place that could spur the revitaliza-tion of the surrounding neglected land. Similar projects had been undertaken in theUnited States and Europe. And in many casesaction was initiated by small groups of pas-sionate and tireless people.3

Various community organizations, arts and educational institutions, private-sectordonors, and the authorities—including theBrno City Council—formed partnerships tobring life back to Vankovka. The Chief Archi-tect’s Office conducted a survey to determinethe conditions required for monument pro-tection, as well as feasibility studies for newuse of the area. The city government sup-ported a privatization process to remove thearea as a protected zone from the “package”of the residual property of the state-ownedZETOR company. The city agreed to pay51.6 million Czech crowns ($1.34 million in2000 dollars) to resolve the company’s finan-cial debts and get ownership of Vankovka.4

The Brno city environment departmentpaid for research on cleanup to gauge the riskfor future investors. The area was loaded withheavy metals, cyanides, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, and oil residue, with deconta-mination estimated at 7–8 million Czechcrowns ($181,000–207,000 in 2000 dollars).5

Exhibitions, theater performances, con-certs, workshops, festivals, and children’sactivities were organized on the Vankovkapremises, drawing many thousands of people.Most took place in the Pattern Shop and theCore Room of the old factory buildings. Bythe end of the 1990s, Vankovka had hostedmore than 170 events and had become an

170

CITYSCAPE:

----------

------BRNO

Brownfield Redevelopment

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/brno

item on the culturalmap of the region,with attention and support from abroad.6

Shortly afterthe city of Brnobecame the ownerof the premises inSeptember 2000,the German firmECE presented plans to invest $120 millionin the construction of a 37,000-square-meter shopping center. The firm acceptedthe Vankovka Civic Association’s invitationto open discussions, bringing togetherCzech and foreign experts and members ofthe public to consult and contribute to theplan. While most of the block was trans-formed into the Galerie Vankovka shoppingcenter, two buildings remained from theoriginal monument-protected area—theMachine Works hall and the “office build-ing”—while the Core Room and the facadeof part of the Foundry were incorporatedinto the new building.7

When the shopping arcade opened inMarch 2005, a special section that is wheel-chair-accessible from outside was made avail-able for a cultural and community center for NGO activities. The name of this center,Slévárna Vankovka, calls to mind the formerfoundry. It consists of Cafe Práh (“halfway”cafe), an information center for young peo-ple, and an all-purpose hall. To renovate thetwo original buildings, the Brno South Cen-tre city development company invested thefunds that ECE had paid for its part of thesite. The large space of the former MachineWorks became an exhibition hall for contem-porary Czech paintings. It is named after theold factory’s founder—the Wannieck Gallery.

The planningprocess alsoinitiated discus-sions concern-ing public spacesin and aroundthe Vankovkacomplex—the“Vankovkastreets”—and upgrades for the surrounding

streetworks and public transport.After more than 15 years, this piece of

land at the center of Brno is once again alive,bringing the city benefits and income. Theredevelopment of Vankovka, with its centrallocation and public transport accessibility, hasincreased prospects for new developments on surrounding sites. Its success has madeBrno a leader in forging a systematic policyapproach to brownfields, while refocusingstrategic priorities on redevelopment of landwithin the city. Vankovka has given life to thehopes of revitalizing other brownfield sites in the region.

The experience also demonstrates theimportance of the creative and visionary roleplayed by civic initiative and the nonprofitsector in regenerating brownfields. The Van-kovka Civic Association not only documentedVankovka and made it more visible, it alsohelped solve a complicated ownership prob-lem. These activities increased the site’s socialpotential and its commercial attractivenesswhile reducing the pressure for greenfieldconstruction. The association’s innovativework to support cultural activities is now be-ing replicated in brownfield redevelopmentcampaigns in other Czech cities.8

—Eva StankováVankovka Civic Association


171

Cityscape: Brno

After renovation, the old foundry wall became the front of the NGO center

Libor Teply, www.volny.cz/fotep

172

“Cities, like dreams, are made of desires andfears,” wrote Italo Calvino in Invisible Cities.If so, our cities range from daydreams tonightmares, depending on the city, themoment in time, and a person’s positionwithin the social and physical landscape.Cities, like regions and countries, have expe-rienced uneven development exacerbated bygovernment inability to offset the inequitiesproduced by globalization. Within manycities, inequalities have deepened—betweenrich and poor, between included andexcluded, and between the “formal” and the“informal” city.1

The informal city consists of squatter set-tlements, clandestine subdivisions, invadedresidential and commercial buildings, provi-sional housing for refugees or migrant work-ers, and often degraded “social housing”complexes. These communities account forsome 40 percent of the total urban popula-

tion of the South, including 41 percent inMumbai and 47 percent in Nairobi. Resi-dents typically lack basic urban services (waterand sanitation, electricity, paved roadways)and security of tenure, including official titleto homes or land and freedom from evic-tion. Even where informal communities haveurban infrastructure and de facto rights to usethe land, they remain stigmatized spaces,while the low-cost labor of their residentshelps sustain life’s daydream for the privi-leged in the formal city.2

As housing prices in the formal city areprohibitive for the poor, they have no choicebut to live in the most dangerous areas: onthe streets, as is common in India; in alley-ways outside wealthy homes, as in manyAsian cities; on hillsides too steep for con-ventional construction, as in the favelas ofRio de Janeiro; on stilts in marshes, as inBahia’s alagados; on floodplains, as in many

C H A P T E R 9

Janice E. Perlman with Molly O’Meara Sheehan

Fighting Poverty andEnvironmental Injustice

in Cities

Janice E. Perlman, a Guggenheim Award recipient, is the founder and President of the Mega-Cities Pro-ject, an international nonprofit, and a former professor of city and regional planning who consults widelyon urban poverty and environmental justice issues.

http://www.worldwatch.org/geo/rio

of Jakarta’s kampungs; atop garbage dumps,as in Manila; or even in cemeteries, as inCairo. Families often remain through severalgenerations and upgrade their homes andcommunities over time. Even young peoplewho manage to enter university often haveno place to live outside these “marginal-ized” spaces.3

Poor urban neighborhoods face the worstof two worlds: the environmental health haz-ards of underdevelopment, such as lack ofclean drinking water, and of industrializa-tion, such as toxic wastes. Yet their residentstread lightly on the planet, using few resourcesand generating low levels of waste in com-parison with their wealthier neighbors. Thegap between rich and poor in cities fromNairobi to New York means that those withthe fewest resources suffer most from pollu-tion generated by the wealthiest.

Those who advocate “sustainable devel-opment”—meeting the needs of people todaywithout despoiling the planet for future gen-erations—too often overlook the striking envi-ronmental injustice in our cities. The logicalsequence linking global sustainability to urbanpoverty is synthesized in what have becomeknown as the Perlman Principles:• There can be no global environmental sus-

tainability without urban environmentalsustainability: Economies of scale in citiescreate energy and resource efficiencies.Transforming the urban metabolismthrough circular rather than linear systemsis the key to reversing global environmen-tal deterioration.

• There can be no urban environmental solu-tion without alleviating urban poverty: Theurban poor tend to occupy the most eco-logically fragile areas of cities and oftenlack adequate water, sewage, or solid wastemanagement systems.

• There can be no solutions to poverty orenvironmental degradation without build-

ing on bottom-up, community-based inno-vations, which are small in scale relative tothe magnitude of the problems.

• There can be no impact at the macro levelwithout sharing what works among localleaders and scaling these programs up intopublic policy where circumstances permit.

• There can be no urban transformationwithout changing the old incentive sys-tems, the “rules of the game,” and theplayers at the table.

• There can be no sustainable city in thetwenty-first century without social justiceand political participation as well as eco-nomic vitality and ecological regeneration.A casual look at book titles throughout the

1960s and 1970s shows that the call for atten-tion to the urbanizing world has beensounded for decades: The Urban Explosion inLatin America, The Exploding Cities, TheWretched of the Earth, Uncontrolled UrbanSettlement. There may have been slightlymore interest in urban poverty during thecold war due to fear that migrants and squat-ters might lead to leftist regimes. But once itwas recognized that squatters were moreinterested in better opportunities for theirchildren than in social protest, this interest felloff. It has only recently resurfaced in light ofurban violence and security issues.4

Gradually, international agencies havebegun to acknowledge the significance ofcities and urban poverty. In 1999 the WorldBank and UN-HABITAT formed the CitiesAlliance to coordinate slum upgrading, in2001 UN-HABITAT became a full-fledgedUnited Nations program, in 2003 the inter-national community agreed on a single defi-nition of “slums,” and in 2004 United Citiesand Local Governments was formed, givingformerly competing local authority networksa unified voice.

These recent milestones are important,but the pace of change remains too slow.


173

Fighting Poverty and Environmental Injustice in Cities

One of the U.N. Millennium DevelopmentGoals explicitly focuses on urban poverty:improve the living conditions of 100 millionslum dwellers by 2020 (Target 11, which ispart of Goal 7 on environmental sustainabil-ity). Even if achieved, this would make but asmall dent, as it aims at just 10 percent of theexisting slum population, and an additional 1billion people will be living in urban areas ofdeveloping countries by 2020. Why are wealways playing catch-up?5

Barriers to Equitable Cities Among the obstacles to reducing urbanpoverty and promoting environmental justiceare inept and corrupt governance, violence,anti-urban bias, skewed development assis-tance, counterproductive incentives and resis-tance to change, and a lack of reliablecity-level data necessary to benchmarkprogress.

Weak governance. The urban poor, gen-erally excluded from decisionmaking, are thegreatest untapped source of ideas aboutimproving their cities and lives. Over the lastseveral decades, mayors have been electedfor the first time in many countries, arguablybringing the government closer to the peo-ple, but most poor people still do not have avoice in governance. Since decisionmakerstend to come from elite sections of society,they often have a vested interest in main-taining the status quo. Lawmakers in Kenya,for instance, who saw bicycles as toys for chil-dren rather than an important transporta-tion mode, levied a luxury tax on bikes foryears, keeping the cost too high for manylow-income residents.6

Poor governance is reflected in unevenservice delivery. World Bank Instituteresearchers have documented that peoplehave less access to water, sewerage, andschool-based Internet in cities that have a

record of bribery in their utility companies,private firms that dictate local laws and reg-ulations, and high levels of corruption nation-wide. Ronald MacLean-Abaroa discoveredthis reality after becoming the first electedmayor of Bolivia’s capital, La Paz, in the mid-1980s: “Whenever I found problems in ser-vice delivery or the prompt completion ofpublic works or the collection of revenues,they happened not just to be associated withinefficient organization but almost alwayswith corruption.”7

Corruption, clientelism, and cronyism—the “three Cs” that undermine democracy—worsen urban poverty. Corruption skewspublic spending toward sectors where brib-ing is easier, such as large public works con-struction, and generally away from education,health, and maintenance of existing infra-structure. When people need to bribe officialsto get needed services, those who can leastafford the bribes suffer the most. A survey inIndonesia found that bribes required bypolice, schools, electricity companies, andgarbage collectors ate into the already tightbudgets of the urban poor.8

Violence and stigma. The increase inurban violence that has accompanied the risein drug and arms trafficking has created par-ticularly high mortality rates among urbanyouth. When dealers purchase complicityfrom the police for their illegal activities, theycan hold entire low-income neighborhoodshostage. The consequent association of theurban poor and violence only serves to deepenthe stigma that already constrains life oppor-tunities for these people.9

A multigenerational study of families in Rioconfirmed this trend. (See Box 9–1.) Fear ofviolence keeps people homebound, while jobinterviews end when the applicant’s addressis identified as in a favela. Among people ofequivalent educational levels, those who livedin favelas had less success finding jobs.10


174


Violent crime is a much greater threat insome places than others. Researchers havefound the world’s lowest levels of robbery andassault in Asia and the highest levels in LatinAmerica and sub-Saharan Africa.11

Anti-urban bias. Environmentalists anddevelopment specialists have long portrayedcities as threats to nature. Many policymak-ers still adhere to this old mindset, pittingenvironmental concerns against economic


175


A study of three favelas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,in 1968–69 and follow-up interviews with manyof the original participants and their families in2001–03 revealed that one of the most drama-tic and devastating changes over the past 30years has been the growth of lethal violence. In1969, people were afraid their homes and com-munities would be removed by the militarygovernment.Today, they are afraid of dying incrossfire between drug dealers and police orbetween rival gangs.

Their fear is justified. In 2001, 20 percent ofthe original interviewees, 19 percent of theirchildren, and 18 percent of their grandchildrenreported that some member of their family had died through lethal violence—much higherrates than in cities in Colombia or Bolivia,which are drug-producing countries. Even whenlow-income families manage to move out of thefavelas into public housing or peripheral butlegitimate neighborhoods, the drug-related vio-lence follows them.The death rates and lifeexpectancies for young men in poor communi-ties rivals those in countries in a civil war.

The poor feel trapped between the drugdealers and the police. In 2003, 81 percent saidthat neither helps them and that both commitviolent acts with impunity.As the gangs are bet-ter financed and armed, it is easy to bribe thepolice. It is not uncommon for police to bargeinto low-income homes with the excuse ofsearching for a gang member and then tear thehome apart and kill family members at randomto demonstrate power and “instill respect.”Seeking retribution from the courts is futile,and identifying the dealers is a death sentence,for the communities are entirely in the handsof the dealers once the police leave. People say

they must act like the three monkeys: they “seenothing, hear nothing, say nothing.”

This “sphere of fear” has the devastatingconsequence of decreasing social capital, one ofthe few great assets for mutual assistance ingetting ahead. Now people are afraid to leavetheir homes.As Nilton, a 60-year-old formerfavela resident who now lives in a housing pro-ject, put it:“To live here is to live in a placewhere daily you do not have the liberty to actfreely, to come and go, to leave your housewhenever you want to, to live as any other per-son who is not in jail. It is imprisoning to think:‘Can I leave now or is it too dangerous?’ Whydo I have to call someone and say that theyshouldn’t come here today? It is terrible, it isoppressive. Nobody wants to live like this.”

Consequently, there is less sense of commu-nity unity, less use of public space, less socializ-ing and trust among neighbors, and much lessparticipation in neighborhood organizations.Almost all residents’ associations are controlledby the drug and arms traffickers (except thosecontrolled by the “death squads”), so that eventhe earlier low level of bargaining power ofsuch groups is gone.And the link betweenfavela residents and criminality has made itharder to get jobs or to hear about availableodd jobs.The rental and sales values ofhomes—residents’ greatest asset—has fallen,and service providers from teachers and healthworkers to nonprofits hoping to provide aidare afraid to enter the communities. Even com-mercial deliveries are no longer made.Thoseinterviewed noted that marginalization andexclusion have only deepened since the end ofthe dictatorship.


Box 9–1. Violence in Rio: Undermining the Urban Poor

growth and preventing further growth ofcities, especially megacities. In 1986, a studycommissioned by the U.N. Fund for Popu-lation Activities found that almost everynation had made some attempt to limit urbangrowth by investing in rural development, cre-ating “growth poles” or “new towns,” forc-ing people to relocate to undersettled regions,moving their national capitals, or introducingclosed-city policies.12

Countries spent a good deal of money andpolitical capital in these efforts, but none suc-ceeded in stemming the tide of migration.Investment in rural roads, electrification,education, health, and industrialization,while important for improving rural livingstandards, in many cases just increased therate of migration to urban areas. As peoplebecame more aware, they used their newroads and skills to seek wider opportunitiesin the city.13

Even where freedom of movement washighly restricted—such as colonial govern-ments, command-and-control economies,and police states—people nonetheless foundways to sneak into cities. The most “success-ful” efforts to prevent urban growth were inapartheid South Africa, which required pass-ports for non-whites to enter cities; China,which used rice ration cards and a house-hold registration system; Russia, which usedhousing allocations; and Cuba, where anational policy of keeping people in the coun-tryside was backed by the use of force. Yet“floating populations” of migrants enteredChinese cities, Moscow apartments becamecrowded with friends and relatives trying tomove to the city, and governments every-where kept inaccurate records of city size tomaintain the fiction of non-growth.14

As recently as 2005, scores of nationswere still attempting to curb urbanization.The United Nations Population Divisionrecently analyzed migration policies of 164

countries and found that 70 percent aim tolower migration from rural to urban areas.This study confirmed that the impact onoverall population distribution was “almostnegligible.”15

The myth that people will stop coming tocities if public housing is not built and squat-ter settlements are removed is unfoundedand hurts the poor. Miloon Kothari, U.N.Special Rapporteur on Housing Rights, esti-mated in 2006 that the number of forcedevictions had risen worldwide since 2000.“Without human rights safeguards,” Kothariwarns, “the commitment to the reductionof slums, including through the relevantMDGs, can easily become slum-eradication tothe detriment of slum-dwellers.”16

Skewed international assistance. Althoughvirtually all of the world’s population growthis expected in the cities of Africa, Asia, andLatin America, and most of this will be in low-income areas, development assistance hasbeen reluctant to recognize the urbanizationof poverty. From 1970 to 2000, all urbandevelopment assistance was estimated at $60billion—just 4 percent of the total $1.5 tril-lion. Few bilateral aid agencies have any kindof urban housing program, or any seriousurban program at all.17

The decisions of international develop-ment banks are important, even if aid is notthe primary source of foreign investment ina given country. In recent years, aid hasbeen roughly one tenth the level of privatecapital flows in developing countries. Yetinternational aid agencies leverage additionalfunding and influence the research agendasand spending priorities of governments, uni-versities, and nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs).18

Aid that does flow to urban areas oftenmisses the poor. The London-based Inter-national Institute for Environment and Devel-opment found that urban projects accounted


176


for 20–30 percent of all lending at severalagencies from 1981 to 1998. But housing,water, sanitation, and other services thatimprove conditions for the urban poorreceived just 11 percent of total lending at theWorld Bank, 8 percent at the Asian Devel-opment Bank, and 5 percent at Japan’s Over-seas Economic Cooperation Fund.19

The World Bank reports that its lendingand staff devoted to urban areas continuesto lag behind the resources invested in therural sector. All countrywide World Bankinvestments and most bilateral aid in devel-oping countries are guided by PovertyReduction Strategy Papers prepared by gov-ernments in consultation with the WorldBank Group. These documents tend toneglect urban areas.20

The international assistance communitycut its teeth on rural development and is pro-fessionally and structurally geared towardassisting rural peasants, not to continuingassistance for them when they move to cities.Development experts seem to prefer “mis-sions” to attractive agricultural areas, fishingvillages, and environmental preserves overthose in the polluted, overcrowded, and oftendangerous urban slums.

Pressure to bring more attention to urbanpoverty within the international develop-ment community has met with strong resis-tance. Every Executive Director ofUN-HABITAT since its founding in 1978has urged that we must act now, and yetnone has succeeded in receiving funding par-ity with other U.N. agencies. When UN-HABITAT was headquartered in Nairobialong with the U.N. Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP) to assuage political pres-sures from African countries, it was no secretthat these were considered the most expend-able United Nations bodies. AlthoughUNEP and UN-HABITAT have an impres-sive campus in Nairobi, both agencies remain

politically and financially marginalized.The voices for greater support for urban

programs often face derision from those whobelieve that government spending is alreadypro-urban. But rigorous economic studiesfind that wealth generated in cities ends upsubsidizing the countryside.21

On a more positive note, the World Bankis now considering subnational lending,which would allow loans to go directly tomunicipal governments, bypassing nationalfinance ministries. This would help cities—particularly megacities—receive monies des-ignated for them from international agenciesthat is now often held up by national gov-ernments that have imposed lending ceil-ings or that see political advantages inwithholding funds. For instance, nationalgovernments in Brazil and Mexico do notwant the mayors of their major cities toappear successful because they are potentialcompetitors for the presidency and oftenfrom opposition parties.22

Counterproductive incentives and fearof change. The incentive systems of aid agen-cies are at odds with contextually specific,community-based, anti-poverty initiatives.Development professionals are promotedbased on the size and rapidity of loans“pushed out the door,” making one-size-fits-all approaches the best route to promo-tion, as opposed to smaller-scale projectswhere the priorities are set by local people.One analyst concluded that “the peoplewhose needs justify the whole developmentindustry are the people with the least powerto influence development and to whom thereis least accountability in terms of what is


177


Development assistance hasbeen reluctant to recognize theurbanization of poverty.

funded and who gets funded.”23

The public sector is generally risk-averse.Elected and appointed officials often feel safersticking with “the way things have alwaysbeen done,” even if results are suboptimal,rather than risk being fired or not re-electedfor making a mistake. There is a high price topay for an unsuccessful initiative—and littleor no reward for innovation. As Alan Alt-shuler and Marc Zegans have noted, in theprivate sector the expectation that some ideasand initiatives will not be successful is builtinto the process, and funds are set aside forR&D where the entire point is to experi-ment and innovate.24

Fragmentation and competition amongpublic agencies and academic disciplines fur-ther limits cooperation in solving urban prob-lems. Each area—water and sanitation,transportation, housing, land use planning,private-sector involvement, poverty allevia-tion—is in a separate department, often runby people who may compete for resources,attention, or staff. Yet these issues are inter-twined, so that an apparent solution to onemay lead to new problems in another. Evenwhen universities or international agencieshave created interdisciplinary structures, indi-viduals still have the strongest allegiances totheir home department, where appointments,promotions, and payments are set.

Inadequate data for benchmarking. Lackof city- and neighborhood-level data makesit difficult to measure progress and hold gov-ernments accountable. Most statistics are onlyavailable at the national level, at best brokendown between rural and urban, but not byspecific cities. Where cities have managed to

mobilize resources to collect their own data,they often exclude informal settlements andare rarely comparable with earlier studies orwith data from other cities. The Global UrbanObservatory created by UN-HABITAT in1998 to address this problem has had littlesuccess in finding indicators comparable acrosscities, despite its Web-accessible database of237 cities that covers measures of poverty,environment, infrastructure, urban services,shelter, and land.25

Apparently neutral questions such as whatto measure, what indicators to use, how tocollect reliable data on these indicators, howto make sense of the results, and how to dis-seminate the results are in fact value-basedissues that have political and social implica-tions. Answers to these urban indicators ques-tions will be a major topic of debate at thenext World Urban Forum in Nanjing, China,in 2008.

Signs of HopeDespite these obstacles, the energy and cre-ativity in cities has generated scores of system-challenging innovations, many of which havespread from one place to another or—politicspermitting—have been scaled up into publicpolicy. Three examples described in this sec-tion are urban poor federations, which startedin Mumbai, India; land-sharing, which startedin Bangkok; and participatory budgeting,which started in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Over the last two decades, a new kind offederation of urban poor has emerged fromgrassroots savings groups. The membergroups, often led by women, learn from andsupport each other. The catalyst for this devel-opment was the National Slum Dwellers Fed-eration in India. Its head, A. Jockin, was acommunity leader who had long fought toprotect his own and other “slums” frombeing bulldozed.26


178


Federations of urban poor havepooled their money in savings groupsto support community projects.

In the early 1980s, Jockin and other slumleaders in India demonstrated the capacityof their groups to lower costs and reach morepeople with their own form of housing andbasic service programs. At the same time,women pavement dwellers in Mumbai sup-ported by a local NGO called SPARC (theSociety for Promotion of Area Resource Cen-ters) created a savings program (MahilaMilan) that each woman contributed a fewcents to every week. These three organiza-tions formed an Alliance that since 1985 hasbeen demonstrating to governments how toaddress the needs of slum dwellers in concreteprojects from new housing to communitymapping and public toilets. (See also Chap-ter 2.) The Alliance has strong links with theAsian Coalition for Housing Rights, and bothwork to support organizations of the urbanpoor in different Asian nations.27

Representatives from this Alliance wereinvited to South Africa in 1991 to help com-munity leaders consider how that country’sfirst democratically elected governmentshould address housing issues. The visitorshelped set up what is now the South AfricanFederation of the Urban Poor, formed aroundindigenous savings groups, which beganhousing projects to demonstrate the capacityof their members. These groups, along withthe Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, alsoconnected with urban poor organizationsand networks in Thailand. During the early1990s, other national federations formed,drawing support from the already establishedfederations. Most, like the Indian and SouthAfrican federations, had a local NGO to sup-port them.28

In 1996, with active federations in Cam-bodia, India, Namibia, Nepal, South Africa,Thailand, and Zimbabwe and with interestfrom community organizations in manyother nations, the federations formed their own umbrella group: SDI (Slum/Shack

Dwellers International). Groups in Brazil,Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Sri Lanka, andSwaziland have since joined SDI. Many haveprograms that have reached tens of thou-sands of members with better housing andbasic services; some have reached hundredsof thousands.29

Federations of urban poor, and the NGOsthat work with them, have devised numerousways to tackle common obstacles. They havepooled their money in savings groups to sup-port community projects. They have over-come the lack of data on informal settlementsby doing their own censuses and commu-nity mapping. Their persistence has oftenprodded into action governments that wereresisting change.30

Another important innovation—land shar-ing—began in Thailand. In the 1980s, NGOsand National Housing Authority architectsbegan organizing residents of informal set-tlements facing eviction to negotiate withthe owners of the land they occupied inBangkok. Their goal was to enable squattersto get new apartments with full services andsecure land tenure on a part of the disputedland in exchange for returning the rest ofthe land for commercial development. Byagreeing to such land sharing arrangements,the landowners could avert years of conflict,lost profits, and loss of face, and they wereable to develop market-rate projects on aportion of their property, the profits of whicheasily paid the costs of building the multi-family dwellings and infrastructure.31

The Thai government worked with one ofthe local leaders, Somsook Boonyabancha,to set up the Urban Community Develop-ment Office (UCDO) in 1992 and to bringparticipatory development to more urbanpoor neighborhoods. The board of this newagency included senior government officials,academics, and community representatives.Beginning with a $50-million capital fund,


179


UCDO was able to make low-interest loansto organized communities to buy land, con-struct or improve homes, or start small busi-nesses. It encouraged communities to formsavings and credit groups to hone their man-agement skills and bring their own resourcesinto development projects.32

In 2000, UCDO merged with the RuralDevelopment Fund to become the Commu-nity Organizations Development Institute,which launched a huge campaign in 2003 todevelop good housing, infrastructure, andsecure land tenure with 300,000 householdsin 2,000 poor communities in 200 Thai citieswithin five years. By the time of the Septem-ber 2006 coup d’état in Thailand, 450 com-munity upgrading projects in 750communities in 170 towns and cities wereunder way or completed, reaching more than45,500 households.33

The ambitious scale of these Thai effortshas yielded results. In 2006, UN-HABI-TAT found that Thailand was among a hand-ful of nations that are on track to meet theMillennium Development Goal of improv-ing the lives of slum dwellers. The numberof slum dwellers in Thailand has fallen by18.8 percent a year, and UN-HABITATcredited community-driven upgrading sup-ported by the government for this encour-aging development.34

A third notable innovation is participatorybudgeting, which was started in Porto Ale-gro, Brazil, when the city government usedthe 1988 post-dictatorship constitution toinvolve the urban poor in priority settingfor community-level budget appropriations.The Workers’ Party Mayor made public theexisting neighborhood allocation of servicedelivery and investments and asked that par-ticipatory processes be used to set prioritieson the use of municipal funds in each com-munity. Once every penny of expenditurehad been negotiated within and among the

neighborhoods, corruption and clientelismbecame impossible to hide.35

Participatory budgeting has resulted ingreater investment in poor neighborhoods,with greater targeting to issues identified bythe poor as top priorities. A survey conductedafter the first year revealed that most of PortoAlegre’s poor people wanted clean water andtoilets, whereas the government previouslyassumed that the top priority was trans-portation. After initial success in creating sol-idarity rather than conflict amongneighborhoods of rich and poor, participatorybudgeting spread to other cities in Brazil,the rest of Latin America, and elsewhere.(See Box 9–2.)36

While participatory budgeting has beenadapted internationally, many cities lack thelegal framework and strong local govern-ment needed to practice it. In 2002,researchers commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank concluded thatfor participatory budgeting to happen, citiesmust have a competent local governmentcommitted to including the urban poor. Thisis generally not the case.37

Even when the political will exists toimplement participatory budgeting, manyobstacles remain. Yves Cabannes of Uni-versity College London identifies the fol-lowing as key challenges: How canmunicipalities maintain participatory bud-geting after it is started by a political partythat leaves office? How can it be sustainedin conditions of scarce local budgetaryresources? How can cities mobilize localresources to meet the expectations of thosewho participate so that false expectations donot backfire? How can cities expand par-ticipation to include the poorest and mostexcluded, especially young people, women,the elderly, and migrants? And how cancities best learn from the immense variety ofexperiences with participatory budgeting?38


180


Sharing Approaches That Work

The experiences just described belie stereo-types about the incompetence of the urbanpoor, about the inability of communitygroups to collaborate with governmentsand international agencies, and about thenarrow self-interest of urbanites seekingbenefits for their own neighborhoods atthe expense of the common good. Urbanpoor federations, land sharing, and partic-ipatory budgeting are only three of manyinnovations that should provoke policy-makers to rethink whom the city is for andhow it works—who sets the policy agenda,what groups are included in decisionmaking,how conflicts are handled, and which incen-

tive structures generate progressive change.The Mega-Cities Project was founded in

1987 to address these issues and to stimulatetransformation of policy and practice from thebottom up. Hundreds of successful innova-tive solutions are bubbling up in cities world-wide. The Mega-Cities strategy is to discoverand uncover these, document and disseminatethem, and scale them up into policy (wherepossible) or transfer them worldwide to citiesseeking to adapt them and jump-start prob-lem solving of their own. As a result, the lagtime between ideas and implementation isshortened and the effects of approaches thatwork are multiplied.

The need to share workable solutions washighlighted by the results of a Global Lead-ers Survey conducted by Roper Starch Inter-


181


In Brazil, where participatory budgeting wasborn, expansion is slowing but the process isreaching a greater range of cities. By 2006,some 200–250 municipalities in Brazil had par-ticipatory budgets.This process initially wasused in Brazil’s wealthier south and center, butnow it has reached northeastern capitals,including cities with high poverty, such as Fort-aleza, Recife, and Aracaju. Participatory budget-ing is no longer unique to the Workers’ Party,as parties from the center to the extreme leftare adopting the process.

Peru has also passed and implemented com-prehensive participatory budgeting legislation.Over the past five years, more than 800 local,regional, and provincial governments there have started to discuss budgets with residents.Although this “top-down” approach suffersfrom rigid procedures and a uniform system forcivil society representation that does not alwaysfit the local context, many initiatives are flour-ishing, supported by the Red Peru network andnurtured by Peru’s strong participatory culture.

In Colombia, the U.S.Agency for Interna-

tional Development is supporting participatorybudgeting through its Plan Colombia, and localgovernments, including in Pasto and Medellin,are separately experimenting in their ownways.Venezuela, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia allhave the topic on their policy agendas.

Since 2003, the Municipality of Porto Alegrehas coordinated a network, supported by theEuropean Union, that includes over 350 citiesand 100 institutions from Europe and LatinAmerica.At the World Urban Forum in June2006, participants from more than 30 countriesattended a workshop on participatory budget-ing; earlier that month, people from Africa,Asia,and Eastern Europe traveled to Brazil for athree-city workshop on the subject.Between 2000 and 2006, the number of munici-palities with participatory budgets grew from200 to roughly 1,200 worldwide. In Europe,more than 50 cities have adopted thisapproach, and initiatives are under way in Asia,Africa, and North America as well.


Box 9–2. The Spread of Participatory Budgeting

national. Although 96 percent of leaders fromall sectors agreed that their cities faced simi-lar problems to other cities, and 96 percentsaid they would benefit from sharing infor-mation, only 11 percent felt very knowl-edgeable about what other cities were doingto solve problems. Despite the availability ofinstant messaging, Web sites, blogs, and dataretrieval at the touch of a keypad, leadershave little time or propensity to go online forsolutions to their problems. They need tohear a new idea in person from a peer or seeit for themselves.39

Mega-Cities teams in the 21 largest citiesof the world facilitate these face-to-faceencounters. They include network leadersfrom NGOs, grassroots groups, government,business, academia, and the media. Theseteams detected, visited, and documentedmore than 400 successful innovations at theintersection of poverty and environment andbrokered the transfer of 40 of them acrossnational, city, and neighborhood boundaries.This section describes three such transfers—in Cairo, Rio de Janeiro, and Curitiba—asillustrations of both the power of mutuallearning and the difficulties of sustaining newpractices that threaten vested interests.40

Traditionally the Zabbaleen, Cairo’s ver-sion of India’s “untouchables,” were trash col-lectors. They lived in an abandoned quarrythat had become the city’s garbage dump, andthey earned a meager livelihood from sellingwaste products by the ton to brokers. In the1970s, a consulting firm called EQI and anaffiliated nonprofit began working with theZabbaleen to convert trash into marketableproducts through micro-enterprises based intheir homes. Scrap metal was worked intoelaborately etched trays, fabrics were used toweave colorful placemats and quilts, plasticswere recycled into shoes and games, andorganic waste was composted.41

The success of these endeavors, which cap-

tured the value added of the final products,drew support from government and interna-tional institutions, facilitating the totalupgrading of the community. People movedout of the dump into apartments with stan-dard urban services, and the children left thedonkey carts and entered school. Childrenwho attended school could apprentice in thecraft of their choice and earn income fromtheir production. After centuries, the Zab-baleen began to overcome the stigma attachedto trash workers.

In 1994, at a Mega-Cities Project meetingin Jakarta, Manila coordinator Me’An Igna-cio realized that this approach might beadapted to the Payatas settlement in Manilaand arranged to bring a delegation from thereto the 1995 meeting in Cairo to study theZabbaleen. The group returned inspired tostudy the contents of their local garbagestream and decided to start with a guild forpaper recycling. They were successful in pro-ducing and selling all sorts of paper productsand helped start other small enterprises, usingplastic foam insulation and other waste prod-ucts. The idea spread to other communitiesin Metro Manila and around the country andhelped bring many families out of direpoverty. Today recycling continues on a smallscale in Manila, but garbage dumping hasbecome a source of large kickbacks to localofficials, so they discourage these grassrootsrecycling efforts.42

In Cairo, the Zabbaleen have continued togenerate income through recycling but havenot been integrated into the city’s waste col-lection system as hoped. In fact, globalizationhas entered their lives in recent years, as inter-national waste collection businesses have beengiven contracts for garbage collection in var-ious parts of the city and have pressured theZabbaleen to move out. The internationalcompanies burn the garbage rather thanreusing it; the Zabbaleen, in contrast, man-


182


age to recycle 85 percent of what they collect.At the moment one third of Cairo has nogarbage collection at all. As Mona Serageldin,an architect from Cairo who teaches at Har-vard, suggests, the waste problem there willnot be solved until the traditional and mod-ern waste collection systems are linked.43

Another innovation comes from Rio,where about one third of the residents live infavelas, many of which are too steep for con-ventional construction. Each year during therainy season, floods and mudslides wash outhundreds of their homes, killing many peo-ple and polluting communities with sewerageoverflow that then runs into Guanabara Bay.In 1986, the Municipal Secretariat of SocialDevelopment launched Projeto Mutirão(reforestation), which combined plantingvegetables and fruit trees on upper slopes toprevent erosion and further settlement withinstalling underground sewerage pipes to sep-arate human waste from open drainage canals.Community leaders managed the process,hiring qualified unemployed residents, and forthe first time in history the city paid for thelabor—from cultivating seedlings, plantingtrees, and maintaining new green areas todigging trenches and installing pipes.44

At the 1992 Mega-Cities Project meet-ing in Rio, Jakarta coordinator Darrundonowas inspired to integrate elements of Rio’sprogam into the Kampung ImprovementProject (KIP), an upgrading initiative thathe directed. The core idea of environmentaland nutritional awareness and of the impor-tance of greenery to the quality of life inpoor settlements was integrated into KIP,with the additional elements of installingcommunal washing and toilet facilities onsites of garbage dumps and encouraging eachfamily to cultivate edible plants in the smallspaces around their homes. But the Indone-sian program did not adopt the practice ofpaying residents for their labor.

Back in Rio, the lessons from this expe-rience evolved into Favela-Bairro, the mostextensive squatter upgrading project everundertaken. From 1995 to 2004 the refor-estation program reached 87 communitiesand 250,000 people, and by 2006 Favela-Bairro had reached 556,000 people in 143favelas. Workers are paid $150–500 amonth, and some work at three nurseries thecity supports, producing 120,000 trees amonth. More than 1,500 hectares have beenplanted with some 3.5 million trees, whichhelps to generate income, provide foodsecurity, improve air quality, and preventflood disasters.45

The success the city government had inpaying community residents through localleaders was transferred into several other pro-jects, the most extensive being the garbagecollection initiative, Favela Limpa (CleanFavela): the municipal waste collection com-pany now hires favela residents to collectwaste door-to-door and bring it to collectionpoints for municipal trucks.46

A third transfer involves Curitiba, Brazil.In the 1970s, Mayor Jaime Lerner devel-oped a bus system that was quick, comfort-able, and convenient enough to draw ridersout of their cars. (See Chapter 4 for furtherdetails.) Building and zoning regulationswere adapted to allow for higher density con-struction at bus intersections, and trans-portation within and between neighborhoodswas fully integrated. In addition, in poorcommunities inaccessible to garbage trucks,residents received free bus tickets for bring-


183


In Cairo, international companies burnthe garbage rather than reusing it;the Zabbaleen, in contrast, manage torecycle 85 percent of what they collect.

ing their trash to the main road, and oldbuses were used as mobile classrooms forcomputer literacy.47

In 1991, New York City and the stategovernment were seeking ways to reduceautomobile emissions, as the city risked los-ing federal funding because it was out ofcompliance with the Clean Air Act. TheMega-Cities Project was asked to presentsome measures used successfully in othercities. A private foundation offered a challengegrant that would cover the costs of the inno-vation transfer if all the players could agree onone initiative. New York officials chose anenvironmental education program called AlertII, which linked car emissions with air pollu-tion and public health risk in São Paulo, alongwith the Curitiba bus system.48

In early 1992 the Mega-Cities Projectbrought New York City Commissioners ofEnvironment and Transportation to São Pauloand Curitiba to study these initiatives. Theresult was a public awareness event called“Green Alert” on Park Avenue, and, withfinancial help from Volvo, four of the Curitibabuses and loading tubes were given a test runin four key locations in lower Manhattan.49

The trial received good evaluations fromthose who used it, but the transfer lostmomentum when the city administrationchanged in 1993 after an election. Criticscould cite many reasons that Curitiba’s sys-tem would not work in New York. Thedemonstration there had given people freetrips, so one key element—prepaid board-ing—was not tested. And the staffed turnstilesfor payment at every bus station would beexpensive to replicate in New York. Unlike

Curitiba, New York has a subway and narrowstreets, which make it hard to dedicate full-time street space for buses. Also, the respon-sibility for New York streets is split betweenthe state-run transit authority that operatesbuses and the city transportation departmentthat manages street signs and signals, whichare key to giving buses priority.50

The idea never died, however: it stimulatedinterest at the Federal Transit Administra-tion, which then encouraged bus rapid tran-sit in Los Angeles and other cities. In 2001,when New York Mayor Michael Bloombergfirst ran for election, “subways on the surface”was one of his campaign ideas. And in 2006officials considered a similar system on severalcorridors throughout the city. The pilot sys-tem anticipated for operation in 2008 willhave drawn some of its inspiration from thatCuritiba demonstration years ago. For theMega-Cities Project, it was important to haveone of its first transfers occur from South toNorth to show that learning could be thereverse of what many people expect.51

These cases and hundreds of others doc-umented and disseminated by the Mega-Cities Project provide lessons about theprocess of social change. Grassroots groupshave been the most fertile source of innova-tion, followed by local governments. To reachsignificant scale, innovators need to work inpartnership with NGOs, business, and gov-ernment. To overcome the myriad obstaclesduring the innovation life cycle, from originto routine practice, a “product champion”needs to provide passion and continuity. Inno-vation transfer works best when the learningis peer-to-peer, when there is a face-to-facevisit, and when continuity can be assured.(The rapid change of administrations makestransfers tricky between local governments, asthey are prone to reject an idea they did notinitiate.) But the biggest lesson is that socialchange is a Sisyphean struggle. While com-


184


Grassroots groups have been themost fertile source of innovation,followed by local governments.

munity groups and progressive governmentsstruggle to push the boulder of innovation upthe mountainside, the gravitation pull of“business as usual” is always working in theother direction.

Promising New DirectionsOur global future will be urban, like it or not.People in developing countries will continueto vote with their feet, moving to cities or theurban fringe. It will be many decades beforecities of the global South reach a stable pop-ulation. Although birth rates decline withurbanization, this happens more slowly withthe urban poor.

What can be done to make our urbanfuture a desirable and sustainable one? Whatkinds of cities foster conviviality and creativ-ity? How can poverty and environmentaldegradation be alleviated and a voice for thedisenfranchised be ensured?

There is no magic bullet for creating sus-tainable, equitable, and peaceful cities. Butthere are some necessary if not sufficient con-ditions for such transformations: transparentgovernance, decent work or a basic income,innovative infrastructure to conserve the envi-ronment, intelligent land use with integratedcommunity development, and social cohe-sion along with cultural diversity.

Foster transparent governance. Effectivegovernance is essential to scale up promisinginnovations into public policies, to providebasic services equitably, and to forge part-nerships with the private and voluntary sec-tors. Addressing the World Bank Board inSingapore in September 2006, Bank PresidentPaul Wolfowitz emphasized this point: “With-out [good] governance, all other reformswill have limited impact…. It is the view Ihave heard on sidewalks and in taxis—in themarbled halls of ministries and in rundownshacks of shantytowns.”52

Tackling the corruption that weakens gov-ernance requires fostering competition so thatgovernments do not have monopoly power,reducing bureaucratic leeway, and increasingaccountability. For instance, La Paz began toreduce bribery in construction permits bysimplifying and publicizing the rules, con-tracting the permitting out to architects, andreducing the city’s job to overseeing the con-tracts—a job that could be done by fewermunicipal employees who could be paid more.Some promising efforts to foster transparentgovernance make government rules, pur-chases, and investments public knowledge byposting them on the Internet.53

Ensure decent work or a basic income.Jobs are a top priority for the urban poor. In2001, the majority of interviewees in themultigenerational study of favela residents inRio said that “the most important factorfor a successful life” was a good job with agood salary. They want a chance to earntheir livelihoods whether as employees orinformal workers—that is the key to theirdignity. What is needed is both job creationand preparation of people within their com-munities for jobs that exist in market sectorsthat are growing.54

Job and skills training, mentoring, andhelp in finding a first job can play a major roleif done correctly. There is no use buildingpeople’s capacity for jobs that no longer exist.

Savings and credit are key to job creation.Without access to these financial tools, would-be entrepreneurs cannot start small busi-nesses. Many forms of microfinance, includingcommunity savings and credit funds as well assmall loans to make improvements to hous-ing, have been successful in urban settings.(See Chapter 8.)55

Larger companies can also play a role instrengthening the economies of poor com-munities. In Guadalajara, Mexico, where agood share of the population lives in


185


unplanned settlements, a large, multinationalcement company, CEMEX, developed a sav-ings-and-credit scheme to allow householdsthat earn $5–15 a day (low-income families,but not the poorest of the poor) to buymaterials to build and improve their housing.The program has since expanded to 23 citiesin Mexico.56

In some cases, governments can help cre-ate local jobs by hiring the urban poor to helpsolve pressing environmental problems, asreforestation in Rio demonstrated. In low-income communities in Dar-es-Salaam inTanzania and Kampala in Uganda that weredamaged in flooding, local governments used“community contracts” to get local labor forthe necessary rebuilding.57

There is also a role for a “negative incometax” to help in periods between jobs or to sup-plement incomes too low to live on. Mexicoand Brazil started innovative “conditionalcash transfer programs” in which the gov-ernment directly deposits funds into person-alized debit cards for low-income people as anincentive for desirable action. For example, afamily gets a certain amount of cash for chil-dren as long as they attend school regularly,gets other funds upon proof of immunizationagainst contagious diseases, and receives fur-ther aid if there are elderly or infirm peoplein the family. Such programs have led tohigher school enrollment and better preven-tive health care, especially in Latin Americancities, and New York’s mayor now plans to trythe approach.58

Develop innovative infrastructure to con-serve the environment. Cities that do not yethave full infrastructure have the chance to“leapfrog” over outmoded and wasteful sys-tems created during the Industrial Revolution.They can take advantage of resource-con-serving technologies, both low- and high-tech, to revolutionize the built environment.Examples include installing water-conserv-

ing toilets, separating drinking and greywaterinto different systems, using passive solarenergy or biogas for heating, and adapting therecycling technologies developed by NASAfor life in outer space. Architect WilliamMcDonough is working on low-cost housingprojects in China that use biogas from waste-water for cooking, local compressed earth asbuilding materials, and passive solar design forheating and cooling. These sorts of tech-nologies are also being used in Johannes-burg. (See Box 9–3.)59

One challenge in adopting low-impact or“alternative” technologies is that they do notcarry the prestige of “modernity” seen ontelevisions and in houses of the rich around


186


In the low-income neighborhood of IvoryPark, Johannesburg, residents are discover-ing new job opportunities with technol-ogies that turn wastes into resources.Local NGOs—EcoCity and GreenHousePeople’s Environmental Centre Project—have demonstrated the viability of locallyavailable rammed earth building materials,solar water heaters and cookers, water-less sewage systems, recycling, and small-scale organic agriculture.Together with theCo-operatives and Policy Alternative Cen-tre, EcoCity has helped set up more than a dozen “green” cooperative businesses.Clara Masonganye, from the women eco-builders cooperative Ubuhle Bemvelo, saysthe green homes “are warm in winter andcool in summer.” Midrand Eco Savings and Credit Cooperative allows the localsavings community to decide how to allo-cate loans.

—Annie SugrueEcoCity Trust, Johannesburg


Box 9–3. Circular Technologies inJohannesburg, South Africa

the world. While cutting-edge neighbor-hoods in places like Stockholm show thateco-friendly design is compatible with a highstandard of living, most people in developingcountries do not see these models and con-tinue to aspire to the worst mistakes of theU.S. and European systems.

Promote intelligent land use and inte-grated community development. Urban plan-ning is making a comeback after decades ofbeing dismissed as the province of uselesscolored maps. Creative urbanists have foundnew ways to involve communities in the trade-offs of physical planning decisions and to useold planning tools for progressive change.Zoning, building, and land use regulationshave been adapted to foster mixed-use com-munities, with homes close to workplaces,commerce, and recreation. Incentives fordevelopment in areas with existing infra-structure have helped limit sprawl. “Areas ofspecial interest” have been established to pro-tect environmentally important areas, connectnature corridors, and allow the upgrading ofinformal settlements in flexible ways. Com-prehensive transportation planning has nowincluded investments in sidewalks, bicyclepaths, and low-cost public transportationoptions with easy connections between local,regional, and longer-distance travel.

São Paulo has been among the leaders inadvancing urban planning tools to create amore inclusive city. One of the biggest stepsthere was taxing building developers to cre-ate a fund for investments in the publicinterest, including public transportation,housing, and environmental improvements.(See Box 9–4.)60

Low-income housing options are so lim-ited in most cities that new migrants end upliving in the most dangerous places. A logi-cal response would be to lay out small plotsof land with connection to basic urban ser-vices, available for small sums or loans. This


187


In São Paulo’s plan, approved in 2002, theadministration negotiated a change in thefloor ratio, which dictates how large abuilding on a given lot can be.Throughoutthe city, the ratio that developers can buildfor no additional cost is now kept to 1,meaning the total area on all floors of anew building must be equal to the lot area.But in areas where zoning allows floorratios of 2, 3, or 4, developers who wish tobuild more can pay for a permit.The pro-ceeds go to a public fund for environmen-tal, transport, and housing purposes.

The developers’ association publishedfour pages of ads against the proposedplan in all local newspapers.The adminis-tration fought back and the innovation waseventually agreed upon. But at the CityCouncil several changes diminished theproceeds that could be expected from thenew permit system. It is now the law, how-ever, and developers have to abide, whichthey can do without any significant harmto their profits.

When a new administration has a dif-ferent approach to social problems oranother set of priorities, it puts less empha-sis on some issues, even though they areenshrined in the law. During the Workers’Party administration (2001–04), forinstance, São Paulo created an Urban Poli-cies Council of 40 members, representingboth government and NGOs. It is requiredby law. But the current administration hasnever convened the council.

Developers will always try to changethe law in order to build more and more;it is in the logic of their business. But asJean-Jacques Rousseau wrote,“the publicinterest is not the interest of all.”

—Jorge WilheimFormer head of São Paulo’s

planning department


Box 9–4. Planning for the PublicInterest in São Paulo, Brazil

“sites-and-services” approach, first tested inDakar, Senegal, in 1972, has been little used,as it does not offer politicians the chance forribbon cuttings and photo opportunities. Yetit makes monetary and environmental sense:the costs of infrastructure are small comparedwith retrofitting a squatter community, andthe new settlements help reduce the inva-sion of environmentally sensitive areas.

Cultivate social cohesion and culturaldiversity. Diversity makes natural ecosystemsand human economies more resilient, yetprejudice and misunderstanding between dif-ferent groups of people often squanders thepotential of cultural diversity to strengthencities. Solving the complex problems thatour cities face will require the greatest diver-sity of cultures and value sets possible.61

As violent crime rips apart the urban fab-ric and further isolates the poor, there is aneed to focus on controlling the sale of armsand drugs, reducing the corruption that per-mits violence with impunity, and mobilizingthe society at large to find solutions to theproblem. Promising initiatives include effortsat community policing in low-income neigh-borhoods and all varieties of arts, culture,and sports programs for young people at risk.Some programs of arms amnesty and pre-vention of small arms sales have also beentried, with varying degrees of success in low-ering urban violence.62

Our Urban FutureThe directions in politics, economics, envi-ronmental policy, and society just describedrequire at least three fundamental changes.The first is to revise the architecture for sup-port to cities and the urban poor, giving citiestheir due and reversing the reward systems topromote innovation. As the global populationshifts toward cities, the agendas of aid agen-cies, national governments, foundations,

research centers, and nonprofit groups needto reflect this reality. All too often in the dis-course on the future of cities, the focus remainsexclusively on global or world cities in theirrole as centers of capital and information flowsand as corporate headquarters rather than onthe more numerous and populous cities of thedeveloping world.

To bridge the divide between officialsources of assistance and the urban poor,governments and aid agencies might channeltheir support to a local fund or communityfoundation in each city. The fund would beearmarked for use by community organiza-tions, have transparent decisionmaking, andmake it easy for groups that receive assis-tance to exchange ideas with each other. TheThai government’s Community Organiza-tions Development Institute offers one exam-ple of how national governments couldcontribute to local funds. The Swedish Inter-national Development Cooperation Agencyhas set up local organizations to run urbanpoverty programs in Costa Rica andNicaragua. In Ecuador, the governmentreached agreements between 1988 and 1993with foreign governments to restructurecommercial debt instruments and then chan-neled the funds through local NGOs tofinance development projects throughoutthe country.63

Rethinking development assistanceincludes finding ways for federations of theurban poor and NGOs working with them tobypass official aid channels. Two formerWorld Bank staff members have started aWeb site, www.globalgiving.com, that allowsindividuals and institutions to support projectsrun by local people. Analyzing this initiative,former Bank economist William Easterlywrites: “Think of the potential for creativityif thousands of potential donors, project pro-posers, technical advisers, and advocates forthe poor were freed from the shackles of the


188


large centralized bureaucracy and could findsolutions that worked on the ground. This isnot a panacea for redesigning all of foreignaid; it is just one promising experiment in howaid could reach the poor.”64

A second change needed is to create sys-tematic ways for benchmarking progress andmeasuring outcomes in cities. Without reli-able, comparable indicators of poverty andenvironmental conditions, we will never knowwhether progress is being made or how tocompare the impact of one set of practices andpolicies with another. As international andnational efforts have not yielded city-levelindicators, the need for local benchmarkingis clear. One possibility is for local govern-ments to hire residents to collect health,housing, income, and environmental data.Federations of the urban poor, from Mum-bai to Nairobi, have shown how this can bedone, organizing communities to performtheir own censuses. Cities can hold informa-tion collection fairs that would motivate peo-ple to collect data on their own areas ofinterest and responsibility.

Exchange of information is especiallyessential among those who are most directlyinvolved in fighting urban poverty andamong the urban poor themselves. The jour-nal Environment and Urbanization, pro-duced by the International Institute forEnvironment and Development, offers oneimportant forum for researchers, NGO staff,and others to exchange ideas. There is alsoa need for face-to-face discussions amongcommunity leaders.

Some new projects aim to collect and shareinformation on urban poverty and the envi-ronment. The International DevelopmentResearch Centre in Canada has launched aprogram to study interventions in urban agri-culture, water and sanitation, solid wastemanagement, vulnerability to natural disasters,and land tenure as a cross-cutting theme in a

handful of “focus cities” in developing coun-tries. A new Urban Sustainability Initiative,supported by the Moore Foundation in theUnited States, is planning city partnershipprojects in China, Mexico, South Africa, andTanzania, an exchange of ideas among cities,and a set of scientific and social indicators togauge urban progress.65

In these and other initiatives it will beimportant to realize that rather than “bestpractices” and “competitive cities,” what isneeded is “better practices” and “collabora-tive cities.” The “best practice” model isflawed by its implication of one ideal way forall communities. As the Mega-Cities Projectdiscovered, each new innovation gives riseto new problems and contradictions, whichrequire yet further innovations and revisedsolutions. Another lesson was that a “bestpractice” in one place may be useless or detri-mental in another. Each location needs toadapt solutions to its own history, culture, andlocal circumstances. The current system ofnominating, judging, and rewarding “bestpractices” allows for self-nomination and self-promotion but leaves little room for neutralexternal evaluation.

Despite apparent differences in politics,economics, and culture, cities in developingcountries and the industrial world have manyproblems in common, often more than theyshare with small towns or villages in theirown countries. Nearly every wealthy city con-tains within it neighborhoods with high infantmortality, malnutrition, homelessness, job-lessness, and low life expectancy. And nearlyevery city in the developing world contains


189


Despite apparent differences in politics,economics, and culture, cities in developing countries and the industrialworld have many problems in common.

within it a world of high finance, high tech-nology, and high fashion. If cities are to beused as laboratories for urban innovation,they can harvest ideas to exchange from theSouth to the North, since low-income citieshave a lighter ecological footprint and havemore experience in reuse. It is time to movefrom NIMBY (not in my backyard) andNOPE (not on planet earth) to the recogni-tion that all by-products of human activitiesend up in someone’s back yard and in theatmosphere that surrounds us.

The last basic shift needed is for people inpositions of power to listen to the most vul-nerable portions of the population, particu-larly young people and women. The cities ofthe future belong to the children of today.Unfortunately, a review of municipal effortsto incorporate children’s concerns in deci-sionmaking found that “there is generallymore interest in showcase projects” than inbroader changes.66

Cities could scale up programs that exposeyoung people to arts and sports and developareas in which they can excel and feel part ofsomething worthwhile. In Rio, one such pro-gram—Affro-Reggae, started in the favelaVigário Geral—has used drumming, dance,and song lyrics that expressed the commu-nity’s reality to attract youngsters, build sol-idarity, and develop a critical analysis of theirsituation. Its work, chronicled in the docu-mentary Favela Rising, helped defuse a drugwar with the adjacent favela and has spreadto other communities.67

One of the most articulate explanations ofthe need to listen to the urban poor comes

from Rose Molokoane of the South AfricanFederation of the Urban Poor, or FED UP.She recently told an audience that includeddevelopment professionals: “We are fed up ofbeing the subject of the agenda. We are fedup with you not listening to us…. We arepoor, but not hopeless. We have money, butno chance to come to the bank and open anaccount because we have no address. If yougive me security of tenure, then I have anaddress, and I will open account. We willshow you we can do it…. The only thing weare concentrating on is how to organize our-selves. If communities are organized, theyare a tool to address issues that are giving youdouble stress.”68

The gulf that Rose Molokoane identifiedbetween those who set “development goals”and those who are the target of that agendais a subset of larger rifts between rich andpoor, between the powerful and the power-less. Bridging these divides will require a newmindset. Unless and until we are ready toexpand our conception of “we” from “me andmy family” to my community, city, country,and planet, the gap will continue to grow. Wemay have come this far through competitionand survival of the fittest, but if we are tomake the leap to a sustainable world for thecenturies ahead, we will need to be intelligentenough to do it through collaboration andinclusion. In the words of Australian aborig-inal elder Lilla Watson: “If you’ve come tohelp me, you’re wasting your time. But ifyou’ve come because your liberation is boundup with mine, then let us work together.”69


190


191


October 2005. “Mexico First in Latin Americato Set Aside Wilderness,” Environment News Ser-vice, 4 October 2005; “Pakistan Quake RocksSouth Asia; Over 18,000 Killed,” New York Times,10 October 2005; “Pakistan Quake Toll Tops73,000,” The Guardian (London), 3 November2005; United Nations University, Institute forEnvironment and Human Security, “As Ranks of‘Environmental Refugees’ Swell Worldwide, CallsGrow for Better Definition, Recognition, Sup-port,” press release (Bonn: 11 October 2005);“An Underclass Rebellion—France’s Riots,” TheEconomist, 12 November 2005; Gabriel D. Grims-ditch and Rodney V. Salm, Coral Reef Resilienceand Resistance to Bleaching (Gland, Switzerland:IUCN–World Conservation Union, October2005).

November 2005. World Wildlife Fund, “NewSpecies Found in Fiji’s Great Sea Reef, WWF Sur-vey Reveals,” press release (Washington, DC: 2November 2005); “Fiji Chiefs Create MarineSanctuaries on World’s Third Largest Reef,” Envi-ronment News Service, 4 November 2005; “Chi-nese Petrochemical Explosion Spills Toxics inSonghua River,” Environment News Service, 13November 2005; U.N. Food and AgricultureOrganization, Global Forest Resources Assessment2005 (Rome: 13 November 2005); U.N. Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP), “West Africa’s‘Forgotten’ Elephants Remembered at CMS Meet-ing,” press release (Nairobi: 22 November 2005).

December 2005. National Center for Atmos-pheric Research, “Most of Arctic’s Near-SurfacePermafrost May Thaw by 2100,” press release

(Boulder, CO: 19 December 2005); World TradeOrganization, “Day 6: Ministers Agree on Decla-ration That ‘Puts Round Back on Track,’” newsfeature (Geneva: 18 December 2005); “SevenStates Agree on a Regional Program to ReduceEmissions from Power Plants,” New York Times,21 December 2005.

January 2006. “UN International Year of Desertsand Desertification Opens,” United Nations NewsCentre, 1 January 2006; “Oil and Gas ZonesCover One-Quarter of the Peruvian Amazon,”Environment News Service, 4 January 2006; TheWhite House, “Fact Sheet: The Asia-Pacific Part-nership on Clean Development and Climate,”press release (Washington, DC: 12 January 2006);“Donor Nations Pledge $1.85 Billion to CombatBird Flu,” Environment News Service, 18 January2006; U.S. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), “2005 Warmest Year inOver a Century,” news feature (Washington, DC:24 January 2006).

February 2006. European Commission, “Max-imum Levels Set for Dioxins and PCBs in Feed andFood,” press release (Brussels: 3 February 2006);Edward Alden and Jeremy Grant, “WTO RulesAgainst Europe in GM Food Case,” FinancialTimes, 8 February 2006; “Brazil Expands AmazonNational Park, Creates Forest Reserves,” Envi-ronment News Service, 15 February 2006;Sebastien Berger, “1,500 Feared Dead in MudslideVillage,” Daily Telegraph (London), 18 February2006; Karen R. Lips et al., “Emerging InfectiousDisease and the Loss of Biodiversity in a Neotrop-ical Amphibian Community,” Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 28 February 2006;“Deadly Fungus Wipes Out Central American

Notes

Notes, A Year in Review

Amphibians,” Environment News Service, 7 Feb-ruary 2006.

March 2006. “Bush and India Reach Pact ThatAllows Nuclear Sales,” New York Times, 3 March2006; NASA, “NASA Survey Confirms ClimateWarming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets,” press release(Washington, DC: 8 March 2006); Andy White etal., China and the Global Market for Forest Prod-ucts (Washington, DC: Forest Trends, March2006); International Maritime Organization,“International Rules on Dumping of Wastes At Seato Be Strengthened with Entry into Force of 1996Protocol,” press release (London: 22 February2006); “Stronger Rules Take Effect to GovernDumping of Wastes at Sea,” Environment NewsService, 10 March 2006.

April 2006. “Tokyo Embraces RenewableEnergy,” Environment News Service, 6 April 2006;UNEP, “Restoration of Wetlands Key to Reduc-ing Future Threats of Avian Flu,” press release(Nairobi: 11 April 2006); “Record Danube Flood-ing,” Toronto Sun, 17 April 2006; “Balkans Bat-tle Flooding,” Calgary Sun, 23 April 2006; WorldBank, “World Bank: Full Debt CancellationApproved for Some of the World’s Poorest Coun-tries,” press release (Washington, DC: 21 April2006); UNEP, “UN Secretary-General Launches‘Principles for Responsible Investment,’” pressrelease (Nairobi: 27 April 2006).

May 2006. IUCN, “Release of the 2006 IUCNRed List of Threatened Species Reveals OngoingDecline of the Status of Plants and Animals,” pressrelease (Gland, Switzerland: 2 May 2006); “BrazilOfficially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facil-ity,” Environment News Service, 8 May 2006;Lydia Polgreen, “Violent Rebel Rift Adds Layer toDarfur’s Misery,” New York Times, 19 May 2006;John Hagan and Alberto Palloni, “Death in Dar-fur,” Science, 15 September 2006, pp. 1,578–79;“Finally Feeling the Heat,” New York Times, 24May 2006.

June 2006. “Three Gorges Cofferdam Demol-ished,” NewsGD.com, 7 June 2006, at www.newsgd.com/news/china1/200606070009.htm; “Ja-pan Fails to Reverse Ban on Whaling,” FinancialTimes, 20 June 2006; World Urban Forum 3,

“World Urban Forum III – Opens Monday!”press release (Vancouver: 19 June 2006);“Cameroon, France Sign Central Africa’s FirstDebt-for-Nature Swap,” Environment News Ser-vice, 23 June 2006.

July 2006. “More African Ivory Seized in Kaoh-siung Harbor,” Central News Agency, 6 July 2006;“Clean-up Crews Recover Some of MassiveLebanon Oil Spill,” Agence France Presse, 19August 2006; Group of Eight, “Global EnergySecurity” (St. Petersburg, Russia: 16 July 2006);“Governor, Blair Reach Environmental Accord,”Los Angeles Times, 1 August 2006; “Japan LiftsU.S. Beef Import Ban Imposed Against Mad CowDisease,” Environment News Service, 28 July 2006;Brandon F. Keele et al., “Chimpanzee Reservoirsof Pandemic and Nonpandemic HIV-1,” Science,28 July 2006.

August 2006. Robyn Dixon, “Ivorians Incensedover Toxins,” Los Angeles Times, 16 September2006; “Ivory Coast Toxic Waste Death Toll Risesto 10,” Reuters, 16 October 2006; StockholmInternational Water Institute, “Experts from 140Countries to Address Water, Environment, Liveli-hoods and Poverty Reduction in Stockholm,”press release (Stockholm: 18 August 2006); Felic-ity Barringer, “Leaders Accept California Bill toCut Emissions,” New York Times, 31 August 2006.

September 2006. BirdLife International, “BugunLiocichla: A Sensational Discovery in North-eastIndia,” press release (Cambridge, UK: 12 Sep-tember 2006); WWF International, “Bluefin TunaOverfished in the Mediterranean,” press release(Gland, Switzerland; 12 September 2006); U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “FDAWarning on Serious Foodborne E. coli O157:H7Outbreak,” press release (Washington, DC: 14September 2006); FDA, “FDA Announces Find-ings From Investigation of Foodborne E. coliO157:H7 Outbreak in Spinach,” press release(Washington, DC: 29 September 2006); B. D.Santer et al., “Forced and Unforced Ocean Tem-perature Changes in Atlantic and Pacific TropicalCyclogenesis Regions,” Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 19 September 2006;UNICEF, “Children Pay the Price for Lack ofSafe Water and Sanitation,” press release (New

192


Notes, A Year in Review, Chapter 1

York: 28 September 2006); Anna Dolgov, “Twoof Five People Around the World Without ProperSanitation,” Associated Press, 29 September 2006.

Chapter 1.An Urbanizing World

1. “World’s first sustainable city” and projectionsof growth from Arup, “Dongtan Eco-City, Shang-hai, China,” 23 August 2005, at www.arup.com/eastasia/project.cfm?pageid=7047; solid wasterecycling from Jean-Pierre Langellier and BricePedroletti, “China to Build First Eco-city,”Guardian Unlimited, 5 May 2006; other datafrom Frank Kane, “Shanghai Plans Eco-metropo-lis on its Mudflats,” Guardian Unlimited, 8 Jan-uary 2006.

2. The fraction of electricity generated by fos-sil fuels and nuclear fission is estimated from theload served by Consolidated Edison in New YorkCity and reported by the Environmental Disclo-sure Label Program of the New York State Pub-lic Service Commission, at www3.dps.state.ny.us/E/EnergyLabel.nsf/Web+Enviromental+Labels/A3655A006989E8EB8525719C0056A1A5/$File/CONED.PDF?OpenElement, viewed Sep-tember 2006; waste to landfills and recycling fromKate Ascher, The Works: Anatomy of a City (NewYork: Penguin Press, 2005), pp. 190–94.

3. Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Mor-row (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1965,reprint); Rudolf Hartog, “Growth without Lim-its: Some Case Studies of 20th-Century Urban-ization,” International Planning Studies, February1999, pp. 95–130.

4. Displacement of farmers from “Develop-ment Jockeys With Ecology on Shanghai Island,”Reuters, 18 April 2006; wetlands disruption fromMeg Carter, “Life, But Not as We Know It,” TheIndependent, 4 May 2006.

5. United Nations Population Division, WorldUrbanization Prospects 2005 (New York: 2006),also available online at esa.un.org/unup.

6. Paul Bairoch, Cities and Economic Develop-ment: From the Dawn of History to the Present,translated by Christopher Braider (Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, 1988), chapters 12–15.Box 1–1 from the following: United Nations Pop-ulation Division, World Population Prospects: The2004 Revision (New York: 2004); Roy Porter, TheGreatest Benefit to Mankind. A Medical History ofHumanity (New York: W. W. Norton & Company,1997), chapters 13 and 14; health conditionstoday from Alan D. Lopez et al., Global Burdenof Disease and Risk Factors (New York: OxfordUniversity Press for World Bank, 2006); urbanpenalty from National Research Council, CitiesTransformed: Demographic Change and Its Impli-cations in the Developing World (Washington, DC:National Academies Press, 2003), pp. 259–60,271–72, 284, 259–60; per capita income fromAngus Maddison, The World Economy: A Millen-nial Perspective (Paris: Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development, 2003); techno-logical changes from John Eberhard, “A NewGeneration of Urban Systems Innovations,” Cities:The International Journal of Urban Policy andPlanning, February 1990; George Modelski andGardner Perry III, “‘Democratization in LongPerspective’ Revisited,” Technological Forecastingand Social Change, vol. 69 (2002), pp. 359–76.

7. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,pp. 89–92.

8. United Nations Population Division, WorldUrbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision (NewYork: 2003), Table 14, p. 7; slum dwellers fromUN-HABITAT, State of the World’s Cities 2006/7(London: Earthscan, 2006), p. 16.

9. World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, Our Common Future (New York:Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43.

10. J. T. Houghton et al., eds., Climate Change1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contributionof Working Group I to the Second Assessment ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996); James J. McCarthy et al., eds., Cli-mate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vul-nerability (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2001); Habiba Gitay et al., eds., ClimateChange and Biodiversity, IPCC Technical Paper V(Geneva: 2002); Millennium Ecosystem Assess-

193


Notes, Chapter 1

ment, “Summary for Decision-Makers,” Ecosystemsand Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Washington:Island Press, 2005), p. 1.

11. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 8, pp. 46–47;National Research Council, op. cit. note 6, pp.164–80.

12. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,pp.132–35, with quote from p. 135; implicationsof changing definition from David Satterthwaite,Outside the Large Cities: The Demographic Impor-tance of Small Urban Centres and Large Villages inAfrica, Asia, and Latin America, Human Settle-ments Discussion Paper Series, Urban Change-3(London: International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED), 2006).

13. Table 1–1 and data in text from UnitedNations Population Division, op. cit. note 5.

14. Ibid., viewed August 2006. A discussion withDavid Satterthwaite was helpful in formulatingthese paragraphs.

15. United Nations Population Division, op. cit.note 5, viewed July 2006; Africa’s urban popula-tion from Diana Mitlin and David Satterthwaite,eds., Empowering Squatter Citizen: Local Gov-ernment, Civil Society, and Urban Poverty Reduc-tion (Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2004), p. 6; rate ofurbanization from National Research Council,op. cit. note 6, pp. 92–93.

16. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,p. 107.

17. Share living in settlements below 500,000from United Nations Population Division, op.cit. note 8, p. 5; Figures 1–1 and 1–2 from UnitedNations Population Division, op. cit. note 5. Jan-ice Perlman provided the idea for Figure 1–1 onmegacities.

18. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,pp. 95–99; Latin America’s urban population sharefrom United Nations Population Division, op.cit. note 5, viewed August 2006.

19. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,

pp. 99–102.

20. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 8, p. 9. A con-trasting though not inconsistent account comesfrom Christine Kessides, who points out that eco-nomic growth in sub-Saharan Africa derives largelyfrom industry, including construction and mining,and from service sectors, which are mainly urban.These activities accounted for almost 80 percentof growth in gross domestic product in the regionin 1990–2003. Christine Kessides, The UrbanTransition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implicationsfor Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction, AfricaRegion Working Paper Series No. 97 (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2005).

21. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,pp. 102–06; polluted cities in China from WorldBank, cited in “A Great Wall of Waste—China’sEnvironment,” The Economist, 21 August 2004;India’s urban poverty from UN-HABITAT, op. cit.note 8, p. 11.

22. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,chapter 10.

23. Cecilia Tacoli, “Editor’s Introduction,” inCecilia Tacoli, ed., The Earthscan Reader in Rural-Urban Linkage (London: Earthscan, 2006), pp.3–14.

24. National Research Council, op. cit. note 6,pp. 143–46; doubts about rapid growth withouteconomic growth from David Satterthwaite, TheScale of Urban Change Worldwide 1950–2000 andIts Underpinning, Human Settlements Discus-sion Paper Series, Urban Change-1 (London:IIED, 2005).

25. Accra Planning and Development Pro-gramme, Strategic Plan for the Greater Accra Met-ropolitan Area. Volume I. Context Report (Accra:Department of Town and Country Planning, Min-istry of Local Government, Government of Ghana,draft final report, 1992), pp. 77–81.

26. Health penalty for urban poor from NationalResearch Council, op. cit. note 6, pp. 284–89;Jacob Songsore et al., with the assistance of CERS-GIS, State of Environmental Health. Report of the

194


Notes, Chapter 1

Greater Accra Metropolitan Area 2001 (Accra:Ghana Universities Press, 2006); Institute forRegional Studies of the Californias, A BinationalVision for the Tijuana River Watershed (San Diego,CA: San Diego State University, 2005).

27. Infrastructure spending from UN-HABI-TAT, The State of the World’s Cities, 2004/2005(London: Earthscan, 2005), p. 28; cost of meet-ing Millennium Development Goal from UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 8, p. 162; urban povertynot transitory from ibid., p. 49.

28. Global Urban Observatory from UN-HABI-TAT, op. cit. note 8; National Research Council,op. cit. note 6, chapter 5; Demographic and HealthSurveys, at www.measuredhs.com/aboutdhs/whoweare.cfm, viewed August 2006; ShlomoAngel, Stephen C. Sheppard, and Daniel L. Civco,The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion (Wash-ington, DC: World Bank, 2005).

29. Center for Global Development, When WillWe Ever Learn? Improving Lives through ImpactEvaluation, Final Report of the Evaluation GapWorking Group (Washington, DC: 2006); C. S.Holling, ed., Adaptive Environmental Assessmentand Management (New York: John Wiley & Sons,1978); Richard Margoluis and Nick Salafsky, Mea-sures of Success. Designing, Managing, and Moni-toring Conservation and Development Projects(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998); Kai N.Lee, “Appraising Adaptive Management,” Con-servation Ecology, vol. 3, no. 2 (1999), article 3.

30. Table 1–2 from the following: First five rowsof data and row seven on per capita health expen-ditures are taken from U.N. Development Pro-gramme, Human Development Report 2005 (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2005). Probabilityof dying before age five from Lopez et al., op. cit.note 6, annex 2A, pp. 36–42. Energy use fromWorld Bank, World Development Indicators (2006),at devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline. Municipalpopulations, estimated for 2005, are taken fromUnited Nations Population Division, op. cit. note8, Table A.12, pp. 266, 268, 270. The populationfigures are current, but the information on water,sanitation, and energy was collected at earlier dates;Accra, in particular, was considerably smaller in

1991–92, and it is possible that the levels of accessto improved water and sanitation have declinedsince then. The estimates of populations without“improved” sanitation and water supply need to beread with caution, because the definitions used todefine “improved” vary across the cities, reflectingtheir different origins. These differences not onlyare unavoidable consequences of the way data arecollected but also reflect differing histories andcultural standards, as explained in UN-HABITAT,Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities: LocalAction for Global Goals (London: Earthscan, 2003),pp. 2–5, as well as in the water and sanitationchapter of this book. The figures for Accra aretaken from Gordon McGranahan et al., The Cit-izens at Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustain-able Cities (Sterling, VA: Earthscan, for StockholmEnvironment Institute, 2001), chapter 4 (withsanitation considered unimproved if a householdshares a toilet with more than 10 other householdsand water supply considered unimproved if ahousehold lacks access to piped water inside thehouse). The figures for Tijuana are drawn fromPotable Water and Wastewater Master Plan forTijuana and Playas de Rosarito (Comisión Estatalde Servicios Públicos de Tijuana, 2003), p. 2-37,quoting census data for 2000 (with unimprovedsanitation defined as residences without sewageservices and unimproved water supply meaning aresidence without piped water). Figures from Sin-gapore are taken from World Bank, op. cit. thisnote. Other material in text from Carolyn Stephenset al., “Urban Equity and Urban Health: UsingExisting Data to Understand Inequalities in Healthand Environment in Accra, Ghana and São Paulo,Brazil,” Environment and Urbanization, April1997, pp. 181–202, and from Songsore et al., op.cit. note 26.

31. Gordon McGranahan and Frank Murray,eds., Air Pollution and Health in Rapidly Devel-oping Countries (London: Earthscan, 2003).

32. Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat (NewYork: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).

33. Figure 1–3 from Millennium EcosystemAssessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.Vol. 1: Current State and Trends (Washington,DC: Island Press, 2005), p. 807; Xuemei Bai and

195


Notes, Chapter 1

Hidefumi Imura, “A Comparative Study of UrbanEnvironment in East Asia: Stage Model of UrbanEnvironmental Evolution,” International Reviewfor Environmental Strategies, summer 2000, pp.135–58; McGranahan et al., op. cit. note 30. Theenvironmental Kuznets curve was initially pro-posed in World Bank, World Development Report1992 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992),p. 11; see also Kirk R. Smith and Majid Ezzati,“How Environmental Health Risks Change withDevelopment: The Epidemiologic and Environ-mental Risk Transitions Revisited,” Annual Reviewof Environment and Resources, November 2005,pp. 291–333.

34. O. Alberto Pombo, “Water Use and Sanita-tion Practices in Peri-Urban Areas of Tijuana: ADemand-side Perspective,” in Lawrence A. Her-zog, ed., Shared Space: Rethinking the U.S.-Mex-ico Border Environment (La Jolla, CA: Center forU.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California,San Diego, 2000); Serge Dedina, “The PoliticalEcology of Transboundary Development: LandUse, Flood Control, and Politics in the TijuanaRiver Valley,” Journal of Borderlands Studies, vol.10, no. 1 (1995), pp. 89–110; Accra from Song-sore et al., op. cit. note 26; Singapore, where theimplementation of public housing on a very largescale since 1960 has dramatically altered the envi-ronmental risks facing households, from Tan SookYee, Private Ownership of Public Housing in Sin-gapore (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1998),but compare the wider range of views in GiokLing Ooi and Kenson Kwok, eds., The City &The State: Singapore’s Built Environment Revisited(Singapore: Oxford University Press for the Insti-tute of Policy Studies, 1997); community-levelorganizations from Mitlin and Satterthwaite, op.cit. note 15.

35. Sumerians from Sandra Postel, Pillar of Sand(New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999) pp.14–21; Mayans from Jared Diamond, Collapse:How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (New York:Viking, 2005), pp. 156–77.

36. Definition from Global Footprint Network,at www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?con-tent=footprint_overview, viewed August 2006;relative sizes of per capita footprints come from

national footprint estimates prepared by the Euro-pean Environment Agency, at org.eea.europa.eu/news/Ann1132753060, viewed August 2006.The definition may make it seem that a country’sfootprint is related to the area within and adjacentto the national border, but all countries depend ondistant sources for resources such as oil or manu-factured products and sometimes water, so thefootprint is actually an abstract measure based onglobally averaged estimates of ecological produc-tivity.

37. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons. TheEvolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cam-bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1990),especially chapter 3; J. Stephen Lansing, Priests andProgrammers: Technologies of Power in the Engi-neered Landscape of Bali (Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press, 1991); Daniel Pauly et al.,“The Future for Fisheries,” Science, 21 November2003, pp. 1359–61.

38. Joel A. Tarr, The Search for the UltimateSink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective(Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 1996), pp.179–217.

39. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 30, pp. 8–12;John Thompson et al., “Waiting at the Tap:Changes in Urban Water Use in East Africa overThree Decades,” Environment and Urbanization,October 2000, pp. 37–52.

40. Table 1–3 from the following: EdemDzidzienyo and Kai N. Lee, unpublished fieldnotes, Accra, Ghana, January 2006, and Thomp-son et al., op. cit. note 39 (prices of water in Accrain Ghanaian cedis (GHC) were converted to dol-lars at the 2006 market rate of 8,900 GHC to thedollar; these prices were projected back to 1997dollars using the implicit price deflator in Execu-tive Office of the President, Economic Report of the President, 2006, Table B-3; the value for the fourth quarter of 2005 was combined with the 1997 value for an overall deflator of113.369/95.414 =1.188); Ethiopia from UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 30, pp. 67–68, and fromUN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 8, p. 75; scientistfrom Dr. Frederick Amu-Mensah, Accra, Ghana,discussion with author, 9 February 2006.

196


Notes, Chapter 1

41. Association between human developmentand urbanization from UN-HABITAT, op. cit.note 8, p. 46; scale of urban population growth andneed for urban habitat from United Nations Pop-ulation Division, op. cit. note 5.

42. Nineteenth-century engineers from Hansvan Engen, Dietrich Kampe, and SybrandTjallingii, eds., Hydropolis: The Role of Water inUrban Planning (Leiden, Netherlands: BackhuysPublishers, 1995); Christer Nilsson et al., “Frag-mentation and Flow Regulation of the World’sLarge River Systems,” Science, 15 April 2005, pp.405–08.

43. Chester L. Arnold, Jr., “Impervious SurfaceCoverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmen-tal Indicator,” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, spring 1996, p. 243ff; Thomas Dunneand Luna B. Leopold, Water in EnvironmentalPlanning (New York: W. H. Freeman and Com-pany, 1998, 15th ed.); New York from Toni Nel-son, “Closing the Nutrient Loop,” World Watch,November/December 1996; Vivian Toy, “Plan-ning to Close Its Landfill, New York Will ExportTrash,” New York Times, 30 November 1996;nutrient cycle from Gary Gardner, RecyclingOrganic Waste: From Urban Pollutant to FarmResource, Worldwatch Paper 135 (Washington,DC: Worldwatch Institute, August 1997).

44. Millennium Project, Halving Hunger: ItCan Be Done, Summary of Report of the TaskForce on Hunger (New York: Earth Institute,Columbia University, 2005); people without elec-tricity from V. Modi et al., Energy and the Mil-lennium Development Goals (New York: U.N.Development Programme, UN Millennium Pro-ject, and World Bank, 2006).

45. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 30, chapter 5.

46. Arif Hasan, Working with Government: TheStory of the Orangi Pilot Project’s Collaboration withState Agencies for Replicating its Low Cost Sani-tation Programme (Karachi, Pakistan: City Press,1997).

47. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 8, pp. 160–67.

48. Herbert Girardet, Cities People Planet (Chich-ester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, 2004), pp.123–25; Herbert Girardet, The Gaia Atlas ofCities (London: Gaia Books, 1992), pp. 22–23;Box 1–2 from City of Stockholm, “HammarbySjöstad: The Best Environmental Solutions inStockholm,” undated, from Timothy Beatley,Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000), and fromsite visits and interviews with city officials by Tim-othy Beatley, 2000–06.

49. Ken Yeang, Bioclimatic Skyscrapers (London:Ellipsis London Press, 2000); Condé Nast from“Urban Sustainability at the Building and SiteScale,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beat-ley, eds., The Sustainable Urban DevelopmentReader (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 300.

50. Steven Peck and Chris Callaghan, “Gather-ing Steam: Eco-Industrial Parks Exchange Wastefor Efficiency and Profit,” Alternatives Journal,spring 1997.

51. Mark A. Benedict and Edward T. McMa-hon, Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapesand Communities (Washington, DC: Island Press,2006); Laura Kitson, “Green Spaces WidenGrowth Area Purpose,” Planning, 9 June 2006.

52. International Telecommunications Union,“Mobile Cellular, Subscribers per 100 People”and “Main Telephone Lines, Subscribers per 100People,” at www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics,viewed 21 July 2006; William McDonough,“China as a Green Lab,” Harvard Business Review,February 2006; Box 1–3 from Jeremy Harris, dis-cussion with Molly O’Meara Sheehan and author,19 June 2006, with additional information pro-vided by Karl Hausker, adjunct fellow, Center forStrategic and International Studies, Washington,DC, e-mail to Molly Sheehan, 19 September 2006,and by Peter Chaffey, manager, Business Mel-bourne, City of Melbourne, e-mail to Molly Shee-han, 20 September 2006.

53. Hon. Kodjo Gbli-Boyetey, discussion withauthor, Edem Dzidzienyo, and Dana Lee, 24 Jan-uary 2006.

197


Notes, Chapter 1,Timbuktu, Loja

54. Tim Campbell and Travis Katz, “The Politicsof Participation in Tijuana, Mexico: Inventing aNew Style of Governance,” in Tim Campbell andHarald Fuhr, Leadership and Innovation in Sub-national Government: Case Studies from LatinAmerica (Washington, DC: World Bank Institute,2004), section 5-1, pp. 69–97.

55. W. G. Huff, The Economic Growth of Singa-pore: Trade and Development in the Twentieth Cen-tury (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1994); Tan, op. cit. note 34; energy fromWorld Bank, op. cit. note 30 (which shows energyuse at 5,359 kilograms of oil equivalent per capitafor Singapore in 2003 and 7,843 kilograms for theUnited States).

Timbuktu: Greening the Hinterlands

1. Estimate of 100,000 described in Richard W.Franke and Barbara H. Chasin, Seeds of Famine:Ecological Destruction and the DevelopmentDilemma in the West African Sahel (Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield, 1980), p. 11; populationfigures from Jan Lahmeyer, Population Statistics,at www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populframe.html, viewed July 2006.

2. National income and poverty data from Gov-ernment of Mali, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper(Bamako, Mali: 29 May 2002), pp. 7, 13.

3. Aly Bacha Konaté and Mamadou Diakité,Etude de la filière de l’Eucalyptus dans la vallée duYamé (Mopti, Mali: GDRN5 and USAID/FRAME, 2006), p. 28; quote from Aly BachaKonaté and Aly Bocoum, Lutte contre la deserti-fication, reduction de la pauvreté: Etude de cas duMali (Mopti, Mali: GDRN5 and USAID/FRAME, 2005), p. 36.

4. Konaté and Bocoum, op. cit. note 3, p. 36.

5. Yield from Konaté and Bocoum, op. cit.note 3, p. 36; net value from Konaté and Diakité,op. cit. note 3, p. 28.

6. Regional director, Forest Service, discussionwith authors, March 2005.

7. Yield from Konaté and Bocoum, op. cit.note 3, p. 33; quote from ibid., p. 32.

8. Konaté and Bocoum, op. cit. note 3, p. 31.

9. Quote from Konaté and Bocoum, op. cit.note 3, p. 32.

Loja: Ecological and Healthy City

1. Marlon Cueva, discussion with author, 23April 2004; Fernando Montesinos, discussion withauthor, 15 April 2004.

2. Dr. José Bolívar Castillo, discussion withauthor, 3 May 2004.

3. Dr. Ermel Salinas, discussion with author,29 April 2004.

4. Jorge Muños Alvarado, discussion withauthor, 21 April 2004; Dr. Humberto Tapia, dis-cussion with author, 28 April 2004.

5. Wilson Jaramillo, discussion with author, 16April 2006.

6. Fernando Montesinos, discussion withauthor, 19 April 2004.

7. Ibid.

8. Fabián Álvarez, municipal engineer, discus-sion with author, 19 April 2004; Fernando Mon-tesinos, discussion with author, 26 April 2004.

9. Lolita Samaniego Idrovo, discussion withauthor, 6 May 2004; Fernando Montesinos, dis-cussion with author, 6 May 2004.

10. Cueva, op. cit. note 1.

11. Montesinos, op. cit. note 6.

12. Tierramérica, Ecobreves, 2001, at www.tierramerica.net/2001/1216/iecobreves.shtml; Liv-Com, LivCom Awards–Previous Winners 2001, at www.livcomawards.com/previous-winners/2001.htm; “Turismo Nacional se Reunirá enLoja,” El Mercurio, 16 September 2003.

198


Notes, Chapter 2

Chapter 2. Providing Clean Water and Sanitation

1. U.N. Human Settlements Programme,Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities: LocalAction for Global Goals (London: Earthscan,2003).

2. Simon Szreter, Health and Wealth: Studies inHistory and Policy (Rochester, NY: University ofRochester Press, 2005); U.N. Human SettlementsProgramme, op. cit. note 1.

3. U.N. Human Settlements Programme, op.cit. note 1.

4. David Satterthwaite, The Under-estimation ofUrban Poverty in Low and Middle-Income Nations,Working Paper 14 on Poverty Reduction in UrbanAreas (London: International Institute on Envi-ronment and Development (IIED), 2004); seealso African Population and Health Research Cen-ter, Population and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’sInformal Settlements (Nairobi: 2002); Table 2–1from U.N. Human Settlements Programme, op.cit. note 1.

5. See, for instance, U.N. Development Pro-gramme (UNDP), Human Development Report2006 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006),which focuses on water and sanitation; see alsoUNICEF and World Health Organization(WHO), Meeting the MDG Drinking Water andSanitation Target: A Mid-Term Assessment ofProgress, WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Pro-gramme for Water Supply and Sanitation (NewYork: 2004).

6. Rualdo Menegat, “Participatory Democracyand Sustainable Development: Integrated UrbanEnvironmental Management in Porto Alegre,Brazil,” Environment and Urbanization, Octo-ber 2002, pp. 181–206; U.N. Human Settle-ments Programme, op. cit. note 1; Lo Heller,“Access to Water Supply and Sanitation in Brazil:Historical and Current Reflections; Future Per-spectives,” background paper for UNDP, op. cit.note 5; U.N. Human Settlements Programme,Meeting Development Goals in Small Urban Cen-tres: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities

2006 (London: Earthscan, 2006).

7. Jorge E. Hardoy, Diana Mitlin, and DavidSatterthwaite, Environmental Problems in anUrbanizing World: Finding Solutions for Cities inAfrica, Asia and Latin America (London: Earth-scan, 2001); U.N. Human Settlements Pro-gramme, op. cit. note 1.

8. Figure of 900 million from U.N. HumanSettlements Programme, The Challenge of Slums:Global Report on Human Settlements 2003 (Lon-don: Earthscan, 2003).

9. UNICEF and WHO, op. cit. note 5, p. 23.

10. U.N. Human Settlements Programme, op.cit. 1; U.N. Human Settlements Programme, op.cit. note 6.

11. WHO and UNICEF, Global Water Supplyand Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report (Geneva:WHO, UNICEF, and Water Supply and SanitationCollaborative Council, 2002); high infant andchild mortality rates from Satterthwaite, op. cit.note 4.

12. See, for instance, Arif Hasan, UnderstandingKarachi: Planning and Reform for the Future(Karachi, Pakistan: City Press, 1999); Arif Hasan,“Orangi Pilot Project: The Expansion of Workbeyond Orangi and the Mapping of Informal Set-tlements and Infrastructure,” Environment andUrbanization, October 2006, pp. 451–80.

13. Celine D’Cruz and David Satterthwaite,Building Homes, Changing Official Approaches:The Work of Urban Poor Federations and TheirContributions to Meeting the Millennium Devel-opment Goals in Urban Areas, Working Paper 16on Poverty Reduction in Urban Areas (London:IIED, 2005); Mohini Malhotra, “Financing HerHome, One Wall at a Time,” Environment andUrbanization, October 2003, pp. 217–28; Lula daSilva et al., “The Programme for Land TenureLegalization on Public Land,” Environment andUrbanization, October 2003, pp. 191–200; Jes-sica Budds, with Paulo Teixeira and SEHAB,“Ensuring the Right to the City: Pro-poor Hous-ing, Urban Development and Land Tenure Legal-

199


Notes, Chapter 2

ization in São Paulo, Brazil,” Environment andUrbanization, April 2005, pp. 89–114.

14. Table 2–2 adapted from U.N. Human Set-tlements Programme, op. cit. note 1, and fromU.N. Human Settlements Programme, op. cit.note 6.

15. J. C. Melo, The Experience of CondominialWater and Sewerage Systems in Brazil: Case Stud-ies from Brasilia, Salvador and Parauapebas (Lima,Peru: Water and Sanitation Program Latin Amer-ica, 2005).

16. This draws on case studies prepared by Vin-centian Missionaries Social Development Foun-dation Incorporated in Manila and provided toUN-HABITAT by the Asian Coalition for Hous-ing Rights for the preparation of U.N. Human Set-tlements Programme, op. cit. note 6.

17. Hardoy, Mitlin, and Satterthwaite, op. cit.note 7.

18. Table 2–3 based on a table in UNDP, op. cit.note 5.

19. Edi Medilanski et al., “Wastewater Manage-ment in Kunming, China: A Stakeholder Per-spective on Measures at the Source,” Environmentand Urbanization, October 2006, pp 353–68.

20. This draws on a case study by Arif Hasan ofthe Orangi Pilot Project–Research & TrainingInstitute (OPP–RTI) prepared for a Research Pro-ject of the Max Lock Centre, Westminster Uni-versity, London, UK, April 2003; on Arif Hasan,Working with Government: The Story of the OrangiPilot Project’s Collaboration with State Agenciesfor Replicating Its Low Cost Sanitation Programme(Karachi, Pakistan: City Press, 1997); on PerweenRahman, Katchi Abadis of Karachi: A Survey of334 Katchi Abadis (Karachi, Pakistan: OPP-RTI,2004); on Hasan, “Orangi Pilot Project,” op. cit.note 12; and on OPP-RTI staff, Karachi, discus-sions with David Satterthwaite, July 2006.

21. Hasan, “Orangi Pilot Project,” op. cit. note12.

22. Mimi Jenkins and Steven Sugden, “Rethink-ing Sanitation—Lessons and Innovation for Sus-tainability and Success in the New Millennium,”background paper for UNDP (London: LondonSchool of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2006).

23. Box 2–1 from Sundar Burra, Sheela Patel,and Tom Kerr, “Community-designed, Built andManaged Toilet Blocks in Indian Cities,” Envi-ronment and Urbanization, October 2003, pp.11–32.

24. International agencies in the 1990s fromMatthias Finger and Jeremy Allouche, Water Pri-vatisation: Trans-National Corporations and theRe-Regulation of the Water Industry (London:Spon Press, 2002).

25. For proponents, see, for example, WalterStottman, “The Role of the Private Sector in theProvision of Water and Wastewater Services inUrban Areas,” in Juha Uitto and Asit Biswas, eds.,Water for Urban Areas (Tokyo: United NationsUniversity Press, 2000).

26. Clare Joy and Peter Hardstaff, Dirty Aid,Dirty Water: The UK Government’s Push to Pri-vatise Water and Sanitation in Poor Countries(London: World Development Movement, 2005).

27. For large reviews, see, for example, GeorgeR. G. Clarke, Katrina Kosec, and Scott Wallsten,Has Private Participation in Water and SanitationImproved Coverage? Empirical Evidence from LatinAmerica, Policy Research Working Paper 3445(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004), and ColinKirkpatrick, David Parker, and Yin-Fang Zhang,“State versus Private Sector Provision of WaterServices in Africa: An Empirical Analysis,” pre-sented at Pro-Poor Regulation and Competition:Issues, Policies and Practices, Cape Town, SouthAfrica, 7–9 September 2004; J. Budds and G.McGranahan, “Are the Debates on Water Priva-tization Missing the Point? Experiences fromAfrica, Asia and Latin America,” Environmentand Urbanization, October 2003, pp. 87–113.

28. A. J. Loftus and D. A. McDonald, “Of Liq-uid Dreams: A Political Ecology of Water Privati-zation in Buenos Aires,” Environment and

200


Notes, Chapter 2

Urbanization, October 2001, pp. 179–99; RicardoSchusterman et al., Public Private Partnershipsand the Poor: Experiences with Water Provision inFour Low-income Barrios in Buenos Aires (Lough-borough, U.K.: Water, Engineering and Devel-opment Centre, Loughborough University, 2002);A. Harsono, Water and Politics in the Fall ofSuharto (Washington, DC: International Con-sortium of Investigative Journalists, 2003).

29. David Hall and Emanuele Lobina, PipeDreams: The Failure of the Private Sector to Investin Water Services in Developing Countries (London:Public Services International Research Unit, 2006).

30. K. Bakker, “Archipelagos and Networks:Urbanization and Watrer Privatization in theSouth,” Geographical Journal, vol. 169 (2003), pp.328–41.

31. Gordon McGranahan and David LloydOwen, Local Water and Sanitation Companiesand the Urban Poor, Water Discussion Paper 3(London: IIED, 2006).

32. Bernard Collignon and Marc Vezina, Inde-pendent Water and Sanitation Providers in AfricanCities, Water and Sanitation Program (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2000); Herve Conan and MariaPaniagua, The Role of Small Scale Private WaterProviders in Serving the Poor (Manila: Asian Devel-opment Bank, 2003); Tova Maria Solo, Indepen-dent Water Entrepreneurs in Latin America: TheOther Private Sector in Water Services (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2003).

33. Silver Mugisha and Sanford V. Berg, “Turn-ing Around Struggling State-owned Enterprises inDeveloping Countries: The Case of NWSC-Uganda,” prepared for seminar on ReformingPublic Utilities to Meet the Water and SanitationMillennium Development Goals (London: WorldDevelopment Movement and WaterAid, 2006).

34. Gordon McGranahan, Demand-Side WaterStrategies and the Urban Poor, Poverty, Inequal-ity and Environment Series No. 4 (London: IIED,2002).

35. Gordon McGranahan et al., The Citizens at

Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities(London: Earthscan, 2001); José Esteban Cas-tro, Water, Power and Citizenship: Social Strugglesin the Basin of Mexico (New York: Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2006).

36. For examples of cities with difficulties inwater supply, see Etienne von Bertrab, “Guadala-jara’s Water Crisis and the Fate of Lake Chapala:A Reflection of Poor Water Management in Mex-ico,” Environment and Urbanization, October2003, pp. 127–40; J. Wolf et al., “Urban andPeri-urban Agricultural Production in BeijingMunicipality and Its Impact on Water Quality,”Environment and Urbanization, October 2003,pp. 141–56; aggregate water withdrawls fromPeter H. Gleick, “Water Use,” Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources, Vol. 28 (2003), pp.275–315.

37. For examples of the possible contributionto water supplies of rainwater harvesting, see, forinstance, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, DyingWisdom: Rise, Fall and Potential of India’s Tra-ditional Water-harvesting Systems (New Delhi:Centre for Science and Environment, 1997).

38. UNDP, op. cit. note 5; U.N. Human Set-tlements Programme, op. cit. note 1.

39. Jenkins and Sugden, op. cit. note 22.

40. Antonio Miranda, Developing Public-PublicPartnerships: Why and How Not-for-profit Part-nerships Can Improve Water and Sanitation Ser-vices Worldwide, prepared for seminar onReforming Public Utilities to Meet the Water andSanitation Millennium Development Goals (Lon-don: World Development Movement and Wat-erAid, 2006).

41. Boost to improvements from U.N. HumanSettlements Programme, op. cit. note 1; Jose Este-ban Castro and Leo Heller, “The Historical Devel-opment of Water and Sanitation in Brazil andArgentina” in Petri Juuti, Tapio Katko, and HeikkiVuorinen, eds., Environmental History of Water:Global View of Community Water Supply and San-itation (Tampere, Finland: Department of History,University of Tampere, forthcoming).

201


Notes, Chapter 2, Lagos, Chapter 3

42. D’Cruz and Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 13.

43. Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 4.

44. David Satterthwaite, “Reducing UrbanPoverty: Constraints on the Effectiveness of AidAgencies and Development Banks and Some Sug-gestions for Change,” Environment and Urban-ization, April 2001, pp. 137–57; U.N. HumanSettlements Programme, op. cit. note 6.

45. Julie Crespin, “Aiding Local Action: TheConstraints Faced by Donor Agencies in Sup-porting Effective, Pro-poor Initiatives on theGround,” Environment and Urbanization, Octo-ber 2006, pp. 433–50.

46. U.N. Human Settlements Programme, op.cit. note 6.

47. Meera Bapat and Indu Agarwal, “Our Needs,Our Priorities: Women and Men from the ‘Slums’in Mumbai and Pune Talk about Their Needs forWater and Sanitation,” Environment and Urban-ization, October 2003, pp. 71–86.

48. Ibid.

Lagos: Collapsing Infrastructure

1. Matthew Gandy, “Planning, Anti-Planningand the Infrastructure Crisis Facing MetropolitanLagos,” Urban Studies, vol. 43, no. 2 (2006), p.372; Charisma Acey, “Towards Sustainability in anAfrican Mega-City: A Spatial Analysis of PotableWater Service Areas in Lagos, Nigeria,” Final Pro-ject Paper, Department of Urban Planning, Uni-versity of California at Los Angeles, spring 2005,p. 6.

2. Dele Olowu, Lagos State: Governance, Soci-ety and Economy (Lagos, Nigeria: Malthouse,1990); Ayodeji Olukoju, Infrastructure Develop-ment and Urban Facilities in Lagos, 1861–2000(Ibadan, Nigeria: French Institute for Research inAfrica, 2003); Rem Koolhaas, “Fragments of aLecture on Lagos,” in O. Enwezor et al. (eds.),Under Siege: Four African Cities: Freetown, Johan-nesburg, Kinshasa, Lagos (Ostfildern-Ruit, Ger-many: 2003), pp. 181, 183.

3. Olukoju, op. cit. note 2; Matthew Gandy,“Learning from Lagos,” New Left Review, May-June 2005, pp. 37–52; Doyin Abiola, “LagosMegacity: On the Way to Recovery?” SundayPUNCH (Lagos), 30 July 2006, p. 2; TundeAlao, “NIESV Seeks Roles in Lagos Mega-cityImplementation,” The Guardian (Lagos), 31 July2006, p. 33.

4. Bola Olaosebikan, Lagos State Water Corpo-ration: Dawn of a New Era in Water Supply (Lagos:Lagos State Water Corporation, 1999); Acey, op.cit. note 1; Gandy, op. cit. note 1.

5. Olukoju, op. cit. note 2; Samuel Shofuyi,“Study X-rays Poor Quality of ‘Pure Water,’” The PUNCH (Lagos), 4 February 2003, p. 46; J. W. K. Duncan and A. O. Olawale, “Propertiesof Water from 9 Existing Wells in Shomolu, aSuburb of Lagos,” The Nigerian Engineer, vol. 6,no. 2 (1970), pp. 17–19.

6. Acey, op. cit. note 1; Coker cited in ChineduUwaegbulam, “Four Firms Jostle for Lagos WaterCorporation IPP Project,” The Guardian (Lagos),31 July 2006.

7. Olukoju, op. cit. note 2; Gandy, op. cit. note1; Alao, op. cit. note 3.

8. Abiola, op. cit. note 3; Madu Onuorah,“FEC Okays Police Reforms, N26b Lagos FaceliftLoan,” The Guardian (Lagos), 10 August 2006.

Chapter 3. Farming the Cities

1. Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture andFood Security (RUAF), “Cities,” at www.ruaf.org/node/486, viewed August 2006; Ghana fromWorld Bank, World Development Indicators Data-base, 1 July 2005, at siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf; Bei-jing from Embassy of the People’s Republic ofChina, United States of America and China andBeijing Statistic Services, at www.china-embassy.org/chn/gyzg/t234138.htm, 2 February 2006,translated by Zijun Li; Vancouver Board of Trade,Vancouver, BC, Canada, e-mail to Danielle Nieren-berg, September 2006.

202


2. RUAF, op. cit. note 1.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Michael Levenston, executive director, CityFarmer, Vancouver, BC, Canada, discussion withauthors, April 2006; City Farmer, “44% of Van-couver Households Grow Food Says City Farmer”(Vancouver, BC, Canada: September 2002); Inter-national Development Research Centre (IDRC),Shaping Livable Cities: Stories of Progress Aroundthe World (Ottawa, ON, Canada: 2006).

7. Jac Smit, Urban Agriculture Network,Bethesda, MD, discussion with Brian Halweil,February 2004, cited in Brian Halweil, Eat Here:Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a GlobalSupermarket (New York: W. W. Norton & Com-pany, 2003).

8. Ibid.

9. U.N. Development Programme, UrbanAgriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities(New York: 1996), p. 26.

10. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), “Food Insecurity in an Urban Future,”FAO Newsroom (Rome: 2004); FAO, State ofWorld Food Insecurity 2005 (Rome: 2005); FredPearce, “Cultivating the Urban Scene,” in PaulHarrison and Fred Pearce, Atlas of Population &Environment (Washington, DC: American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science and Uni-versity of California Press, 2000).

11. Kameshwari Pothukuchi and Jerome L. Kauf-man, “Placing the Food System on the UrbanAgenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions inFood Systems Planning,” Agriculture and HumanValues, vol. 16 (1999), pp. 213–24; FAO, “Feed-ing Asian Cities,” Proceedings of the RegionalSeminar, Food Supply and Distribution to CitiesProgramme, Bangkok, Thailand, 27–30 Novem-ber 2000.

12. “Technical Overview: The Challenge of Feed-ing Asian Cities,” in FAO, op. cit. note 11.

13. Olivio Argenti, Feeding the Cities: Food Sup-ply and Distribution, 2020 Focus 3, Brief 5 (Wash-ington, DC: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI), 2000).

14. Maurizio Aragrande and Olivio Argenti,Studying Food Supply and Distribution Systems toDeveloping Countries and Countries in Transi-tion: Methodological and Operational Guide (Rome:FAO, 2001).

15. RUAF, Cities Farming for the Future (Philip-pines: RUAF, International Institute of RuralReconstruction, and ETC Urban Agriculture,2006), p. 3.

16. Diana Lee-Smith and Gordon Prain, Under-standing the Links Between Agriculture and Health,Focus 13 (Washington, DC: IFPRI, 2006).

17. RUAF, op. cit. note 15, p. 402.

18. Pothukuchi and Kaufman, op. cit. note 11,p. 214; FAO, op. cit. note 11, p. 11; FAO, TheState of Food and Agriculture 1998 (Rome: 1998).

19. FAO, op. cit. note 11, p. 11; Capital AreaFood Bank, Washington, DC, at www.capitalareafoodbank.org/programsresources/fmp.cfm.

20. Nelso Companioni et al., “The Growth ofUrban Agriculture,” in Fernando Funes et al.,eds., Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Trans-forming Food Production in Cuba (Oakland, CA:Food First Books, 2002), pp. 221–22.

21. Ibid., pp. 223, 228–29.


23. The Food Project, Boston, at www.thefoodproject.org; Cairo from Jac Smit, Urban Agri-culture Network, Washington, DC, discussionwith authors, 20 July 2006.

24. Anne C. Bellow, “Health Benefits of UrbanAgriculture, An Overview,” Community Food Secu-

203

Notes, Chapter 3


Notes, Chapter 3

rity News, winter 2006, p. 6.

25. Wayne Roberts, Toronto Food Policy Coun-cil, Toronto, ON, discussion with Brian Halweil,June 2002, cited in Halweil, op. cit. note 7.

26. Stacia and Kristof Nordin, “Improving Per-maculture Through Nutrition in Malawi,” ProNu-trition, at www.pronutrition.org/archive/200606/msg00013.php, June 2006; Anne Bellows, FoodPolicy Institute, Rutgers University, interview withDana Artz, Worldwatch Institute, June 2006.

27. Wayne Roberts, Toronto Food Policy Coun-cil, discussion with Brian Halweil, 6 June 2002;Pothukuchi and Kaufman, op. cit. note 11; unpub-lished studies from Robert Sommer, discussionwith Brian Halweil, 23 February 2002.

28. Donna Armstrong, “A Survey of CommunityGardens in Upstate New York: Implications forHealth Promotion and Community Develop-ment,” Health and Place, vol. 6, no. 4 (2000), pp.319–27; Anne C. Bellows, Katherine Brown, andJac Smit, “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture,”Community Food Security Coalition, Venice, CA,undated.

29. Bellows, Brown, and Smit, op. cit. note 28.

30. International Water Management Institute(IWMI), Confronting the Realities of WastewaterUse in Agriculture, Water Policy Briefing, Issue 9(Colombo, Sri Lanka: 2003). Box 3–1 from thefollowing: “Waste Not Want Not,” New Agri-culturalist On-Line, Issue 28, 2002; P. Drechsel etal., Informal Irrigation in Urban West Africa: AnOverview, Research Report Series (Colombo, SriLanka: IWMI, in press); IWMI–Global WaterPartnership, Recycling Realities: Managing HealthRisks to Make Wastewater an Asset, Water PolicyBriefing, Issue 17 (Colombo, Sri Lanka: 2006); E.Obuobie et al., Irrigated Urban Vegetable Pro-duction in Ghana: Characteristics, Benefits andRisks (Accra, Ghana: IWMI, 2006).

31. Table 3–1 from the following: Cambodiafrom “Take It Personally,” The Earth Report Series7, Program 4, at www.handsontv.info/series7/programme_4.html, viewed 10 August 2006; Cuba

from Companioni et al., op. cit. note 20, pp.227–29; Sierra Leone from Thomas Winnebahand Raymond Alfredson, Food Security Situationin Sierra Leone Since 1961, Food Security Mono-graph No. 2 (United Nations World Food Pro-gramme Sierra Leone, Technical Support Unit, rev.March 2006); Replant New Orleans, atwww.replantneworleans.org, viewed 10 August2006; Los Angeles from Kate H. Brown andAndrew L. Jameton, “Public Health Implicationsof Urban Agriculture,” Journal of Public HealthPolicy, vol. 21, no. 1 (2000), pp. 20–39; St. Peters-burg from Erio Ziglio et al. , eds., Health SystemsConfront Poverty (Geneva: World Health Organi-zation, 2003), p. 137; “Analysis of Tropical StormStan in El Salvador,” Centro de Intercambio ySolidaridad, 16 November 2005, Relief Web, atwww.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-6JL56Z?OpenDocument, viewed August2006.

32. Pearce, op. cit. note 10; Smit, op. cit. note23.


34. Ibid.

35. Devi quoted in IDRC, op. cit. note 6.

36. RUAF, op. cit. note 15, Chapter 13, “UrbanAquatic Production.”

37. Ibid., p. 396.

38. Challenge of dealing with garbage in devel-oping-world cities from Gisèle Yasmeen, UrbanAgriculture in India: A Survey of Expertise, Capac-ities and Recent Experience, Cities Feed PeopleReport 32 (Ottawa, ON, Canada: IDRC, 2001),p. 9. Box 3–2 from the following: Christine Furedy,“Urban Waste and Rural Farmers: Enabling Low-Cost Organic Waste Reuse in Developing Coun-tries,” presentation given at “R’2002: Recovery,Recycling, Reintegration,” the 6th World Congresson Integrated Resource Management, Geneva,12–15 February 2002; Eduardo Spiaggi, “UrbanAgriculture and Local Sustainable Development inRosario, Argentina: Integration of Economic,Social, Technical and Environmental Variables,” in

204


Notes, Chapter 3

Luc J. A. Mougeot, ed., AGROPOLIS: The Social,Political, and Environmental Dimensions of UrbanAgriculture (London: Earthscan/IDRC, 2005);“Supermarket Composting in California,” Bio-Cycle, July 1997, pp. 70–71.

39. FAO, FAOSTAT Statistical Database, atapps.fao.org, updated 20 December 2005; DanielleNierenberg, “Meat Consumption and OutputUp,” in Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs2006–2007 (New York: W. W. Norton & Com-pany, 2006), p. 24; RUAF, op. cit. note 15, p. 352;Box 3–3 from Spiaggi, op. cit. note 38.

40. Michael Greger, Bird Flu: A Virus of OurOwn Hatching (draft), (Washington, DC: HumaneSociety of the United States, 2006), p. 106.

41. World Bank, Managing the Livestock Revo-lution: Policy and Technology to Address the Nega-tive Impacts of a Fast-Growing Sector (Washington,DC: 2005), p. 6.

42. Ibid.

43. “Cleaning Up Its Act: Recycling LivestockWaste,” New Agriculturalist On-Line, at www.new-agri.co.uk/06-2/focuson/focuson3.html,1 March 2006.

44. Ibid.

45. FAO, Pollution from Industrialized LivestockProduction, Policy Brief 2 (Rome: Livestock Infor-mation, Sector Analysis, and Policy Branch, Ani-mal Production and Health Division, undated).

46. Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Mor-row (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1965),pp. 33–35.

47. A. A. Sorenson et al., Farming on the Edge(DeKalb, IL: American Farmland Trust, 1997).

48. Pothukuchi and Kaufman, op. cit. note 11;FAO, op. cit. note 11.

49. American Farmland Trust, “Fact Sheet: Costof Community Services Studies,” Farmland Infor-mation Sheet (Washington, DC: June 1986);

FAO, op. cit. note 11, pp. 38–39.

50. Seidler, cited in FAO, op. cit. note 11, pp.45–46.

51. Edward Seidler, senior officer, MarketingGroup, FAO, e-mail to Brian Halweil, 11 July2002.

52. IRDC, op. cit. note 6.

53. Ibid.

54. “Introduction,” in RUAF, op. cit. note 15.

55. IRDC, op. cit. note 6.

56. The Food Trust, Food Geography: How FoodAccess Affects Diet and Health (Philadelphia: 2004).

57. Leslie Hoffman, Earth Pledge, New York,discussion with Brian Halweil, 21 April 2004.

58. Lee Rood, “Praise Grows for Lush Roof inChicago,” Des Moines Register, 29 July 2002;Chang-Ran Kim, “Tokyo Turns to Rooftop Gar-dens to Beat the Heat,” Reuters, 8 August 2002;Marty Logan and Mark Foss, Urban AgricultureReaches New Heights Through Rooftop Garden-ing, IDRC Reports (Ottawa, ON, Canada: 2004);Frederic Perron, “Jardins Suspendus,” La Presse(Montreal), 8 March 2004.

59. Pothukuchi and Kaufman, op. cit. note 11;Neil Hamilton, “Putting a Face on Our Food:How State and Local Food Policies Can Promotethe New Agriculture,” Drake Journal of Agricul-tural Law, November 2002.

60. Mark Winne, Hartford Food System, dis-cussion with Brian Halweil, 4 April 2002; HartfordFood System, at www.hartfordfood.org, viewed 1September 2002.

61. Winne, op. cit. note 60.

62. Smit, op. cit. note 23.

63. Matovu quote from “More Investment inAgriculture Will Reduce Migration, Improve

205


Notes, Chapter 3, Freetown, Chapter 4

Urban Life: UN Agency,” UN Daily News Digest,5 June 2006.

64. Ibid.

65. FAO study from ibid.


Freetown: Urban Farms After a War

1. For early agricultural history, see DonaldDavies, Historical Development of AgriculturalLand Use in Greater Freetown (M.Sc. in ruraldevelopment dissertation submitted in 2004),Department of Geography and Rural Develop-ment, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, NjalaUniversity College, University of Sierra Leone,Freetown; Christopher Fyfe, “The Foundation ofFreetown,” in Christopher Fyfe and Eldred Jones,eds., Freetown: a Symposium (Freetown: SierraLeone University Press, 1968), pp. 1–8; and E. G.Ingham, Sierra Leone after a Hundred Years (Lon-don: Seeley and Co. Ltd, 1894). For connectionto the slave trade, see Joe A. D. Alie, A New His-tory of Sierra Leone (Malaysia: Macmillan Pub-lishers, 1990), and R. J. Olu-Wright, “The PhysicalGrowth of Freetown,” in Fyfe and Jones, op. cit.this note, pp. 24–37.

2. Growth in population and land area fromGOPA-Consultants, “Solid Waste ManagementStudy, June,” Freetown Infrastructure Rehabili-tation Project, Sierra Leone, 1995, and from Sta-tistics Sierra Leone, Final Results 2004 Populationand Housing Census Report (Freetown: 2006).

3. Government of Sierra Leone, Poverty Reduc-tion Strategy Paper: A National Programme forFood Security, Job Creation, and Good Governance(2005–2007) (Freetown: 2005).

4. For health status, see Mohamed MankaySesay, Occupational Health and Safety Hazardsand Production in Small Scale Agriculture: A CaseStudy of Inland Valley Farmers in the Eastern Partof Greater Freetown, Western Area, Sierra Leone(B.Sc. in education project submitted in 1998),Department of Geography and Rural Develop-ment, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Njala

University College, University of Sierra Leone,Freetown; for technical studies, see Josie AbrahamScott-Manga, Agricultural Practices at Dump-sites: Case Study of Bormeh and Grandville Brookin Freetown (B.A. in education project submittedin 2000), Department of Geography and RuralDevelopment, Faculty of Environmental Sciences,Njala University College, University of SierraLeone, Freetown; Abrassac Abu Kamara, WaterMangement Studies of Okra Under Drip IrrigationSystem (M.Sc. in soil and water engineering dis-sertation submitted in 2006), Department of Agri-cultural Engineering, School of Technology, NjalaUniversity, Freetown.

5. Effects of rebel war on food production fromThomas R. A. Winnebah, Food Security Situationin Sierra Leone Since 1961, Food Security Mono-graph No. 2, World Food Programme SierraLeone, Technical Support Unit, Freetown, revisedMarch 2003.

6. GOPA-Consultants, op. cit. note 2; StatisticsSierra Leone, op. cit. note 2.

7. Report on Training Workshop on Multi-stakeholder Processes for Action Planning andPolicy Formulation in Urban Agriculture, Free-town, Sierra Leone, 12–17 June 2006.

Chapter 4. Greening Urban Transportation

1. The Perth story, as described in the openingparagraphs, is told in P. Newman, “Railways andReurbanisation in Perth,” in J. Williams and R.Stimson, eds., Case Studies in Planning Success(New York: Elsevier, 2001).

2. Michael Renner, “Vehicle Production Con-tinues to Expand,” in Worldwatch Institute, VitalSigns (New York: W. W. Norton & Company,2006), pp. 64–65.

3. The data are from a comparative study of 100global cities for the International Union of Pub-lic Transport (UITP) and conducted by the Insti-tute for Sustainability and Technology Policy(ISTP) at Murdoch University, involving 27 para-meters using highly controlled processes to ensurecomparability of data. The study took five years and

206


Notes, Chapter 4

builds on previous data collection since 1980. SeeJ. Kenworthy and F. Laube, The Millennium CitiesDatabase for Sustainable Transport (Brussels:UITP/ISTP, 2001), and J. Kenworthy et al., AnInternational Sourcebook of Automobile Depen-dence in Cities, 1960–1990 (Boulder, CO: Uni-versity Press of Colorado, 1999). The 2005 datacollection will commence shortly. Complete dataon the cities can be viewed at www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au (16 cities were incomplete,so the data are mainly for 84 cities).

4. Figure 4–1 from Kenworthy and Laube, op.cit. note 3. These data are for city regions in 1995and include all the gasoline and diesel for privatepassenger travel. Note that 1 liter of gasolineequals about one quarter of a U.S. gallon.

5. The lack of strong correlation between citywealth and car use is shown in Kenworthy andLaube, op. cit. note 3.

66. Figure 4–2 from Kenworthy and Laube, op.cit. note 3.

7. Figure 4–3 from ibid. Box 4–1 from LesterR. Brown, Plan B 2.0 (New York: W. W. Norton& Company, 2006), p. 10, and from J. Kenwor-thy and C. Townsend, “An International Com-parative Perspective on Motorisation in UrbanChina: Problems and Prospects,” IATSS Research,vol. 26, no. 2 (2002), pp. 99–109.

8. Figures 4–4 and 4–5 from Kenworthy andLaube, op. cit. note 3; for studies on the signifi-cance of factors other than urban form, see O. Min-dali, A. Raveh, and I. Saloman, “Urban Densityand Energy Consumption: A New Look at OldStatistics,” Transportation Research Record, Part A38 (2004), pp. 143–62, and R. E. Brindle, “Lies,Damned Lies and ‘Automobile Dependence’—Some Hyperbolic Reflections,” Australian Trans-port Research Forum 94 (1994), pp. 117–31;Figure 4–6 from P. Newman and J. Kenworthy,“Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Depen-dence,” Opolis, vol. 2, no. 1 (2006), pp. 35–52.

9. For auto use 10 times as high in some cities,see Figures 4–1 and 4–5.

10. See, for example, D. Simon, Transport andDevelopment in the Third World (New York: Rout-ledge, 1996); Jorge E. Hardoy, Diana Mitlin, andDavid Satterthwaite, Environmental Problems in anUrbanizing World: Finding Solutions for Cities inAfrica, Asia and Latin America (London: Earth-scan, 2001); P. A. Barter, J. R. Kenworthy, and F.Laube, “Lessons from Asia on Sustainable UrbanTransport,” in N. Low and B. Gleeson, eds., Mak-ing Urban Transport Sustainable (Basingstoke,U.K.: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2003), pp. 252–70.

11. C. Marchetti, “Anthropological Invariantsin Travel Behavior,” Technical Forecasting & SocialChange, September 1994, pp. 75–88; P. New-man and J. Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities:Overcoming Automobile Dependence (Washington,DC: Island Press, 1999); Standing Advisory Com-mittee for Trunk Road Assessment, Trunk Roadsand the Generation of Traffic (London: Depart-ment for Transport, 1994).

12. Britton from www.newmobility.org; for moreon resilience in cities, see Jane Jacobs, Cities andthe Wealth of Nations (Harmondsworth, U.K.:Penguin, 1984), and L. Sandercock, MongrelCities: Cosmopolis2 (London: Continuum, 2003).

13. K. S. Deffeyes, Beyond Oil: The View fromHubbert’s Peak (New York: Hill and Wang, 2005);Table 4–2 from Newman and Kenworthy, op. cit.note 11, pp. 74–77, discussed further in P. New-man and J. Kenworthy, “Transportation Energy inGlobal Cities: Sustainable Transportation Comesin from the Cold?” Natural Resources Forum, vol.25 (2001), pp. 91–107.

14. Kenworthy and Laube, op. cit. note 3.

15. Jeremy Leggett, Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Airand the Global Energy Crisis (London: PortobelloBooks, 2006); trends in driving from Kenworthyand Laube, op. cit. note 3.

16. U.S. data from U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Light Duty Automotive Technologyand Fuel Economy Trends, 1975–2006 (Ann Arbor,MI: 2006); Australian data in P. Laird et al., Backon Track: Rethinking Australian and New ZealandTransport Policy (Sydney, Australia: University of

207


Notes, Chapter 4

Sydney, 2001); technological advances fromAmory B. Lovins and David R. Cramer, “Hyper-cars, Hydrogen and the Automotive Transition,”International Journal of Vehicle Design, vol. 35, no.1/2 (2004), pp. 50–85.

17. Three-wheeler taxis from Kenworthy andLaube, op. cit. note 3; Mexico City data fromInternational Mayors Forum, Sustainable UrbanEnergy Development, Kunming, China, 10–11November 2004; surpassing recommended levelsfrom U.N. Population Fund, The State of theWorld Population (New York: 2001), and fromClean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, atwww.cleanairnet.org/caiasia.

18. Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, op. cit.note 17; A. Rosencranz and M. Jackson, The DelhiPollution Case, 2002, at indlaw.com; S. Jain,“Smog City to Clean City: How Did Delhi Do It?”Mumbai Newsline, 26 May 2004.

19. Figure 4–7 from Kenworthy and Laube, op.cit. note 3; this argument is expanded in P. New-man and J. Kenworthy, “The Transport EnergyTrade-off: Fuel Efficient Traffic vs Fuel EfficientCities,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 22A,no. 3 (1988), pp. 163–74.

20. Surface Transportation Policy Project(STPP), An Analysis of the Relationship BetweenHighway Expansion and Congestion in Metropol-itan Areas: Lessons from the 15 Year Texas Trans-portation Institute Study (Washington, DC: 1998).

21. Table 4–3 from Kenworthy and Laube, op.cit. note 3.

22. Congestion charging covered in detail inEuropean Transport Conference, Strasbourg,France, 18–20 September 2006: see, for example,S. Kearns, “Congestion Charging Trials in Lon-don,” J. Eliasson and M. Beser, “The StockholmCongestion Charging System,” and J. Baker andS. Kohli, “Challenges in the Development andAppraisal of Road User Charging Schemes.”

23. See Newman and Kenworthy, op. cit. note11, pp. 191–231.

24. R. Gordon, “Boulevard of Dreams,” 8 Sep-tember 2005, at www.sfgate.com.

25. See www.metro.seoul.kr/kor2000/chungaehome/en/seoul/2sub; Institute for Transportand Development, “Seoul to Raze Elevated High-way, Giving Way to Revitalized Center,” Sustain-able Transport e-update, May 2003; L. Gemsoe,“Turning the Downside Up: Creating Value forPeople,” Profitable Places Conference, SheffieldHallam University, Sheffield, U.K., 19–20 Sep-tember 2006.

26. David Burwell, “Way to Go! Three SimpleRules to Make Transportation a Positive Force inthe Public Realm,” Making Places Bulletin (Pro-ject for Public Spaces), June 2005; Aarhus fromGemsoe, op. cit. note 25; Melissa Mean and Char-lie Tims, People Make Places: Growing the PublicLife of Cities (London: Demos, 2005).

27. Andy Wiley-Schwartz, “A RevolutionaryChange in Transportation Planning: The SlowRoad Movement,” New York Times, 10 July 2006;Jan Gehl et al., New City Life (Copenhagen: Dan-ish Architectural Press, 2006).

28. Kenworthy and Laube, op. cit. note 3.

29. Data analyzed in Newman and Kenworthy,op. cit. note 8; see also N. Mercat, ”EvaluatingExposure to the Risk of Accident in the GrenobleConurbation,” European Transport Conference,Strasbourg, France, 18–20 September 2006, par-ticularly suggesting the cycling figure.

30. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Liv-able Region Strategic Plan (Vancouver, BC: 1996);New South Wales Government, City of Cities: APlan for Sydney’s Future (Sydney: Department ofPlanning, 2005); Denver Region Council of Gov-ernments, Metro Vision 2030 Plan (Denver, CO:2005).

31. Kenworthy and Laube, op. cit. note 3; U.S.data from Janette Sadik-Khan, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, ReconnectingAmerica.org,e-mail to and discussion with authors.

32. C. Hass Klau, Bus or Light Rail: Making the

208


Notes, Chapter 4

Right Choice, 2nd ed. (Brighton, U.K.: Environ-mental and Transport Planning, 2004); BrianGoodknight and Peter Buryk, “Along the Tracks:A Tale of Transit and Development,” The NextAmerican City, spring 2006; R. Cervero et al.,Transit-Oriented Development in America: Expe-riences, Challenges and Prospects (Washington DC:Transportation Research Board, National ResearchCouncil, 2004); J. Renne and J. S. Wells, “Tran-sit-Oriented Development: Developing a Strat-egy to Measure Success,” TRB Research ResultsDigest 294 (Washington DC: TransportationResearch Board, 2005).

33. P. Newman, “Transport Greenhouse Gasand Australian Suburbs: What Planners Can Do,”Australian Planner, vol. 43, no. 2 (2006), pp. 6–7;P. Calthorpe, The Next American Metropolis: Ecol-ogy, Community and the American Dream (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

34. For information on Denver, see www.greenprintdenver.org/landuse/index.php and DenverRegional Council of Governments, 2030 MetroVision Regional Transportation Plan (Denver:2004).

35. City of Vancouver, Downtown TransportationPlan—Progress Report, City of Vancouver (Van-couver, BC: 2006).

36. City of Vancouver, Transportation Plan (Van-couver, BC: 1997); Newman and Kenworthy, op.cit. note 11, pp. 174–77, 217–23.

37. J. Michaelson, “Lessons from Paris,” Mak-ing Places Bulletin (Project for Public Spaces),June 2005.

38. Box 4–2 from the following: data onCuritiba’s BRT from Urbanizacao de Curitiba,SA, and Bogotá TransMilenio from TransMile-nio SA, both discussions with Walter Hook ofInstitute for Transportation and DevelopmentPolicy (ITDP); history of the two systems fromArturo Ardila-Gómez, Transit Planning inCuritiba and Bogotá: Roles in Interaction, Risk,and Change, PhD dissertation, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, 2004; bus operatorsblocking change and Quito from Cesar Arias, for-

mer Director of City Planning, City of Quito, dis-cussions with Walter Hook, ITDP; Bogotá qual-ity of life and transit speeds and loads from LloydWright and Lewis Fulton, “Climate Change Mit-igation and Transport in Developing Nations,”Transport Reviews, November 2005, pp. 691–717;Jakarta traffic data from PT TransJakarta; critiqueof TransJakarta from Making TransJakarta aWorld Class BRT System (New York: ITDP, 2005);new systems in other cities from field interviews,ITDP staff.

39. V. Vuchic, Transportation for Livable Cities(New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban PolicyResearch, Rutgers University, 1999); V. Vuchic,Urban Transit: Planning, Operations and Eco-nomics (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Press, 2005).

40. International Mayors Forum, op. cit. note 17;L. Fulton and L. Schipper, Bus Systems for theFuture: Achieving Sustainable Transport Worldwide(Paris: International Energy Agency and Organi-sation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment, 2002).

41. Barter, Kenworthy, and Laube, op. cit. note10.

42. American Public Transportation Associationand Millar from “Light Rail and Buses Beckon. ButWill Americans Really Abandon Their Cars?” TheEconomist, 31 August 2006.

43. Kobenhavns Kommune, Copenhagen CityGreen Accounts and Environmental Report: Indi-cators for Traffic (Copenhagen: 2002); Roads andParks Department, Bicycle Accounts 2004 (Copen-hagen: City of Copenhagen, 2005); J. Watts,”China Backs Bikes to Kick Car Habit,” Guardian(London), 15 June 2006; tensions between driversand pedestrians from John Whitelegg and NickWilliams, “Non-motorised Transport and Sus-tainable Development: Evidence from Calcutta,”Local Environment, February 2000, pp. 7–18.

44. Charles Surjadi and Haryatiningsih Darrun-dono, Review of Kampung Improvement ProgramEvaluation in Jakarta, Final Report for Waterand Sanitation Program by the Regional Water andSanitation Group for East Asia and the Pacific

209


Notes, Chapter 4

(Jakarta: U.N. Development Programme/WorldBank, 1998).

45. Glendening and Whitman quoted in “StallingSprawl: CT Must Take Leadership Role in Shap-ing Development,” Hartford Courant, 17 July2006. Box 4–3 from the following: population datafrom Instituto Brasilera de Geografía e Estatís-tica, at ww.ibge.gov.br, viewed 7 August 2006;vehicle contribution to smog from “Brazil: Envi-ronmental Issues,” Energy Information Adminis-tration, U.S. Department of Energy, August 2003,at www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/brazenv.html; NelsonGouveia and Tony Fletcher, “Respiratory Dis-eases in Children and Outdoor Air Pollution in SãoPaulo, Brazil: A Time Series Analysis,” Occupa-tional and Environmental Medicine, July 2000, pp.477–83; helicopter fleet from Adhemar Altieri,“Letter: Sao Paulo’s Balancing Act,” 18 August2004, at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3570402.stm, viewed 7 August 2006; Laura Ceneviva, dis-cussion with Jonas Hagen, 6 August 2006.

46. Kenworthy and Laube, op. cit. note 3; L.Schipper, C. Marie-Lilliu, and R. Gorham, Flex-ing the Link Between Transport and Greenhouse GasEmissions: A Path for the World Bank (Paris: Inter-national Energy Agency, 2000); World Bank, Sus-tainable Transport: Priorities for Policy Reform(Washington, DC: 1996).

47. For the history of this legislation, see D.Camph, Transportation, the ISTEA and AmericanCities (Washington, DC: STPP, 1996); for reau-thorization, see STPP, Transfer Bulletin, atwww.transact.org.

48. Newman and Kenworthy, op. cit. note 11,pp. 191–97; A. Eichi et al., A History of JapaneseRailways, 1872–1999 (Tokyo: East Japanese Rail-way Culture Foundation, 2000).

49. Data on city wealth and transport from New-man and Kenworthy, op. cit. note 11; data ontransportation costs from House of Representa-tives, Sustainable Cities (Canberra: Parliament ofAustralia, 2005), and from G. Glazebrook, “Tak-ing the Con Out of Convenience: The True Costof Transport Modes in Sydney,” Journal of Urban

Policy and Planning, forthcoming; Vuchic, Trans-portation for Livable Cities, op. cit. note 39; STPPand Center for Neighborhood Technology, Dri-ven to Spend: Pumping Dollars Out of Our House-holds and Communities (Washington, DC: 2005).

50. Vuchic, Urban Transit, op. cit. note 39; dataon parking calculated by J. Kenworthy, TransportEnergy in Australian Cities, Honours Thesis(Perth, Australia: Murdoch University, 1979).

51. Calculations are by the authors and are partlypublished in Peter Vintila, John Phillimore, andPeter Newman, eds., Markets, Morals and Mani-festos (Perth, Australia: Institute for Science andTechnology Policy, Murdoch University, 1992); seealso H. Frumkin, L. Frank, and R. Jackson, UrbanSprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planningand Building for Healthy Communities (Wash-ington, DC: Island Press, 2004).

52. Center for Transit-Oriented Development,for the Federal Transit Administration, Hidden inPlain Sight: Capturing the Demand for HousingNear Transit (Oakland, CA: 2004).

53. Free Congress Foundation, Conservativesfor Mass Transit (Washington, DC: 2003).

54. House of Representatives, op. cit. note 49.

55. Newman and Kenworthy, op. cit. note 11,pp. 191–204.

56. Perth data from Department of Transport,Perth, Australia, discussion with authors; PortoAlegre from D. Recondo, “Local ParticipatoryDemocracy in Latin America,” New Frontiers ofSocial Policy, Arusha Conference, 12–15 Decem-ber 2005; Milwaukee from “Public Opinion andTransportation Priorities in Southeastern Wis-consin,” Regional Report (Public Policy Forum),June 2006; Oregon from InterACT, Findings ofthe Transportation Priorities Project (Vancouver,WA: 2003).

57. Center for Transportation Excellence, Trans-portation Finance at the Ballot Box (Washington,DC: 2006).

210


Notes, Chapter 4, Los Angeles, Melbourne

58. Beltline loop details and Calthorpe quote inShaila Dewan, “The Greening of DowntownAtlanta,” New York Times, 6 September 2006.

59. Data from Center for Transit-OrientedDevelopment, at www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD; J. Hartz-Karp and P. Newman, “TheParticipative Route to Sustainability,” in S. Paulin,ed., Communities Doing It for Themselves: Creat-ing Space for Sustainability (Perth: University ofWestern Australia Press, 2006); A. Curry et al.,Intelligent Infrastructure Futures, The Scenar-ios–Towards 2055 (London: Foresight Directorate,Office of Science and Technology, U.K. Govern-ment, 2006).

Los Angeles: End of Sprawl

1. In the whole Los Angeles metropolitanregion, 16 million people reside in five countiescontaining 177 cities covering about 36,000 squarekilometers (along with 54,000 square kilometersof government-owned land in the region). South-ern California Studies Center and the BrookingsInstitution Center on Urban and MetropolitanPolicy, Sprawl Hits the Wall (Los Angeles: Uni-versity of Southern California, 2001), p. 6; for2005 census estimate, see quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html; population density cal-culations taken from Demographia: World UrbanAreas, at www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf,viewed 13 February 2006, and from the U.S.Census Bureau 2000 census, in Blaine Harden,“Out West, a Paradox: Densely Packed Sprawl,”Washington Post, 11 August 2005.

2. For an extensive description of suburbanpostwar expansion, zoning, and racial restrictionsin Los Angeles, see Dana Cuff, The Provisional City(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000).

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Hous-ing, Historical Census of Housing Tables (Suitland,MD: revised 2 December 2004).

4. Southern California Studies Center andBrookings Institution, op. cit. note 1.

5. Population density calculations taken fromDemographia, op. cit. note 1.

6. Allen J. Scott and E. Richard Brown, South-Central Los Angeles: Anatomy of an Urban Crisis,Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, Work-ing Paper No. 6 (Los Angeles: University of Cal-ifornia at Los Angeles, 1993).

7. John Landis, H. Hood, and C. Amado, “TheFuture of Infill Housing in California,” Frameworks(University of California, Berkeley), spring 2006,pp. 14–21.

Melbourne:Reducing a City’s Carbon Emissions

1. Queen Victoria Market from City of Mel-bourne Web site, at www.melbourne.vic.gov.au.

2. Geoff Lawler, director, Sustainability andInnovation, “Towards a Thriving and SustainableCity,” presentation to the Seattle Trade Alliance,May 2006.

3. City of Melbourne, Zero Net Emissions by2020–A Roadmap for a Climate Neutral City(Melbourne: 2003); five milestones from “How ItWorks,” Cities for Climate Protection, aticlei.org/index.php?id=810.

4. Quote from Ben Heywood, Melbourne Age,14 August 2006.

5. Ibid.

6. City of Melbourne Web site, op. cit. note 1.

7. Greenfleet from www.greenfleet.org.au;Mayor’s offset from Sara Gipton, acting CEO,Greenfleet, discussion with author.

8. City of Melbourne Web site, op. cit. note 1.

9. T. Roper, “Greening Major Public Events,”Global Urban Development, March 2006.

10. So quote from WME Weekly, EnvironmentBusiness Media, 3 August 2006.

11. Broad support indicated by original decisionin July 1998 after a joint presentation to Councilby Ian Carruthers (Australian Greenhouse Office)

211


Notes, Melbourne, Chapter 5

representing the Liberal Minister of the Environ-ment and the author; National Australia Bank,Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2005 (Mel-bourne: 2005), p. 53.

12. City of Melbourne, City Plan 2010 (Mel-bourne: 2005), pp. 60, 65.

Chapter 5. Energizing Cities

1. Real limits from John Byrne et al., “AnEquity- and Sustainability-Based Policy Responseto Global Climate Change,” Energy Policy, March1998, pp. 335–43.

2. Bridging to the Future, “How Have EnergySystems Shaped Cities Through History? HumanFood Cities; Wood and Hay Cities; Coal Cities,”at www.bridgingtothefuture.org, viewed 8 August2006.

3. Tetsunari Iida, Institute for SustainableEnergy Policies, Tokyo, e-mail to Janet Sawin, 29August 2006; New York most efficient fromGreenHomeNYC, “For Tenants,” 2003, atwww.greenhomenyc.org/page/tenants.

4. India from “Underpowering,” The Econo-mist, 22 September 2005; China from Arno Rose-marin, United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), China Human Development Report2002: Making Green Development a Choice (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 57.

5. Box 5–1 from the following: Emissions and40 percent from U.N. Environment Programme(UNEP), International Environmental TechnologyCentre, Energy and Cities: Sustainable Buildingand Construction (Osaka, Japan: 2003); embod-ied energy of concrete from Alex Wilson, “Cementand Concrete: Environmental Considerations,”Environmental Building News, March 1993;embodied energy of steel from Center for Build-ing Performance Research, University of Welling-ton, “Table of Embodied Energy Coefficients,” 7July 2004, at www.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr/resources/index.aspx; San Francisco home based on 66.6million Btus per household in Pacific region forspace and water heating, cooling, refrigerators,lighting, and appliances, from U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administra-tion (EIA), “Total Energy Consumption in U.S.Households by West Census Region, 2001,”updated 18 November 2004, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/enduse/ce1-12c-westregion2001.pdf; embodied energy ofcement from Wilson, op. cit. this note; emissionsfrom cement industry from Nadav Malin, “The FlyAsh Revolution: Making Better Concrete withLess Cement,” Environmental Building News,June 1999; emissions in Japan from Carbon Diox-ide Information Analysis Center, cited in UNDP,“Human Development Reports 2005—Indica-tors: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Share of WorldTotal,” at hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators.cfm?x=212&y=1&z=1; 15 percent from U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, “Cement andConcrete,” updated 15 August 2006, atwww.epa.gov/cpg/products/cement.htm; poten-tial savings from Malin, op. cit. this note; Germanyfrom World Resources Institute (WRI), ClimateAnalysis Indicators Tool (Washington, DC: 2003);lighter, stronger bricks from “Superior BuildingProducts,” University of New South Wales, NewSouth Innovations (Sydney, Australia: June 2006);completely replacing cement from Doug Cross,Jerry Stephens, and Jason Vollmer, StructuralApplications of 100 Percent Fly Ash Concrete(Billings, MT: Montana State University, 2005);benefits of local materials from Ibrahim Togola,Mali Folkecentre, “Sustainable Building of LocalMaterials in Sahel Countries of West Africa” (draftpaper), sent to Janet Sawin, 4 August 2006; trans-portation share of embodied energy from Wil-son, op. cit. this note; Big Dig waste from RaphaelLewis, “End Nears for Elevated Artery,” BostonGlobe, 14 April 2002; “Man Builds Home FromBig Dig Scrap Materials,” Associated Press, 30 July2006.

6. Effect on 50 million people and blackout inItaly from Alan Katz, “Maintaining Facility Powerin the Age of the Blackout,” Electrical Construc-tion and Maintenance, 1 June 2004; cause andcosts of August blackout from Electricity Con-sumers Resource Council, The Economic Impactsof the August 2003 Blackouts (Washington, DC:2004).

7. Line losses from World Bank, World Devel-

212


Notes, Chapter 5

opment Report 1997 (New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1997), from M. S. Bhalla, “Transmis-sion and Distribution Losses (Power),” inProceedings of the National Conference on Regu-lation in Infrastructure Services: Progress and WayForward (New Delhi: The Energy and ResourcesInstitute, 2000), and from Seth Dunn, Micropower:The Next Electrical Era, Worldwatch Paper 151(Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 2000),p. 46; New Delhi from John Lancaster, “SniffingOut the Freeloaders Who Stress the Grid,” Wash-ington Post, 12 June 2006.

8. One fifth from World Bank, Energy PovertyIssues and G8 Actions, Discussion Paper (Wash-ington, DC: 2 February 2006), p. 1; numbercould be higher from “Power to the Poor,” TheEconomist, 8 February 2001; Africans from BereketKebede and Ikhupuleng Dube, “Chapter 1: Intro-duction,” in Bereket Kebede and IkhupulengDube, eds., Energy Services for the Urban Poor inAfrica: Issues and Policy Implications (London:Zed Books in Association with the African EnergyPolicy Research Network, 2004), p. 1.

9. Millions of deaths from “Power to the Poor,”op. cit. note 8; India, Sri Lanka, and Thailandfrom Emily Matthews et al., The Pilot Analysis ofGlobal Ecosystems: Forest Ecosystems (Washington,DC: WRI, 2000); Khartoum from Business inAfrica, “Energy in Africa: Is There Energy forAll?” 4 November 2005, p. 1.

10. Coal use from “Chapter 5: World Coal Mar-kets,” in EIA, International Energy Outlook 2006(Washington, DC: DOE, 2006); coal projectionsfrom International Energy Agency (IEA), KeyWorld Energy Statistics 2006 (Paris: 2006), p. 46;impact in China from Bill McKibben, “The GreatLeap: Scenes from China’s Industrial Revolution,”Harper’s Magazine, December 2005.

11. Cities account for 75 percent of world’s fos-sil fuel consumption (and hence about 75 percentof energy-related emissions); see World Council forRenewable Energy (WCRE), “Renewable Energyand the City,” discussion paper for World Renew-able Energy Policy and Strategy Forum, Berlin,Germany, 13–15 June 2005.

12. Buildings more than 40 percent from UNEP,International Environmental Technology Centre,Energy and Cities: Sustainable Building and Con-struction (Osaka, Japan: 2003), p. 1; U.S. build-ings from Greg Franta, “High-PerformanceBuildings Through Integrated Design,” RMISolutions, summer 2006, p. 6, and from GregFranta, Rocky Mountain Institute, e-mail toStephanie Kung, Worldwatch Institute, 20 Sep-tember 2006.

13. Shanghai from David Barboza, “China BuildsIts Dreams, and Some Fear a Bubble,” New YorkTimes, 18 October 2005; China urban infrastruc-ture from McKibben, op. cit. note 10.

14. Lighting from IEA, “Light’s Labour’s Lost—Policies for Energy-Efficient Lighting,” pressrelease (Paris: 29 June 2006); Eric Corey Freed,“Ask the Green Architect: Mirrors for Lighting;Radiant Heating for Floors; Efficient Exit Signs,”GreenBiz.com, undated; Jonathan Rider, LightShelves, Advanced Buildings, Technologies andPractices (Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canadaand Public Works and Government ServicesCanada); glass from Rick Cook, Partner, Cook +Fox Architects, interview on “The Green Apple,”Design E2, U.S. Public Broadcasting System series,summer 2006.

15. Incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescentsfrom DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy (EERE), “Technology FactSheet: Improved Lighting,” GHG ManagementWorkshop, 25–26 February 2003, pp. 1–2; DOE,EERE, “Energy Efficient Lighting and Light Emit-ting Diodes,” fact sheet (Richland, WA: May2006); DOE, EERE, “LED Traffic Lights SaveEnergy in Idaho,” Conservation Update, May-June 2004.

16. Ceilings in South Africa from Randall Spald-ing-Fecher et al., “The Economics of Energy Effi-ciency for the Poor—A South Africa Case Study,”Energy, December 2002, pp. 1,099–117.

17. Combined heat and power efficiency fromDOE, EERE, “Distributed Energy Resources:Combined Heat & Power Program for Buildings,Industry and District Energy,” at www.eere.energy

213


Notes, Chapter 5

.gov/de/pdfs/chp_buildings_industry_district.pdf,viewed 15 July 2006; Verdesian, 80 percent orhigher, and typical fossil fuel plant from RobinPogrebin, “Putting Environmentalism on theUrban Map,” New York Times, 17 May 2006;typical plant efficiency also from DOE, Office ofFossil Energy, “DOE Launches Project to ImproveMaterials for Supercritical Coal Plants,” pressrelease (Pittsburgh, PA: 16 October 2001).

18. Radiant heating from DOE, EERE, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Radi-ant Heating,” updated 12 September 2005;Romans from Freed, op. cit. note 14; Hewlettbuilding from The William and Flora HewlettFoundation, “The Hewlett Foundation Building:Energy Efficiency,” (Menlo Park, CA: updated23 August 2005), and from Stephanie Kung,Worldwatch Institute, personal observations.

19. Cooling in China from National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Renewable Energy in China:Development of the Geothermal Heat Pump Mar-ket in China (Golden, CO: 2006); Tokyo andHouston from David J. Sailor and ChittaranjanVasireddy, “Correcting Aggregate Energy Con-sumption Data to Account for Variability in LocalWeather,” Environmental Modelling & Software,May 2006, p. 733.

20. Susan Roaf and Mary Hancock, “Future-Proofing Buildings Against Climate Change UsingTraditional Building Technologies in the Mediter-ranean Region,” EuroSun 98, II.1.13, pp. 1–7.

21. M. Santamouris, “Special Issue of the SolarEnergy Program Devoted to Natural Ventilationin Urban Areas” (editorial), Solar Energy, April2006, pp. 369–70; EPA, “Heat Island Effect—What Can Be Done—Trees & Vegetation,” factsheet (Washington, DC: 9 June 2006).

22. Cool roof savings from Hashem Akbari,“Estimating Energy Saving Potentials of HeatIsland Mitigation Measures,” Heat Island Group,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, power-point presentation, updated 16 June 1999.

23. EPA, op. cit. note 21; Madrid study andheat island reductions from Susana Saiz et al.,

“Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Standardand Green Roofs,” Environmental Science & Tech-nology, 1 July 2006, pp. 4312–16; heat island andsmog reductions from Akbari, op. cit. note 22.

24. Less than half from DOE, EERE, “Tech-nology Fact Sheet: Resources for Whole BuildingDesign,” GHG Management Workshop, 25–26February 2003, p. 11; savings up to 80 percentfrom James Read, associate director, Arup Com-munications, on “Deeper Shades of Green,”Design E2, op. cit. note 14; savings in energy andconstruction costs from Franta, “High-Perfor-mance Buildings,” op. cit. note 12, p. 7; Accord21 Building from Robert Watson, senior scientist,Natural Resources Defense Council, on “China:From Red to Green?” Design E2, op. cit. note 14.

25. Healthier, more comfortable occupants andgreater worker productivity from Gregory H. Kats,“Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits,”Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, 2003, p.6, from Judith Heerwagen, “Sustainable DesignCan Be an Asset to the Bottom Line,” Environ-mental Design + Construction, 15 July 2002, andfrom DOE, op. cit. note 24, p. 11; reducedturnover from “Study: Environmentally FriendlyBuildings Also Most Market Friendly,” Green-biz.com, 31 October 2005; Heschong MahoneGroup, “Daylighting in Schools: An Investiga-tion Into the Relationship Between Daylightingand Human Performance,” prepared for the Cal-ifornia Board for Energy Efficiency (Fair Oaks, CA:20 August 1999); Warren E. Hathaway et al., AStudy into the Effects of Light on Children of Ele-mentary School Age—A Case Study of DaylightRobbery (Edmonton, AB: Policy and PlanningBranch, Planning and Information Services Divi-sion, Alberta Education, 1992); bank buildingfrom Nicholas Lenssen and David Roodman, ABuilding Revolution, Worldwatch Paper 124(Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1994),p. 45; more than 10 times the benefits from Kats,op. cit. this note, p. 8; and from U.S. Green Build-ing Council, “Green Buildings by the Numbers,”2006, at www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1442; costs falling from Kats, op. cit.this note, p. 3.

26. One year payback from Franta, “High-Per-

214


Notes, Chapter 5

formance Buildings,” op. cit. note 12, p. 7; retro-fit projects from Jiang Lin et al., Developing anEnergy Efficiency Service Industry in Shanghai(Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab-oratory, 2004), pp. 2, 17.

27. Anuj Chopra, “Low-cost Lamps Brightenthe Future of Rural India,” Christian Science Mon-itor, 3 January 2006.

28. John Perlin, “Solar Evolution: The Historyof Solar Energy,” California Solar Center, 2005,at www.californiasolarcenter.org/history_passive.html; Babylon from The Garland Company,“History of Green Roofs,” at www.garlandco.com/green-roof-history.html, viewed 9 August2006.

29. Edison and evolution of industry from Dunn,op. cit. note 7, pp. 6, 11, 13–14.

30. For microturbines, see, for example, WilsonTurboPower, Inc., “The Wilson Microturbine,” atwww.wilsonturbopower.com; fuel cells alreadyproducing power from Joel N. Swisher, CleanerEnergy, Greener Profits: Fuel Cells as Cost-EffectiveDistributed Energy Resources (Snowmass, CO:Rocky Mountain Institute, 2002), p. 12; SusanNasr, “More Powerful Fuel Cells Get Closer toMarket,” Technology Review, 13 June 2006.

31. Energy & Enviro Finland, “Utilizing Biogasas a Fuel: Wärtsilä Fuel Cell Unit to Power the Cityof Vaasa,” 15 June 2006.

32. Renewables from REN21 Renewable EnergyPolicy Network, Executive Summary: RenewablesGlobal Status Report 2006 Update (Washington,DC: Worldwatch Institute, 2006); wind, solar,and biofuels from Worldwatch Institute, VitalSigns 2006–2007 (New York: W. W. Norton &Company, 2006), pp. 36–41.

33. Cheaper for building facades from StevenStrong, “Solar Electric Buildings: PV as a Dis-tributed Resource,” Renewable Energy World, July-August 2002, p. 171; Europe from “BIPVTechnology,” Wisconsin Public Service, Universityof Wisconsin, at www.buildingsolar.com/technology.asp; use elsewhere from Natural Resources

Canada, Technologies and Applications—Photo-voltaic: Integrating Photovoltaic Arrays in Build-ings (Ottawa, ON: updated 26 July 2006);potential in Finland, Australia, and United States(adjusted for the fact that it was based on 1998electricity consumption data and conservative esti-mates for available rooftops and façades and forsolar resources) from IEA, Summary: Potential forBuilding Integrated Photovoltaics (Paris: 2002),p. 8.

34. UNDP, Equator Initiative, “Solar City—Germany,” August 2000, at www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=657, viewed 23 September 2006;David Faiman, “Solar Energy in Israel,” Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sde Boker, Israel,26 November 2002; fuel savings from Environ-mental and Energy Study Institute, “RenewableEnergy Fact Sheet: Solar Water Heating—Usingthe Sun’s Energy to Heat Water” (Washington,DC: May 2006); China solar energy from REN21,Renewables Global Status Report 2006 Update(Paris and Washington, DC: REN21 Secretariatand Worldwatch Institute, 2006); China’s driverfrom Zijun Li, “Solar Energy Booming in China,”China Watch, 23 September 2005.

35. P. J. Hughes and J. A. Shonder, The Evalu-ation of a 4000 Home Geothermal Heat PumpRetrofit at Fort Polk, Louisiana: Final Report (OakRidge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,March 1998), p. 2; Beijing Linked Hybrid Projectfrom Li Hu, Partner, Steven Holl Architects, on“China: From Red to Green?” Design E2, op. cit.note 14.

36. Pompeii and list of countries from Geother-mal Education Office, “Geothermal Energy,”slideshow, funded by DOE, undated; Paris fromEuropean Renewable Energy Council, “Joint Dec-laration for a European Directive to PromoteRenewable Heating and Cooling,” Brussels,undated, p. 8.

37. New York waste and shipped to Ohio fromTimothy Gardner, “Hot Trash-to-Fuel Technol-ogy Gathering Steam,” Reuters, 27 February 2004;disposal costs as of 2002 from Steven Cohen,“Putting Garbage to Good Use,” New York Times,15 August 2002; increasing waste in industrial

215


Notes, Chapter 5

countries from Euiyoung Yoon and Sunghan Jo,“Municipal Solid Waste Management in Tokyoand Seoul,” Proceedings of Workshop ofIGES/APN Mega-City Project, Kitakyushu, Japan,23–25 January 2002, p. 1; developing countries,garbage burned or left to rot, and impacts from“Hazardous Waste: Special Reference to Munici-pal Solid Waste Management,” in The Energyand Resources Institute, India: State of the Envi-ronment 2001 (Delhi: 2001), pp. 133–41; 90 per-cent not collected from UNEP, “At a Glance:Waste,” Our Planet, 1999.

38. Methane potency from EPA, “Global Warm-ing—Emissions,” at yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html; U.S.cities from Daniela Chen, “Converting Trash Gasinto Energy Gold,” CNN.com, 17 July 2006; SãoPaulo and Riga from Carl R. Bartone, Horacio Ter-raza, and Francisco Grajales-Cravioto, “Oppor-tunities for LFGTE Projects in LAC UtilizingInternational Carbon Financing,” World Bank,presentation at LMOP 8th Annual Conference,Baltimore, MD, 10–11 January 2005; CherylSmith, “Monterrey Plans to Turn Rotting Garbageinto Electricity,” Christian Science Monitor, 21March 2002.

39. Incomes spent on cooking fuel from Christo-pher Flavin and Molly Hull Aeck, Energy for Devel-opment: The Potential Role of Renewable Energy inMeeting the Millennium Development Goals (Wash-ington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 2005), p. 17;Innocent Rutamu, “Low Cost Biodigesters forZero Grazing Smallholder Diary Farmers in Tan-zania,” Livestock Research for Rural Development,July 1999.

40. European cities and San Francisco from “SanFrancisco to Test Turning Dog Waste into Power,”Reuters, 23 February 2006; Alister Doyle, “Oslo’sSewage Heats Its Homes,” Reuters, 10 April 2006;Helsingborg from Michael D. Lemonick, “CleanerAir Over Scandinavia,” Time, 3 April 2006, p.47; hospital and industrial wastes to electricityfrom Timothy Gardner, “Hot Trash-to-Fuel Tech-nology Gathering Steam,” Reuters, 27 February2006; “$84 Million for the First Tires-to-EthanolFacility,” RenewableEnergyAccess.com, 23 March2006.

41. “Tokyo Embraces Renewable Energy,” Envi-ronment News Service, 6 April 2006; “Boston’sFirst Wind Turbine Serves as Example,” Renew-ableEnergyAccess.com, 18 May 2005; Middel-grunden Wind Turbine Cooperative, “TheMiddelgrunden Offshore Wind Farm—A PopularInitiative,” undated, at www.middelgrunden.dk/MG_UK/project_info/mg_pjece.htm.

42. New York and San Francisco from Jeff John-son, “Power from Moving Water,” Chemical andEngineering News, 4 October 2004, and fromAdam Aston, “Here Comes Lunar Power,” Busi-ness Week, 6 March 2006; Paris from Doyle, op. cit.note 40; “Deep Lake Water Cooling: ChilledWater for Cooling Toronto’s Buildings,” atwww.enwave.com/enwave/view.asp?/dlwc/energy,viewed 6 August 2006.

43. Environment Department, City of Malmö,“100 Percent Locally Renewable Energy in theWestern Harbour of Malmö in Sweden,” ICLEIin Europe: Cities in Action—Good Practice Exam-ples, at www.iclei-europe.org; Dongtan from FredPearce, “Eco-cities Special: A Shanghai Surprise,”New Scientist, 21 June 2006; expected populationfrom Jean-Pierre Langellier and Brice Pedroletti,“China to Build First Eco-city,” The GuardianWeekly, 2006.

44. Janet L. Sawin, “National Policy Instru-ments: Policy Lessons for the Advancement &Diffusion of Renewable Energy TechnologiesAround the World,” background paper preparedfor Secretariat of the International Conference ofRenewable Energies, Bonn, Germany, January2004, p. 24.

45. Blackout from Richard Perez et al., “Solutionto the Summer Blackouts? How Dispersed SolarPower-Generating Systems Can Help Prevent theNext Major Outage,” Solar Today, July/August2005, and from Richard Perez, Atmospheric Sci-ences Research Center, State University of NewYork at Albany, e-mail to Janet Sawin, 3 October2006.

46. UNDP survey from Molly O’Meara, Rein-venting Cities for People and the Planet, WorldwatchPaper 147 (Washington, DC: 1999), p. 57; Ger-

216


Notes, Chapter 5

many from Preben Maegaard, “Wind, NotNuclear!–Why Does the UK Not Take ThisOpportunity?” WCRE, July 2006; China’s solarheating industry from REN21 Renewable EnergyPolicy Network, Renewables 2005 Global StatusReport (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute,2005), pp. 24–25; India’s biogas industry fromInstitute of Science in Society, “Biogas Bonanza forThird World Development,” press release (Lon-don: 20 June 2005).

47. Box 5–2 from the following: event statisticsand Olympics overview from The Hon. TomRoper, “The Environmental Challenge of MajorEvents,” presented at the Eighth World CongressMetropolis, Berlin, Germany, 2005, pp. 1–2, 6,and from Tom Roper, “Producing Environmen-tally Sustainable Olympic Games and GreeningMajor Public Events,” Global Urban DevelopmentMagazine, March 2006; additional Beijing datafrom Environment News Service, “Beijing EnlistsU.S. Help to Green the 2008 Olympic Games,”18 April 2005, p. 1; World Cup data from Fédéra-tion Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),“Green Goal™: Environmental Protection Tar-gets,” Zurich, 2005; renewable sources from FIFA,“Sunny Days Ahead in Kaiserslautern,” Zurich, 26May 2006.

48. Forum Barcelona, “Imma Mayol: The Clo-sure of Nuclear Power Stations in Catalonia isOne of the Prime Objectives to Be Carried Out inthe Next 15 Years, in Terms of Defining a NewEnergy Model,” 2004; Ajuntament de Barcelona,Plan for Energy Improvement in Barcelona(Barcelona: 2002); elections, sunlight and energyequivalent, demonstration, and timeline fromPamela Stirzaker, “Spain’s Chain Reaction: Munic-ipal Obligations Spur on Solar Thermal Growth,”Renewable Energy World, September-October2004, pp. 2–3, and from Josep Puig i Boix, “TheBarcelona Solar Ordinance: A Case Study AboutHow the Impossible Became Reality,” presentedat the International Sustainable Energy Organi-zation Special Session, World Summit for Sus-tainable Development, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica, 28 August 2002.

49. Toni Pujol, Barcelona Energy Agency, “TheBarcelona Solar Thermal Ordinance: Evaluation

and Results,” presented at the 9th Annual Con-ference of Energie-Cités, Martigny, 22–23 April2004; expanded requirements from REN21, op.cit. note 34, p. 10; more than 70 cities and nationalgovernment from European Solar Thermal Indus-try Federation, “Spain Approves National SolarThermal Obligation,” at www.estif.org, viewed 7July 2006, and from REN21, op. cit. note 34.

50. Sacramento Municipal Utility District(SMUD), “EBSS Solicitations–Solicitation Detail,”at www.bids.smud.org/sDsp/sDsp004.asp?solicitation_id=2195, viewed 19 September 2006;SMUD, “Solar for Your Home: PV Pioneers,” atwww.smud.org/green/solar/index.html, viewed21 September 2006; from SMUD, “Solar Powerfor Your Business,” at www.smud.org/green/solar/compv.html, viewed 21 September 2006.

51. Heat wave and ComEd settlement from KenRegelson, Sustainable Cities: Best Practices forRenewable Energy & Energy Efficiency (Denver,CO: Sierra Club–Rocky Mountain Chapter, 2005),pp. 10–15; 20 percent agreement from City ofChicago, Office of the Mayor and Department ofEnvironment, Energy Plan (Chicago, IL: 2001);target year moved to 2010, for budgetary andcontractual reasons, from Mike Johnson, projectcoordinator, City of Chicago Department ofEnergy, Environment and Air Quality, discussionwith Kristen Hughes, 4 October 2006, and fromSustainLane, “#4 Chicago: The Wind at its Back,”at www.sustainlane.com/article/846, viewed 7October 2006.

52. “Most environmentally friendly” from Cityof Chicago, “A Message from the Mayor,” atwww.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/bikemap,viewed 26 September 2006; Regelson, op. cit.note 51.

53. Kevin McCarthy, “Chicago Approves BigGrants for Green Roof Retrofits,” Construc-tion.com, 19 July 2006; trees from J. Slama,“Chicago Will Be America’s Greenest City,” Con-scious Choice, April 2002.

54. David Engle, “With the Power at Hand:Examining the Merits of Distributed Energy,”Planning Magazine (American Planning Associa-

217


Notes, Chapter 5

tion), July 2006; community aggregation impactsfrom Donald Aitken, Donald Aitken Associates, e-mail to Kristen Hughes, 4 September 2006.

55. Jong-dall Kim, Dong-hi Han, and Jung-gyuNa, “The Solar City Daegu 2050 Project: Visionsfor a Sustainable City,” Bulletin of Science, Tech-nology & Society, April 2006, pp. 99–100; finan-cial crisis from EIA, “South Korea: EnvironmentalIssues,” at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/skoren.html, viewed 9 August 2006.

56. Renewables goal from REN21, op. cit. note46, p. 28; 2050 planning from Eric Martinot,“Solar City Case Study: Daegu, Korea,” Renew-able Energy Information on Markets, Policy,Investment, and Future Pathways, 2004, p. 1;Kim, Han, and Na, op. cit. note 55, pp. 98–99.

57. Population from Dejan Sudjic, “MakingCities Work: Mexico City,” BBC News, 21 June2006; haze from Michelle Hibler, “Taking Con-trol of Air Pollution in Mexico City,” IDRCReports, 12 August 2003; “most dangerous” titlefrom “New Center a Breath of Fresh Air for Mex-ico City,” Environment News Service, 3 June 2002;remains among most polluted from EIA, “Mexico:Environmental Issues,” at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexenv.html, viewed 8 August 2006.

58. Proaire campaign and installation figuresfrom The Climate Group, Less Is More: 14 Pioneersin Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Woking,Surrey, U.K.: 2004), p. 29; supporting organiza-tions from The Climate Group, “MexicoCity–Municipal Government,” at www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=427, viewed 5August 2006.

59. The Climate Group, Cape Town–MunicipalGovernment (Woking, Surrey, U.K.: undated), pp.1–3; Gold Standard from Renewable Energy andEnergy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), “CDMHousing Project to Become Replicable EnergySavings Model for South Africa,” atwww.reeep.org/index.cfm?articleid=1198&ros=1, viewed 6 September 2006.

60. Table 5–1 from the following: “China’s Cap-ital Launches Plan to Save Sparse Energy for Sus-

tainable Development,” People’s Daily Online, 7June 2005; Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, andTokyo from The Climate Group, Low CarbonLeader: Cities Oct. 2005 (Woking, Surrey, U.K.:2005); Freiburg, Oxford, and Portland from EricMartinot, “Index of Solar Cities,” at www.martinot.info/solarcities, viewed 19 July 2006; Leices-ter from ICLEI, “Profiting from Energy Effi-ciency: 7.0 Best Municipal Practices for EnergyEfficiency,” at www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1677&0, viewed 11 July 2006; City of Portland,Resolution Adopted 27 April 2005, at www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?a=112681&c=41701, viewed 7 August 2006; Toronto Environ-mental Alliance, Getting Green Power On-line inToronto (Toronto, ON: 2005); Tokyo Metropol-itan Government Bureau of Environment, “TokyoRenewable Energy Strategy,” 3 April 2006, atwww.isep.or.jp/e/Eng_project/TokyoREstrategy060526.pdf, viewed 20 July 2006.

61. U.S. Mayors’ agreement and ICLEI fromWilson Rickerson and Kristen Hughes, “The Pol-icy Framework for Greenhouse Gas Reductions inNew York City,” presented at the 2006 Interna-tional Solar Cities Congress, Oxford, U.K., 4 April2006; ICLEI, “About CCP,” at www.iclei.org/index/php?id=811, viewed 19 September 2006;Office of the Mayor, U.S. Mayors Climate Protec-tion Agreement (Seattle, WA: 2005); AustraliaICLEI from Tom Roper, Project Leader, GlobalSustainable Energy Islands Initiative, discussionwith Kristen Hughes, 17 August 2006, and fromCities for Climate Protection® Australia, “AboutCCP Australia,” at www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about, viewed 19 September 2006.

62. Target for pathfinders from InternationalSolar Cities Initiative, “International Solar CitiesCongress 2006,” at www.solarcities.org.uk, viewed19 July 2006; 3.3 tons from Byrne et al., op. cit.note 1; Argentina and China from United NationsStatistics Division, “Millennium DevelopmentGoals Indicators: Data Availability by Country,” atmillenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx, viewed 19 September 2006.

63. Investment priorities from WCRE and AsiaPacific & Renewable Energy Foundation Lim-ited, Asia Pacific Renewable Energy and Sustain-

218


Notes, Chapter 5

able Development Agenda 2004 (Bonn, Germany:2004), pp. 4–6; initiatives in global programsfrom Practical Action, Power to the People: Sus-tainable Energy Solutions for the World’s Poor(Rugby, U.K.: 2002), p. 8.

64. Subsidies from WCRE, Action Plan for theGlobal Proliferation of Renewable Energy (Bonn,Germany: 2002), p. 8, and from WCRE, “FirstWorld Renewable Energy Policy and StrategyForum Successfully Carried Out,” press release(Bonn, Germany: 18 June 2002); The WhiteHouse, Department of Energy–Overview: The Bud-get for Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, DC: 2005);India and China from Jon Gertner, “AtomicBalm?” New York Times, 16 July 2005; leadershipfrom WCRE and Asia Pacific & Renewable EnergyFoundation Limited, op. cit. note 63; Janet Sawin,“Charting a New Energy Future,” in WorldwatchInstitute, State of the World 2003 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003), p. 105.

65. Lori Bird et al., “Policies and Market FactorsDriving Wind Power Development in the UnitedStates,” Energy Policy, July 2005, p. 1,405; elec-tricity privatization from Kirsty Hamilton, “Financeand Investment: A Challenge of Scale,” RenewableEnergy World, September-October 2002.

66. Negawatts from Amory Lovins, “TheNegawatt Revolution—Solving the CO2 Prob-lem,” presented at Green Energy Conference,Montreal, 14–17 September 1989.

67. Anchor tenants from David Roeder, “Eco-Friendly Builders Starting to Grow,” Chicago SunTimes, 20 February 2006; energy costs small shareof expenses from Board of Governors of the Fed-eral Reserve System, Monetary Policy Report tothe Congress (Washington, DC: 19 July 2006), p.20; savings not reflected in conventional account-ing from Massachusetts Public Interest ResearchGroup, “Testimony on Senate Bill 360: ‘An Act ToPromote An Energy Efficient Massachusetts,’Cost-Effective Solutions to Protect Consumers,Reduce Pollution, and Boost Our Economy,” sub-mitted 27 March 2001.

68. Juliet Eilperin, “22 Cities Join Clinton Anti-Warming Effort,” Washington Post, 2 August 2006.

69. DOE, “Energy Savers: Homeowners,” atwww.energysavers.gov/homeowners.html, viewed6 September 2006, and “Building Energy EfficientNew Homes,” at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/homes/newconstruction.html, viewed 6 Sep-tember 2006.

70. Local conditions and expertise from UNEP,op. cit. note 12, pp. 1, 3, 8–9; institutional capac-ity from Tom Roper, “5 Star Housing–Victoria,Australia: Performance Based Building Regula-tion Delivers Major Sustainability Outcomes,”presented to Greenbuild 2005, Atlanta, GA, 9–11November 2005, pp. 1, 5–7.

71. Chicago from Tom Roper, Project Leader,Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative, e-mail to Kristen Hughes, 21 August 2006, andfrom Chicago Department of Construction andPermits, Green Permit Program (Chicago: dateunknown), p. 3; “New Urbanism: Creating Liv-able Sustainable Communities,” at www.newurbanism.org, viewed 5 September 2006.

72. Table 5–2 from the following: Cooperativesfrom Paul Gipe, Community Wind: The ThirdWay (Toronto: Ontario Sustainable Energy Asso-ciation, 2004); fuelwood pricing and replantingfrom Practical Action, Energy: Working with Com-munities to Provide Appropriate Solutions (Rugby,U.K.: 2006), p. 5; secondary power and lifeline tar-iffs from Kebede and Dube, op. cit. note 8, pp. 1,4, 6–8; energy service companies from Lin et al.,op. cit. note 26, p. 2; microfinance and loans fromAbhishek Lal and Betty Meyer, “An Overview ofMicrofinance and Environmental Management,”Global Development Research Center, at www.gdrc.org/icm/environ/abhishek.html, viewed19 April 2006, p. 9; bundling from Hamilton, op.cit. note 65, pp. 5–6; solar water heaters fromREEEP, “Innovative Financing for Solar WaterHeating Increases Affordability,” press release(Vienna, Austria: April 2006); importance of cham-pions and utility involvement from Roper, op. cit.note 71; demonstration projects and awarenessfrom Practical Action, op. cit. note 63, pp. 3–4;state and city de facto policy from Aitken, op. cit.note 54.

73. Partnerships and commitments from Practi-

219


Notes, Chapter 5, Rizhao, Malmö

cal Action, op. cit. note 63, p. 1; importance of pri-vate-sector allies from Innovest Strategic ValueAdvisors, Climate Change & The Financial ServicesIndustry: Module 1–Threats and Opportunities,prepared for the UNEP Finance Initiatives ClimateChange Working Group (Toronto, ON: 2002).

Rizhao: Solar-Powered City

1. Population from Rizhao City Government,2005 Rizhao Economic and Social DevelopmentStatistic Bulletin, at www.rizhao.gov.cn/rztj/show.asp?ListName=YDTJ&ID=15, viewed 10 June2006.

2. Usage data from Rizhao City ConstructionCommittee, internal statistics.

3. Li Zhaoqian, Presentation at World UrbanForum III, Vancouver, 19–23 June 2006; WangShuguang, e-mail to author, 15 October 2006.

4. Li Zhaoqian, discussion with author, 17 June2006.

5. Costs from Li, op. cit. note 3; average salariesfrom Rizhao City Government, op. cit. note 1.

6. Installations first for government buildingsand homes of city leaders from Li, op. cit. note 3;free installation for some employees from Li, op.cit. note 4; Wang Shuguang, e-mails and discus-sions with author, August and October 2006.

7. Li, op. cit. note 4.

8. State Environmental Protection Agency,2005 Annual Report of Urban EnvironmentalManagement and Comprehensive Pollution Control(Beijing: 2006).

9. Wang, op. cit. note 6.

10. Tourist numbers from Rizhao City Govern-ment, op. cit. note 1; Rizhao City Government,2004 Rizhao Economic and Social DevelopmentStatistic Bulletin, at www.rizhao.gov.cn/rztj/show.asp?ListName=YDTJ&ID=5., viewed 10June 2006.

11. “More than 300 Peking University ProfessorsBought Houses in Rizhao,” Beijing Youth Daily(Beijing Qingnian Bao), 11 August 2006; Qufufrom Wang Shuguang, discussion with author, 11October 2006.

Malmö: Building A Green Future

1. Height of Turning Torso from Sam Lubbell,“Just Opened….” Architectural Record, January2006, p. 36; population from City of Malmö Website, at www.malmo.se; Santiago Calatrava fromPaul Goldberger, “The Sculptor,” The New Yorker,31 October 2005, pp. 88–90.

2. Earliest settlements from City of Malmö, atwww.malmo.se/turist/inenglish/malmocityofdiversityandpossibilities.4.33aee30d103b8f15916800021971.html; foreign-born population from Cityof Malmö, op. cit. note 1; Kockum’s history fromChrister Persson, “Sweden Learns the HarshLessons of Regeneration,” Special Supplement,(London) Guardian, 19 January 2005; relatedindustries and economic downturn from KevinDone with Hilary Barnes, “Survey: Malmo andSouthern Sweden,” Financial Times, 25 May1983; number leaving from Malmö, at Wikipedia.

3. Mats Olsson, “Bo01 as a Strategic Project,”in FORMAS (Swedish Research Council for Envi-ronment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Plan-ning), Sustainable City of Tomorrow,Bo01–Experiences of a Swedish Housing Exposition(Stockholm: 2005).

4. Daniel Nilsson, “The LIP Programme—APrerequisite for the Environmental Initiatives,”in FORMAS, op. cit. note 3.

5. Li Löverhed, “100 Per Cent Local Renew-able Energy,” in FORMAS, op. cit. note 3.

6. Information from Tor Fossum, Environ-mental Strategy Unit, Environmental Department,City of Malmö, discussion with author, 8 October2006.

7. Carbon dioxide reduction target from “58Environmental Objectives for the City of Malmö,”at www.malmö.se; further information on

220


Notes, Malmö, Chapter 6

SECURE available at www.secureproject.org.

8. Current population for the Västra Hamnenarea from City of Malmö Web site, atwww.malmo.se/faktaommalmopolitik/statistik/eomradesfaktaformalmo/omradesfakta2005; pro-jected population from “Västra Hamnen: TheBo01-Area, A City for People and the Environ-ment,” information folder, City of Malmö, atwww.ekostaden.com/pdf/vhfolder_malmostad_0308_eng.pdf.

9. Housing construction and education from“Malmö 2006, Facts and Figures,” leaflet, City ofMalmö, Serviceförvaltningen, 2006; joblessnessfrom København Malmö 2006 (Malmö and Copen-hagen: City Office of Malmö and Statistical Officeof Copenhagen, 2006).

10. Population for Rosengård area from City ofMalmö Web site, op. cit. note 8.

11. Jeanette Andersson, discussion with author,27 September 2006.

Chapter 6. Reducing Natural Disaster Risk in Cities

1. John Noble Wilford, “Scientists UnearthUrban Center More Ancient Than Plato,” NewYork Times, 2 December 2003; Helike Foundation,“Appendix B: Helike and Atlantis,” at www.helike.org/atlantis.shtml.

2. Helike Foundation, “The Lost Cities ofAncient Helike,” at www.helike.org/index.shtml;John Noble Wilford, “Ruins May Be Ancient CitySwallowed by Sea,” New York Times, 17 October2000; “Helike—The Real Atlantis,” BBC, 10 Jan-uary 2002; Steven Soter, research scientist, Amer-ican Museum of Natural History, e-mail to author,5 October 2006.

3. Worldwatch calculations based on data from“EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Dis-aster Database,” Université Catholique de Louvain,Brussels, Belgium, at www.em-dat.net, viewed 16September 2006. This chapter includes the fol-lowing hazards under the umbrella term “naturaldisaster”: drought, earthquake, extreme temper-

ature, flood, slides, volcano, wildfire, and windstorm. Note: due to a change in disaster record-ing methods in 2003, recent figures on the num-ber of disasters may appear artificially inflatedcompared with historical figures; see Center forResearch on the Epidemiology of Disasters(CRED), “EM-DAT Data Entry Procedures,” atwww.em-dat.net/guidelin.htm. Definition of nat-ural disaster from CRED, “EM-DAT Criteria andDefinition,” at www.em-dat.net/criteria.htm,viewed 16 September 2006.

4. Data in Figure 6–1 are a Worldwatch calcu-lation based on “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CREDInternational Disaster Database,” op. cit. note 3,viewed 4 October 2006; city and national popu-lations from United Nations Population Division,“File 14: The 30 Largest Urban AgglomerationsRanked by Population Size, 1950–2015,” and“File 1: Total Population at Mid-Year by MajorArea, Region and Country, 1950–2030 (thou-sands),” World Urbanization Prospects 2005 (NewYork: 2006); definition of “total affected” fromCRED, “EM-DAT Criteria and Definition,” op.cit. note 3, viewed 4 October 2006.

5. Worldwatch calculations based on data from“EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Dis-aster Database,” op. cit. note 3, viewed 21 July2006, and from United Nations, “File 1: TotalPopulation at Mid-Year,” op. cit. note 4.

6. United Nations, “File 2: Urban Populationat Mid-Year by Major Area, Region and Country,1950–2030 (thousands),” World UrbanizationProspects 2005 (New York: 2005); urban popula-tion at risk of earthquakes from GeoHazards Inter-national/UN Center for Regional Development,Global Earthquake Safety Initiative Pilot Project:Final Report (Palo Alto, CA: 2001), p. 1.

7. Physical surroundings as cause of death fromJaime Valdés, “Disaster Risk Reduction: A Call toAction,” @local.glob 3 (Delnet Journal), 2006.Box 6–1 from the following: Charlotte Benson andJohn Twigg, “Measuring Mitigation: Method-ologies for Assessing Natural Hazard Risks and theNet Benefits of Mitigation—A Scoping Study”(Geneva: International Federation of Red Crossand Red Crescent Societies/ ProVention Con-

221


Notes, Chapter 6

sortium, December 2004); U.N. InternationalStrategy for Risk Reduction, “Terminology: BasicTerms of Disaster Risk Reduction,” at www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng-p.htm,viewed 13 September 2006. Box 6–2 from the fol-lowing: Mark Pelling, The Vulnerability of Cities:Natural Disasters and Social Resilience (London:Earthscan, 2003), p. 57; Inter-agency Secretariatfor the International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-tion (UN/ISDR), Women, Disaster Reduction,and Sustainable Development (Geneva: undated),p. 4; Ian Davis and Yasamin Izadkhah, “BuildingResilient Urban Communities,” Open House Inter-national, March 2006, pp. 11–21; James Morris-sey and Anna Taylor, “Fire Risk in InformalSettlements: A South African Case Study,” OpenHouse International, March 2006, pp. 98–104.

8. Independent Evaluation Group, Hazards ofNature, Risks to Development: An IEG Evaluationof World Bank Assistance for Natural Disasters(Washington DC: World Bank, 2006), p. xx.

9. Worldwatch “slum” growth calculation basedon UN-HABITAT, State of the World’s Cities2006/ 7 (London: Earthscan, 2006), p. 16; MikeDavis, “Slum Ecology,” Orion Magazine,March/April 2006; traditional networks fromMunich Re, Megacities—Megarisks: Trends andChallenges for Insurance and Risk Management(Munich: 2004), p. 23; Mark Pelling, The Vul-nerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and SocialResilience (London: Earthscan, 2003), p. 7.

10. Christine Wamsler, “Managing Urban Risk:Perceptions of Housing and Planning as a Tool forReducing Disaster Risk,” Global Built EnvironmentReview, vol. 4, no. 2 (2004), p. 15; building stan-dards in Mexico City from United Nations Uni-versity, “Mexico City, Mexico: We’re Still Here,”video, at www.unu.edu/env/urban/social-vulnerability. Table 6–2 from the following: popula-tions from United Nations, “File 14: The 30Largest Urban Agglomerations,” op. cit. note 4;disaster risk from “Megacities and Natural Haz-ards,” insert in Munich Re, op. cit. note 9.

11. Morrissey and Taylor, op. cit. note 7; Davis,op. cit. note 9.

12. Henny Vidiarina, “The Challenges andLessons of Working with Communities in UrbanAreas: The ACF Experience in Kampung Melayu,”in Partnerships for Disaster Reduction–SoutheastAsia 3 Newsletter, April 2006, pp. 3–4.

13. “New York: A Documentary Film, Episode1: The Country and the City,” Public Broadcast-ing System, 1999.

14. Terry McPherson and Wendell Stapler,“Tropical Cyclone 05B,” in 1999 Annual Tropi-cal Cyclone Report (Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. NavalPacific Meteorology and Oceanography Cen-ter/Joint Typhoon Warning Center, 1999). Table6–2 from the following: Unless otherwise noted,deaths and economic damages from Munich Re,op. cit. note 9, p. 21; Hurricane Katrina deathsfrom Gary Younge, “Gone with the Wind,” TheGuardian (London), 26 July 2006; HurricaneKatrina economic losses from Munich Re, “TwoNatural Events Play a Prominent Role in the 2005Catastrophe Figures,” press release (Munich: 29December 2005); Mumbai deaths from SominiSengupta, “Torrential Rain Reveals BoomingMumbai’s Frailties,” New York Times, 3 August2005; Mumbai economic losses from RadhikaMenon, “A ‘Disastrous’ Year for Insurers,” HinduBusiness Line, 1 January 2006; Bam deaths fromIRIN News, “Iran: Tehran Lowers Bam Earth-quake Toll,” press release (New York: U.N. Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 30March 2004); Bam economic losses from Inter-national Federation of Red Cross and Red Cres-cent Societies, World Disasters Report 2005(Geneva: 2005); Bhuj deaths and economic lossesfrom Anil Kkumar Sinha, The Gujarat Earthquake2001 (Kobe, Japan: Asian Disaster Reduction Cen-ter, undated); Tangshan earthquake deaths from“EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Dis-aster Database,” op. cit. note 3, viewed 8 Sep-tember 2006; Dhaka flood data from 1988 GlobalRegister of Extreme Flood Events (Dartmouth, MA:Dartmouth Flood Observatory, 1988); deflatorfrom Robert Sahr, “Consumer Price Index Con-version Factors 1800 to estimated 2016 to Con-vert to Dollars of 2005,” Oregon State University,revised 11 April 2006, at oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty/sahr/sahr.htm.

222


Notes, Chapter 6

15. Tsunami distance from Chuck Herring,“Images Help Rebuilding,” Planning, August/September 2005; “Aid Arrives for Volcano Vic-tims,” BBC News, 22 January 2002; deaths from“Health Update: WHO Activities—NyiragongoEruption,” press release (Geneva: World HealthOrganization, 31 January 2002); Nelson F. Fer-nandes et al., “Topographic Controls of Land-slides in Rio de Janeiro: Field Evidence andModeling,” Catena, 20 January 2004, pp. 163–81.Box 6–3 from the following: human toll of tsunamifrom U.N. Office of the Special Envoy for TsunamiRecovery, “The Human Toll,” at www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org/country/humantoll.asp; popu-lation and deaths in Banda Aceh from OfficialWebsite of the Banda Aceh Government, atwww.bandaaceh.go.id/tsunamifx.htm, viewed 31August 2006; on-the-ground observations fromMichael Renner’s visit to Aceh, 15–23 December2006; houses rebuilt from World Bank, Aceh Pub-lic Expenditure Analysis: Spending for Recon-struction and Poverty Reduction (Washington,DC: September 2006).

16. Temperature 10 degrees Celsius higher fromMunich Re, op. cit. note 9, p. 25; Cynthia Rosen-zweig et al., “Mitigating New York City’s HeatIsland with Urban Forestry, Living Roofs, andLight Surfaces,” Presentation at 86th AmericanMeteorological Society Annual Meeting, 31 Jan-uary 2006, Atlanta, GA.

17. Munich Re, op. cit. note 9, p. 25.

18. Galle land use from Ranjith Premalal DeSilva, “Reciprocation by Nature,” Tsunami in SriLanka: Genesis, Impact and Response (Colombo,Sri Lanka: Geo Informatics Society of Sri Lanka,2006); Jane Preuss, “Why ‘Tsunami’ Means ‘WakeUp Call’: What Planners Can Learn from SriLanka,” Planning, August/September 2005.

19. Kobe economic damages from Munich Re,op. cit. note 9, p. 21; Hurricane Katrina eco-nomic losses from Munich Re, op. cit. note 14;deflator from Sahr, op. cit. note 14.

20. Munich Re, op. cit. note 9, p. 23.

21. Dan Roberts, “Buffett Raises Climate Cover

Insurance,” Financial Times, 6 March 2006.

22. “AIG Adopts First Policy on Global ClimateChange,” Reuters, 17 May 2006; Lorna Victoria,“Networking for CBDRM among Practitioners inthe Philippines: An NGO Perspective,” in Part-nerships for Disaster Reduction–Southeast Asia 3Newsletter, April 2006, pp. 5–6; “Corporate Cit-izenship,” Makati Business Club, at www.mbc.com.ph/corporate_citizenship/default.htm.

23. Losses from power disruption from NationalAssociation of Home Builders, “Natural DisasterSurvival Helped by Renewable Energy,” Nation’sBuilding News, 10 April 2006; business motiva-tions from Howard Kunreuther, “InterdependentDisaster Risks: The Need for Public Private Part-nerships,” in World Bank, Building Safer Cities(Washington, DC: 2003), p. 86.

24. Cities account for 75 percent of world’s fos-sil fuel consumption (and hence about 75 percentof energy-related emissions); see World Council onRenewable Energy, “Renewable Energy and theCity,” discussion paper for World RenewableEnergy Policy and Strategy Forum, Berlin, Ger-many, 13–15 June 2005; duration of heat wavesfrom Juliet Eilperin, “More Frequent Heat WavesLinked to Global Warming,” Washington Post, 4August 2006; “Weather Related Natural Disastersin 2003 Cost the World Billions,” press release(Nairobi: U.N. Environment Programme, 10December 2003).

25. Coastal wetlands from John Young, “BlackWater Rising,” World Watch, September/October2006, p. 26; Boston from Jane Holtz Kay, “ShoreLosers: US Leaders, Residents Turn Backs onImpending Coastal Chaos,” Grist, 15 June 2005;U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ClimateChange and Massachusetts (Washington, DC: Sep-tember 1997); New York City from ClimateChange Information Resources—New York Met-ropolitan Region, “What Are the Projected Costsof Climate Change in the Region’s Coastal Com-munities and Coastal Environments?” Issue Brief,at ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/ccir-ny_q2e.html,viewed 27 July 2006.

26. Gareth Davies, “Dutch Answer to Flood-

223


Notes, Chapter 6

ing: Build Houses that Swim,” Der Spiegel, 26September 2005; Hilary Clarke, “Tide of OpinionTurns Against Venice Dam,” Daily Telegraph(London), 29 January 2006.

27. Young, op. cit. note 25, p. 30.

28. Chen Ganzhang, “Roof-Garden: GettingPopular in China,” China Economic Net, 18 July2006.

29. Chicago tree plantings from Keith Schneider,“To Revitalize a City, Try Spreading Some Mulch,”New York Times, 17 May 2006; Casey TreesEndowment, “The Case for Trees,” at www.caseytrees.org/resources/casefortrees.html, viewed 6August 2006.

30. Juliet Eilperin, “22 Cities Join Clinton Anti-Warming Effort,” Washington Post, 2 August 2006;“Clinton Climate Initiative,” at www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-cci-home.htm, viewed 5October 2006.

31. “US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,”at www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate, viewed 5October 2006.

32. Sengupta, op. cit. note 14; “As Toll Rises to749 in India Monsoon, Mumbai Goes Back toWork,” New York Times, 30 July 2005.

33. Sengupta, op. cit. note 14; 92 percent fromInternational Federation of Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies, World Disasters Report 2004(Geneva: 2004), p. 150.

34. Sri Lanka from Preuss, op. cit. note 18; indi-vidual feeling of control over risk from Kunreuther,op. cit. note 23, p. 86.

35. London from Munich Re, op. cit. note 9, p.20; El Salvador from Kurt Rhyner, “Disaster Pre-vention: Are We Really Trying,” Basin News(Building Advisory Service and Information Net-work), June 2002, pp. 2–5.

36. Quote from Sengupta, op. cit. note 14; citiesmerging from Munich Re, op. cit. note 9, p. 23.

37. CITYNET Web site at www.citynet-ap.org/en; member numbers from www.citynet-ap.org/en/Members/member.html, viewed 4August 2006; Banda Aceh and community centersin Sri Lanka from Bernadia Irawati Tjandradewi,CITYNET, discussion with author, 8 August 2006.

38. Hurricane Mitch deaths from “Mitch: TheDeadliest Atlantic Hurricane since 1780,” NationalClimatic Data Center, at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.html, updated 29 August2006; Jorge Gavidia and Annalisa Crivellari, “Leg-islation as a Vulnerability Factor,” Open HouseInternational, vol. 31, no. 1, 2006, p. 84.

39. Benson and Twigg, op. cit. note 7; Dominicaand Jamaica from Jan Vermeiren and StevenStichter, Costs and Benefits of Hazard Mitigationfor Building and Infrastructure Development: ACase Study in Small Island Developing States (Wash-ington, DC: Organization of American States andU.S. Agency for International Development,1998); Philippines and U.S. Geological Surveyfrom Reinhard Mechler, “Natural Disaster Risk andCost-Benefit Analysis,” in World Bank, op. cit.note 23, p. 52. Box 6–4 from the following:Colombia from “Double Jeopardy: The Impact ofConflict and Natural Disaster on Cities,” in UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 9, p. 157; China floodcontrol from Mechler, op. cit. this note, p. 52;China population from United Nations, “File 1:Total Population at Mid-Year,” op. cit. note 4;Seattle earthquake from Robert Freitag, “TheImpact of Project Impact on the Seattle NisquallyEarthquake,” Natural Hazards Observer, May2001; “Seattle Project Impact,” at www.seattle.gov/projectimpact/; Pacific Northwest Seis-mograph Network, at www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/EQ_Special/WEBDIR_01022818543p/welcome.html.

40. Davis, op. cit. note 9.

41. Box 6–5 based on field work in Februaryand March 2006 by Christine Wamsler; see Chris-tine Wamsler, “Understanding Disasters from aLocal Perspective,” TRIALOG (Journal for Plan-ning and Building in the Third World), special issueon “Building on Disasters,” December 2006, andChristine Wamsler, “Bridging the Gaps: Stake-

224


Notes, Chapter 6

holder-based Strategies for Risk Reduction andFinancing for the Urban Poor,” forthcoming.

42. “Slum Communities and Municipality Coop-erate in Santo Domingo,” and “Tuti IslandersFight Floods Together,” in International Federa-tion of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,op. cit. note 33, pp. 24–25.

43. Guilliame Chantry and John Norton, “LocalConfidence and Partnership to Strengthen Capac-ity for Community Vulnerability Reduction: Devel-opment Workshop France in Central Vietnam,” inPartnerships for Disaster Reduction–Southeast Asia3 Newsletter, April 2006, pp. 7–8.

44. Development Marketplace Team, Scrap TiresSave Homes in Turkey (Washington, DC: WorldBank, October 2005); safer shelters from Inde-pendent Evaluation Group, op. cit. note 8, p.xxiii.

45. Reinhard Mechler and Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer with David Peppiatt, Disaster Insurance forthe Poor? (Geneva: ProVention Consortium/Inter-natoinal Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,2006), p. 6; Independent Evaluation Group, op.cit. note 8, p. xx.

46. Muhammad Yunus, “Rebuilding ThroughSocial Entrepreneurship,” Changemakers NewsFeature, October 2005/February 2006.

47. Mechler and Linnerooth-Bayer with Peppi-att, op. cit. note 45, p. 18.

48. Zijun Li, “Shanghai Completes MassiveUnderground Bunker to Protect Citizens fromDisasters,” China Watch, 8 August 2006, atwww.worldwatch.org/node/4424; death toll from“EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Dis-aster Database,” op. cit. note 3, viewed 8 Sept2006. The death toll of 242,000 is considered anofficial figure, with other estimates going as highas 655,000.

49. For information on the International Char-ter, “Space and Major Disasters,” see www.disastercharter.org; charter activations from Interna-tional Charter on Space and Major Disasters Web-

master, discussion with author, 7 August 2006;“Flooding in Central Europe” and “Floods inSenegal,” at www.disasterscharter.org/disasters.

50. “Expert Predicted Volcano Eruption,” BBCNews, 23 January 2002.

51. Li, op. cit. note 48.

52. Official pledges from Adam Blenford, “Con-cern over Urban Evacuation Plans,” BBC News, 27September 2005; Matthew L. Wald, “Deadly BusFire is Focus of Safety Hearings,” New York Times,5 August 2006.

53. “Run, Tell Your Neighbor! Hurricane Warn-ing in the Caribbean,” in International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, op. cit.note 14.

54. Ted Koppel, “Preparing for a Disaster is Nei-ther Rocket Science nor Brain Surgery,” MorningEdition, National Public Radio, 3 August 2006.

55. “To the People,” Oakland Tribune, 18 April1906; Egeland quoted in “Disaster Reduction:Changes Since the Kobe Conference and theTsunami,” in “Disaster Reduction and the HumanCost of Disaster,” IRIN Web Special, 2005.

56. Dilley quoted in Quirin Schiermeier, “TheChaos to Come,” Nature, 15 December 2005, p.906.

57. “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015:Building the Resilience of Nations and Commu-nities to Disasters,” International Strategy for Dis-aster Reduction, 2005, at www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm; number of governments and visi-tors from “Statistics of the Public Forum,” and“Brief History of the WCDR Process,” atwww.unisdr.org/wcdr/, viewed 2 October 2006.

58. “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015,”op. cit. note 57.

59. Christine Wamsler, Operational Frameworkfor Integrating Risk Reduction: For Aid Organi-zations Working in Human Settlement Develop-ment, Working Paper No. 14 (Lund, Sweden:

225


Notes, Chapter 6, Jakarta

Benfield Hazard Research Centre/Lund Univer-sity, 2006).

Jakarta: River Management

1. Number of zones from Accion Contra laFaime, Report of Area Selection for Flood DisasterPreparedness Programme Development in DKIJakarta Province (Jakarta: 2006), p. 11; DamarHarsanto, “Jakarta Braces for Annual Floods,”Jakarta Post, 28 October 2005; official city pop-ulation census data for 2000 from Badan Pusat Sta-tisik, at www.bps.go.id, although the populationof metropolitan Jakarta is significantly larger, par-ticularly when contiguous urban areas withingreater Jabotabek are included; quote from Bam-bang Nurbianto, “Residents Stick by RiverbankDespite Floods,” Jakarta Post, 26 September2005.

2. Harsanto, op. cit. note 1; Adianto P.Simamora, “Floodwaters Swell as Residents Taketo Rooftops,” Jakarta Post, 14 January 2006.

3. Financial Times Information–Global NewsWire, “Household, Chemical Waste PollutesRivers,” Jakarta Post, 20 August 2001; quotefrom Financial Times Information–Asia Intelli-gence Wire, “Integrated Waste Management,”Jakarta Post, 12 June 2004.

4. River length from Adianto P. Simamora,“Cleaned-Up Ciliwung Set to Go With the Flow,”Jakarta Post, 13 April 2006; Damar Harsanto,“City Seeks Closer Ties With Neighboring,”Jakarta Post, 5 September 2005.

5. Canal details from Departemen PekerjaanUmum (Department of Public Works), “ProyekPembangunan Banjir Kanal Timur Mulai Diker-jakan,” PU-Net, 10 December 2003, atwww.pu.go.id/index.asp?link=Humas/news2003/ppw160606gt.htm; Moch. N. Kurniawan, “Gov-ernment to Rehabilitate 17 Catchment AreasAcross Indonesia,” Jakarta Post, 7 March 2003;improved flood warning system from EdwardTurvill, Accion Contra la Faime, Jakarta, discus-sion with author, 4 August 2006; communitygroups from Alwi Shahab, “Mengamankan Ban-taran Ciliwung,” Republika Online, 15 April 2006,

at www.republika.co.id/detail.asp?id=256616,from Bambang Parlupi, “Ciliwung EcosystemRestored by Local People,” Jakarta Post, 25 April2006, from Financial Times Information–AsiaIntelligence Wire, “Jakarta’s Rivers Scoured EveryThree Months,” Antara, 19 March 2006, andfrom Adianto P. Simamora and Anissa S. Febrina,“Riverbank Community Takes Pollution of Water-ways to Heart,” Jakarta Post, 12 April 2006.

6. Financial Times Information–Asia Intelli-gence Wire, “Dutch Government Donates Rp.3Billion to Control Jakarta Floods,” Antara, 20February 2003; Carin Bobeldijk, Karin Bosman,and Robert-Jan de Jonge, eds., Made in Holland(The Hague, Netherlands: Land and Water Inter-national, Netherlands Agency for InternationalBusiness and Cooperation, and NEDECO, 2004);Friso Roest, NEDECO, Jakarta, letters to author,28 June–11 July 2006.

7. Richel Dursin, “Environment: For Indone-sian Villagers, Floods are a Part of Life,” Inter PressService, 8 July 2005; Kampung Improvement Program, ArchNet Digital Library at archnet.org/library/one-site.tcl?site_id=63; Roest, op.cit. note 6.

8. Damar Harsanto, “Low-Cost Apartments tobe Built, But Only for a Chosen Few,” JakartaPost, 6 January 2005; residents challenging fromHexa Rahmawati and Suryanto, Sanggar Cili-wung, Jakarta, discussions with author, 7–25 July2006; Financial Times Information–Asia Intelli-gence Wire, “Bridges a Hive of Activity for thePoor,” Jakarta Post, 15 April 2006.

9. Azas Tigor Nainggolan, “Jakarta in 2001: NoRoom for the Poor,” Jakarta Post, 11 December2001; Evi Mariani, “City Gears Up to Make MoreJakartans Homeless,” Jakarta Post, 28 November2003; Muninggar Sri Saraswati and AnnastashyaEmmanuelle, “Riverbank Squatters Demand FairCompensation,” Jakarta Post, 5 November 2001;Rahmawati and Suryanto, op. cit. note 8; EviMariani, “Fishermen Challenge Eviction Notice,”Jakarta Post, 13 October 2003.

10. Questioning of government’s sincerity fromSelamet Daroyni, WALHI (Indonesia Forum for

226


Notes, Jakarta, Mumbai, Chapter 7

Environment), Jakarta, discussion with author,25 July 2006; Rahmawati and Suryanto, op. cit.note 8; Kurniawan, op. cit. note 5; Devi Asmarani,“Jakarta Floods Back With a Vengeance,” StraitsTimes, 15 February 2002.

Mumbai: Policing by the People

1. Census of India, 2001, at www.censusindia.net/results/slum/slum2.html.

2. A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Mum-bai, India, discussion with author, 12 August2006.

3. A. Jockin, president, National Slum Dwellers’Federation, Mumbai, India, discussion with author,August 2006.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Roy, op. cit. note 2.

7. Malti Ambre, Mankhurd, India, discussionwith author, 15 August 2006.

8. Ibid.


10. Ibid.; Jockin, op. cit. note 3.


Chapter 7. Charting a New Course forUrban Public Health

1. C. Ofili, Children’s Experiences of Water andHealth in Low Income Urban Settlements—A CaseStudy in Asaba, Nigeria, University of LondonPhD Thesis, London School of Hygiene & Trop-ical Medicine, 2006.

2. Diseases and deficiency in early cities fromMark Nathan Cohen, Health and the Rise of Civ-ilization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1989), pp. 122–23; Richard R. Paine and GlennR. Storey, “Epidemics, Age at Death, and Mortality

in Ancient Rome,” in Glenn R. Storey, ed., Urban-ism in the Preindustrial World: Cross-CulturalApproaches (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of AlabamaPress, 2006), p. 82; life expectancy in Londonfrom Roger Finlay, Population and Metropolis:The Demography of London (Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press, 1981), p.108.

3. Mortality for urban poor from U.S. Agencyfor International Development (USAID), “UrbanHealth and Poverty,” at www.makingcitieswork.org, viewed 22 August 2006; Box 7–1 fromU.N. Population Division, World UrbanizationProspects: The 2003 Revision (New York: 2003), p.5, and from C. McCord and H. P. Freeman,“Excess Mortality in Harlem,” New England Jour-nal of Medicine, 18 January 1990, pp. 173–77.

4. C. Stephens, “Inequalities in Environment,Health and Power—Reflections on Theory andPractice,” in C. Pugh, ed., Urban SustainableDevelopment in Developing Countries (London:Earthscan, 2000), pp. 91–115; AnthonyMcMichael, “The Urban Environment and Healthin a World of Increasing Globalization: Issues forDeveloping Countries,” Bulletin of the WorldHealth Organization, vol. 78, no. 9 (2000), pp.1117–26. Box 7–2 from the following: PedroPirez, “Buenos Aires: Fragmentation and Privati-zation of the Metropolitan City,” Environment &Urbanization, April 2002, pp. 145–58; Centrefor Urban Studies and U.S. National Institute ofPopulation Research and Training, Slums inBangladesh Cities: Mapping and Census 2005(Chapel Hill, NC: USAID, 2005); people livingbetween toxic factory and poisoned lake from J.Seabrook, In the Cities of the South (New York:Verso, 1996).

5. N. Ohenjo et al., “Health of IndigenousPeople in Africa,” The Lancet, 10 June 2006, pp.1937–46; J. Suzman, An Introduction to theRegional Assessment of the San in Southern Africa(Windhoek, Namibia: Legal Assistance Centre,2001).

6. N. Thapar and I. Sanderson, “Diarrhoea inChildren: An Interface between Developing andDeveloped Countries,” The Lancet, 21 February2004, pp. 641–53.

227


7. J. Clauson-Kaas et al., “Urban Health:Human Settlement Indicators of Crowding,”Third World Planning Review, vol. 18, no. 3(1996), pp. 349–63; E. Drucker et al., “ChildhoodTuberculosis in the Bronx, New York,” The Lancet,11 June 1994, pp. 1482–85.

8. S. Ghosh and D. Shah, “Nutritional Prob-lems in Urban Slum Children,” Indian Pediatrics,July 2004, pp. 682–96; J. C. Fotso, “Child HealthInequities in Developing Countries: Differencesacross Urban and Rural Areas,” InternationalJournal for Equity in Health, 11 July 2006.

9. World Health Organization (WHO), Diet,Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases,Report of a Joint WHO/Food and AgricultureOrganization Expert Consultation (Geneva: 2002).

10. WHO, Fuel for Life: Household Energy andHealth (Geneva: 2006).

11. Table 7–1 from J. Hardoy, D. Mitlin, and D.Satterthwaite, Environmental Problems in anUrbanizing World: Finding Solutions for Cities inAfrica, Asia and Latin America (London: Earth-scan, 2001), pp. 89–107; 800,000 deaths from J.Kenworthy and F. Laube, “Urban Transport Pat-terns in a Global Sample of Cities and Their Link-ages to Transport Infrastructures, Land Use,Economics and Environment,” World TransportPolicy & Practice, vol. 8, no. 3 (2002), pp. 5–20.

12. E. Broughton, “The Bhopal Disaster and ItsAftermath: A Review,” Environmental Health, 10May 2005, p. 6.

13. WHO, World Report on Road Traffic InjuryPrevention (Geneva: 2004), p. 3; Hardoy, Mitlin,and Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 11, p. 112; H.Nizamo et al., “Mortality Due to Injuries inMaputo City, Mozambique,” International Jour-nal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, March2006, pp. 1–6; young people’s cause of deathfrom C. Stephens, “The Urban Environment andHealth–A Review of the Evidence.” in S. Atkinson,J. Songsore, and E. Werna, eds., Urban Health inDeveloping Countries (Oxford, Avebury Press,1996), pp. 115–35.

14. Buddha Basnyat and Lalini C. Rajapaksa,“Cardiovascular and Infectious Diseases in SouthAsia: The Double Whammy,” BMJ (British Med-ical Journal), 3 April 2004, p. 781; Figure 7–1from C. Stephens, “What Has Health Got to DoWith It? Using Health to Guide Urban Priority-setting Processes Towards Equity,” in J. Davila etal., eds., Environmental Management in Metro-politan Areas (London: University College Lon-don Press, 1999), pp. 88–95.

15. Letícia Legay Vermelho and Maria Helena P.de Mello Jorge, “Mortalidade de Jovens: Análisedo Período de 1930 a 1991 (a Transição Epi-demiológica para a Violência),” Rev. Saúde Pública,August 1996; C. Stephens, M. Akerman, and P.Borlina-Maia, “Health and Environment in SãoPaulo, Brazil: Methods of Data Linkage and Ques-tions for Policy,” World Health Statistics Quarterly,vol. 48 (1995), pp. 95–107.

16. Edinilsa Ramos de Souza and Maria LuizaCarvalho de Lima, “The Panorama of Urban Vio-lence in Brazil and Its Capitals,” Ciênc. SaúdeColetiva, April/June 2006; L. A. Teplin et al.,“Early Violent Death among Delinquent Youth:A Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Pediatrics,June 2005, pp. 1586–93.

17. De Souza and Carvalho de Lima, op. cit.note 16.

18. E. Krug et al., eds., World Report on Violenceand Health (Geneva: WHO, 2002); NationalResearch Council, Cities Transformed: Demo-graphic Change and Its Implications in the Devel-oping World (Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press, 2003), p. 267.

19. McMichael, op. cit. note 4.

20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Con-tribution of Working Group I to the Third AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (New York: Cambridge University Press,2001); Janet Larsen, “Setting the Record Straight:More than 52,000 Europeans Died from Heat inSummer 2003,” Earth Policy Indicator (Wash-ington, DC: Earth Policy Institute, July 2006);

228

Notes, Chapter 7


Notes, Chapter 7

“Heat Island Effect: Basic Information,” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, at www.epa.gov.

21. Quote from Siddharth Agarwal, Arti Bhanot,and Geetanjali Goindi, “Understanding andAddressing Childhood Immunization Coverage inUrban Slums,” Indian Pediatrics, July 2005, pp.653–63; Jean-Frédéric Levesque et al., “OutpatientCare Utilization in Urban Kerala, India,” HealthPolicy and Planning, July 2006, pp. 289–301.

22. Robert Woods and John Woodward, eds.,Urban Disease and Mortality in Nineteenth-Cen-tury England (London: Batsford Academic andEducational, 1984).

23. M. Daunton, ed., The Cambridge UrbanHistory of Britain, Vol. 3 (Leicester, U.K.: Centrefor Urban History, 2001), p. 632.

24. Lisa C. Smith, Marie T. Ruel, and Aida Ndi-aye, “Why Is Child Malnutrition Lower in UrbanThan in Rural Areas?” IFPRI Discussion PaperBriefs (Washington, DC: International Food Pol-icy Research Institute, 2002); USAID, “UrbanHealth and Poverty,” at www.makingcitieswork.org/, viewed 22 August 2006.

25. National Research Council, op. cit. note 18,p. 263.

26. A. T. Geronimus, J. Bound, and T. A. Waid-mann, “Poverty, Time, and Place: Variation inExcess Mortality across Selected US Populations,1980–1990,” Journal of Epidemiological Com-munity Health, June 1999, pp. 325–34; T. A.Houweling et al., “Rising Under-5 Mortality inAfrica: Who Bears the Brunt?” Tropical Medicineand International Health, August 2006, pp.1218–27.

27. Kolkata from Stephens, op. cit. note 14.

28. Ivo Imparato, Slum Upgrading and Partic-ipation: Lessons from Latin America (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2003), p. 10.

29. Brazil from Marion Gret, “The Emergenceof a New Urban Structure Thanks to the PublicPolicies of Civil Participation,” 2006, Develop-

ment Gateway, at topics.developmentgateway.org/poverty/rc/ItemDetail.do 1059017, viewed 12August 2006; Julio Diaz Palacios and LilianaMiranda Sara, “Concertación (Reaching Agree-ment) and Planning for Sustainable Developmentin Ilo, Peru,” in S. Bass et al., eds., ReducingPoverty and Sustaining the Environment: The Pol-itics of Local Engagement (London: Earthscan,2005), pp. 255–79.

30. Grupo Cultural AfroReggae, Favela Rising,2006, at favelarising.com, viewed 14 August 2006.

31. Alex Roberto et al., Curitiba, CapitalSocial—Social? (Curitiba, Brazil: 2006).

32. Stephens, op. cit. note 14.

33. American Forests, “Setting Urban TreeCanopy Goals,” at www.americanforests.org,viewed 22 August 2006.

34. D. Nowak and D. Crane, “The Urban For-est Effects (UFORE) Model: Quantifying UrbanForest Structure and Functions,” in M. Hansen,ed., Second International Symposium: IntegratedTools for Natural Resources Inventories in the 21stCentury (Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, 2000); Atlanta fromC. Cardelino and W. Chameides, “Natural Hydro-carbons, Urbanization, and Urban Ozone,” Jour-nal of Geophysical Research, August 1990,pp.13,971–79; U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Air Quality Strategy and Stan-dards Division, Incorporating Emerging and Vol-untary Measures in a State Implementation Plan(Washington, DC: 2004).

35. F. Kuo and W. Sullivan, “Environment andCrime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation ReduceCrime?” Environment and Behavior, May 2001,pp. 343–67.

36. Enrique Peñalosa, “High Achievements,”Our Planet (U.N. Environment Programme), vol.16, no. 1 (2005).

37. Charlie Pye-Smith, “Building Green Islandsin Bombay,” peopleandplanet.net, 12 June 2001.

229


Notes, Chapter 7, Nairobi

38. Mardie Townsend, “Feel Blue? Touch Green!Participation in Forest/Woodland Management asa Treatment for Depression,” Urban Forestry &Urban Greening, vol. 5, issue 3 (2006), pp.111–20.

39. Peñalosa, op. cit. note 36.

40. Figure of three quarters from Peñalosa, op.cit. note 36; Michelle Hibler, “Taking Control ofAir Pollution in Mexico City,” Reports (Interna-tional Development Research Centre), 12 August2003; Julia Preston, “The World: Mexico City’sAir; A Fatal Case of Fatalism,” New York Times, 14February 1999.

41. Sheng-Yong Wang et al., “Trends in RoadTraffic Crashes and Associated Injury and Fatalityin the People’s Republic of China, 1951–1999,”Injury Control and Safety Promotion, April 2003,pp. 83–87; WHO, “Road Safety is No Accident,”press release (Geneva: 7 April 2004); Road Traf-fic Injuries Research Network, cited in DetroitFree Press, 24 September 2002.

42. WHO, World Health Report 2002 (Geneva:2002); trips by foot in poorer countries from KenGwilliam, Cities on the Move (Washington, DC:World Bank, 2002), pp. 25–38; EPA, Travel andEnvironmental Implications of School Siting (Wash-ington, DC: 2003).

43. James Sallis and Karen Glanz, “The Role ofBuilt Environments in Physical Activity, Eating, andObesity in Childhood,” The Future of Children,spring 2006, pp. 89–108.

44. John Donne, Divine Meditations XVII(1624), in John Donne, The Complete EnglishPoems (Troy, MI: Phoenix Press, 1994).

Nairobi: Life in Kibera

1. Size from Government of Kenya and U.N.Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS),Nairobi Situation Analysis, Consultative Report onthe Collaborative Nairobi Slum Upgrading Ini-tiative (Nairobi: 2001), Table 9, p. 36; historyfrom John Mbaria, “Kibera and the Politics ofDispossession,” The East African, 15–21 July

2002; Nairobi population from United Nations,World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision(New York: 2003).

2. Number of slums from Government of Kenyaand UNCHS, op. cit. note 1, p. 1; official figuresfor the population of Kibera are notoriously hardto find, although the Government of Kenya andUNCHS report estimated it in 1999 to be377,624—however, a more recent document(Government of Kenya, Kibera-Soweto SlumUpgrading Project, Nairobi, December 2004)states that the population of Kibera is 600,000 andsome nongovernmental organizations have esti-mated the figure to be as high as 900,000; recentsurvey from Government of Kenya and UN-HABITAT, Kibera Social and Economic Mapping.Document RI/4733—Executive Summary Report(Nairobi: 2004–05), pp. 7–9; surveys and socio-economic mapping by Research International aspart of the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme;illegal structures from W. Olima and S. Karirah-Gitau, Land Tenure and Tenancy Concerns andIssues in Kibera, KUESP Preparatory Group Task,Final Report (Washington, DC: World Bank,unpublished); average rents from Government ofKenya and UN-HABITAT, “A Study to ConductKibera Social and Economic Mapping: ExecutiveSummary Report RI/4733” (Nairobi: ResearchInternational 2004/5). Figures based on exchangerate on 7 September 2006 of $1 equals 72.7 Kenyashillings.

3. Share who are tenants from Central Bureauof Statistics, Kenya Demographic and Health Sur-vey 2003 (Nairobi: 2004); apartment rents andunauthorized tenements from Marie Huchzer-meyer, Slum Upgrading Initiatives in Kenya withinthe Basic Services and Wider Housing Market: AHousing Rights Concern, draft discussion paperNo. 1/2006, Kenya Housing Rights Project(Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evic-tions, unpublished); average earnings from Gov-ernment of Kenya and UN-HABITAT, KiberaSocial and Economic Mapping, op. cit. note 2, p.4.

4. Rasna Warah, “Bill Bryson Tour: I Let Kib-era Speak for Itself,” The East African, 20 Decem-ber 2002–5 January 2003. Obwaya interviewed by

230


Notes, Nairobi, Petra, Chapter 8

the author in March 2002.

5. Emily Lugano and Geoff Sayer, “Girls’ Edu-cation in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements,” Links(Oxfam GB), October 2003.

6. The Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme wasinitiated in 2000 through an agreement betweenthe previous government of Kenya (under Presi-dent Moi) and UN-HABITAT. It was renewed inJanuary 2003 with the new National RainbowCoalition government under President Kibaki. Apilot project in the Soweto “village” in Kibera,which houses approximately 60,000 people, waslaunched in October 2004, but actual constructionhas not yet begun. Stalemate from Dauti Kahura,“Sh.880 Billion Housing Dream for the PoorTurns Sour,” The Standard (Nairobi), 14 Novem-ber 2005.

7. Huchzermeyer, op. cit. note 3.

8. UN-HABITAT, State of the World’s CitiesReport 2006/7 (London: Earthscan, 2006).

9. Ibid. The report shows that in many coun-tries, living in a slum is as hazardous to a person’shealth as living in a deprived rural area.

Petra: Managing Tourism

1. “The Mysterious Nabateans,” The Hash-emite Kingdom of Jordan, at www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_nabateans.html.

2. Jordan Department of Statistics, “Housingand Population Census 1979” and “Housing andPopulation Census 1994,” at www.dos.gov.jo;estimated population in 2006 from The HashemiteKingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Tourism andAntiquities, Petra Priority Action Plan Study, PhaseOne Report, Outline Development and Growth Sce-nario Petra Region (Amman: Dar Al Handasah,1996).

3. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, op. cit. note 2.

4. Ibid.; Aysar Akrawi, executive director, PetraNational Trust, Amman, discussion with author,

13 September 2006.

5. Quote from Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,op. cit. note 2, p. 8-2.

6. Akrawi, op. cit. note 4.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Challenge for many cities from UN-HABI-TAT, Our Future: Sustainable Cities—TurningIdeas into Action, Background Paper, World UrbanForum III, Vancouver, Canada, 19–23 June 2006,p. 3.

12. Mohammad Ajlouni, “Dana Nature Reserve:Jordan,” in U.N. Development Programme Spe-cial Unit for SSC, Sharing Innovative Experi-ences—Volume 9: Examples of the SuccessfulConservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Bio-diversity (New York: 2004), pp. 23–28.

Chapter 8. Strengthening Local Economies

1. United Nations Population Division, WorldUrbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, onlinedatabase at esa.un.org/unup, viewed September2006.

2. UN-HABITAT, State of the World’s Cities,2006/7 (London: Earthscan, 2006); InternationalCouncil for Local Environmental Initiatives(ICLEI), Accelerating Sustainable Development:Local Action Moves the World (New York: UnitedNations Economic and Social Council, 2002).

3. Mark Magnier, “Huge Environmental Bat-tle Leaves Legacy of Rage,” Los Angeles Times,reprinted in the Vancouver Sun, 6 September2006; polluted cities from UN-HABITAT, op.cit. note 2.

4. Magnier, op. cit. note 3.

231


Notes, Chapter 8

5. China Daily cited in ibid.

6. UN HABITAT, op. cit. note 2.

7. For Millennium Development Goals, seewww.un.org/millenniumgoals.

8. UN Millennium Project, Investing in Devel-opment: A Practical Plan to Achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (London: Earthscan, 2005);Millennium Villages Project, Annual Report: Mil-lennium Research Villages–First Year July 2004 toJune 2005 (New York: Earth Institute at Colum-bia University, 2005); Earth Institute MillenniumVillages Project, at www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/mvp, viewed 30 September 2006.

9. Lee Scott, Wal-Mart CEO, “Wal-Mart: 21stCentury Leadership,” speech, 24 October 2005;for critics, see Wal-Mart, “Sustainability: Startingthe Journey,” at walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=345.

10. October 2005 announcement from JadMouawad, “The Greener Guys,” New York Times,30 May 2006; Scott, op. cit. note 9; Michael Pol-lan, “Mass Natural,” New York Times Magazine,4 June 2006.

11. Sean Markey et al., Second Growth: Com-munity Economic Development in Rural BritishColumbia (Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press, 2005).

12. Stephan J. Goetz and Hema Swaminathan,Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty, Staff PaperNo. 371 (State College, PA: Department of Agri-cultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn-sylvania State University, 2004); Michael H.Shuman, The Small-Mart Revolution: How LocalBusinesses Are Beating The Global Competition(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006).

13. Shuman, op. cit. note 12.

14. Civic Economics, Economic Impact Analysis:A Case Study: Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers,prepared for Liveable City (Austin, TX: 2002);Goetz and Swaminathan, op. cit. note 12, p. 12.

15. For more detail, see the Web sites of LocalGovernment Commission, Rocky Mountain Insti-tute, and Smart Growth America.

16. Box 8–1 from John Restakis, The EmilianModel—Profile of a Co-operative Economy, BritishColumbia Co-operative Association (Vancouver,BC: undated), and from John Restakis, The Lessonsof Emilia Romagna (Vancouver, BC: BritishColumbia Co-operative Association, 2005).

17. Ian MacPherson, “Into the Twenty-FirstCentury: Co-operatives Yesterday, Today andTomorrow,” in British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies, Sorting Out: A Selection of Papersand Presentations, 1995–2005 (Victoria, BC:2004); quote from Johnston Birchall, Rediscov-ering the Co-operative Advantage: Poverty Reduc-tion through Self-help (Geneva: Co-operativeBranch, International Labour Office, 2003), p. 3;Box 8–2 from International Co-operative Alliance,Statement on the Co-operative Identity, atwww.ica.coop/coop/principles.html, viewed 30September 2006.

18. Julia Smith, Worker Co-operatives: A GlanceAround the World (Victoria, BC: British Colum-bia Institute for Co-operative Studies, 2003).

19. Benjamin Dangl, “Worker-Run Cooperativesin Buenos Aires,” Z Magazine, April 2005; GeoffOlson, “The Take—A Story of Hope,” CommonGround, November 2004.

20. Smith, op. cit. note 18.

21. Birchall, op. cit. note 17; United Nations,“Cooperatives Are Significant Actors in Develop-ment, says Secretary-General,” press release (NewYork: 7 July 2001).

22. For general information on microfinance,see Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, atwww.cgap.org.

23. Microcredit Summit Campaign, atwww.microcreditsummit.org, viewed 16 Septem-ber 2006; Sam Daley-Harris, State of the Micro-credit Summit Campaign Report 2005(Washington, DC: Microcredit Summit Cam-

232


Notes, Chapter 8

paign, 2005).

24. Daley-Harris, op. cit. note 23.

25. International Year of Microcredit 2005,Microfinance and the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (New York: U.N. Capital DevelopmentFund, 2005).

26. Grameen—Banking for the Poor, atwww.grameen-info.org/index.html, viewed 30September 2006.

27. Celia W. Dugger, “Peace Prize to Pioneer ofLoans for Those Too Poor to Borrow,” New YorkTimes, 14 October 2006; Grameen—Banking forthe Poor, op. cit. note 26; Alexandra Bernasek,“Banking on Social Change: Grameen Bank Lend-ing to Women,” International Journal of Politics,Culture and Society, spring 2003, pp. 369–85.

28. International Year of Microcredit 2005, op.cit. note 25; Box 8–3 from Unitus—InnovativeSolutions to Global Poverty at www.unitus.com/sections/impact/impact_css_kenya.asp; Daley-Harris, op. cit. note 23.

29. Bernasek, op. cit. note 27; Rosintan D. M.Panjaitan-Drioadisuryo and Kathleen Cloud,“Gender, Self-employment and Microcredit Pro-grams: An Indonesian Case Study,” The QuarterlyReview of Economics and Finance, vol. 39 (1999),pp. 769–79.

30. World Council of Credit Unions, atwww.woccu.org, viewed 15 October 2006.

31. Information and Box 8–4 from VancouverCity Savings Credit Union, at www.vancity.com/MyCommunity, viewed 30 September 2006.

32. Shorebank Pacific, at www.eco-bank.com,viewed 30 September 2006.

33. Table 8–1 from Fair Trade Labelling Orga-nizations International, at www.fairtrade.net/30.html, viewed 30 September 2006; WilliamYoung and Karla Utting, “Fair Trade, Business andSustainable Development,” Sustainable Develop-ment, vol. 13 (2005), pp. 139–42.

34. Fair Trade Labelling Organizations Interna-tional, op. cit. note 33.

35. TransFair Canada, at www.transfair.ca/en/fairtrade, viewed 30 September 2006; Fair TradeLabelling Organizations International, op. cit.note 33.

36. Box 8–5 from Centre for Development inCentral America, at www.fairtradezone.jhc-cdca.org/story.htm.

37. Business Alliance for Local Living Economies,at www.livingeconomies.org, viewed 14 October2006.

38. Local campaigns from ibid.

39. ICLEI, International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), and United Nations Environ-ment Programme, The Local Agenda 21 PlanningGuide (Toronto and Ottawa, ON: ICLEI andIDRC, 1996); Mark Roseland, Toward SustainableCommunities: Resources for Citizens and TheirGovernments (Gabriola Island, BC: New SocietyPublishers, 2005).

40. Shuman, op. cit. note 12.

41. Zane Parker, “Unravelling the Code: Align-ing Taxes and Community Goals,” Focus onMunicipal Assessment and Taxation, June 2005,pp. 46–47.

42. Mark Roseland, ed., Tax Reform as If Sus-tainability Mattered: Demonstrating EcologicalTax-Shifting in Vancouver’s Sustainability Precinct(Vancouver, BC: Simon Fraser University, 2005).

43. Judy Wicks, Local Living Economies: The NewMovement for Responsible Business (San Francisco:Business Alliance for Local Living Economies,2006).

44. Social Venture Network, Standards of Cor-porate Social Responsibility, 1999, at www.svn.org/initiatives/standards.html, viewed 30 Sep-tember 2006.

45. E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (New

233


Notes, Chapter 8, Brno, Chapter 9

York: Harper & Row, 1973).

46. Markey et al., op. cit. note 11, p. 2.

47. Roseland, op. cit. note 39.

48. All from ibid.

49. Lucy Stevens, Stuart Coupe, and DianaMitlin, eds., Confronting the Crisis in UrbanPoverty: Making Integrated Approaches Work (War-wickshire, UK: Intermediate Technology Publi-cations, 2006); Robert Chambers and GordonConway, “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: PracticalConcepts for the 21st Century,” IDS DiscussionPaper No. 296 (Brighton, U.K.: Institute of Devel-opment Studies, December 1991).

50. Stevens, Coupe, and Mitlin, op. cit. note49.

51. International Labour Office, Global Employ-ment Trends Brief, February 2005.

52. Roseland, op. cit. note 39.

Brno: Brownfield Redevelopment

1. Karel Kuca, BRNO—Vyvoj Mesta, Predmestía Pripojenych Vesnic (Prague-Brno: BASET, 2000);Die Hunderjahrige Geschichte der Erste BrunnerMaschinen-Fabriks-Gesellschaft in Brunn von 1821bis 1921 (Leipzig, Germany: Von Eckert & Pflug);Alstom Power s.r.o., 100 Let Parních Turbín vBrne (2002).

2. Kovoprojekta Brno a.s., Územní GenerelVyroby Mesta Brna—Obecná Analyza (2001–03).

3. Karel Stránsky , “Obnova a rozvoj mesta napríkladu projektu Jizní centrum,” in Brno—MestoUprostred Evropy, proceedings of internationalconference, 2–4 December 1993, pp. 155–60;www.pps.org/info/projects/international_projects/czech_placemaking; “Krok za Krokem,”video about activity of PPS in Czech Republic,Místa v srdci Foundation, Prague, 1996.

4. B.I.R.T. Consulting, s.r.o., Variantní Eko-nomická Studie Vyuzití Areálu Vankovka, Sep-

tember 1996; Ilos Crhonek, PhD, “Areál Stro-jírenského Závodu Vankovka na Zvonarce v Brne—Stavebne Historicky Pruzkum,” 1997; “Minutesfrom the Brno City Parliament session–numberZ3/O19,” 20 June 2000.

5. AQUA PROTEC s.r.o., Environmental Pol-lution Risk Analysis—ZETOR s.p. VANKOVKAComplex (Brno: May 1997).

6. “Program 1994–1999,” at www.vankovka.cz/index.php?lang=cz&page=9&program=1.

7. Milena Flodrová and Libor Teply, PromenyVankovky—The Changing Faces of Vankovka (Brno:FOTEP, 2005).

8. Jirina Bergatt Jackson and Collective, Brown-fields Snadno a Lehce (Prague: Institut proUdrzitelny Rozvoj Sídel, 2004).

Chapter 9. Fighting Poverty andEnvironmental Injustice in Cities

1. Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, trans. WilliamWeaver (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 1974); differenttypes of inequality between countries in WorldBank, World Development Report 2006 (Washing-ton, DC: Oxford University Press and World Bank,2006).

2. Urban population in slums in developingcountries from UN-HABITAT, State of the World’sCities 2006/7 (London: Earthscan, 2006), pp.16, 111; Mumbai and Nairobi from Gora Mboup,senior demographic and health expert, UN-HABI-TAT, Nairobi, e-mail to Molly Sheehan, 5 Octo-ber 2006; Zuenir Ventura, Cidade Partida (SãoPaulo, Brazil: Companhia das Letras, 1994).

3. Janice E. Perlman, “Marginality: From Mythto Reality in the Favelas in Rio de Janeiro1969–2002,” in Ananya Roy and NezarAlSayyad, eds., Urban Informality: Transna-tional Perspectives from the Middle East, LatinAmerica, and South Asia (Lanham, MD: Lexing-ton Books, 2004).

4. Glenn H. Beyer, ed., The Urban Explosion inLatin America: A Continent in Process of Mod-

234


Notes, Chapter 9

ernization (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1967); Peter Wilsher and Rosemary Righter, TheExploding Cities (London: A Deutsch, 1975);Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (London:MacGibbon and Kee, 1965); John F. C. Turner,Uncontrolled Urban Settlement: Problems and Poli-cies (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press,1966); squatters’ interest in better opportunitiesfor children from Janice Perlman, The Myth ofMarginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Riode Janeiro (Berkeley: University of California Press,1976), and from Joan M. Nelson, Access to Power:Politics and The Urban Poor in Developing Nations(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979).

5. For Millennium Development Goals, seewww.un.org/millenniumgoals; United NationsPopulation Division, World Urbanization Prospects:The 2005 Revision (New York: 2005).

6. Janice Perlman, “Re-Democratization inBrazil: A View from Below, The Experience of Riode Janeiro’s Favelados 1968–2005,” in Peter King-stone and Timothy Power, eds., Democratic BrazilRevisited (Pittsburgh, PA: University of PittsburghPress, forthcoming); Kenya’s tax on bicycles fromVNG uitgeverij, The Economic Significance ofCycling: A Study to Illustrate the Costs and Bene-fits of Cycling Policy (The Hague: 2000), and fromJeffrey Maganya, Intermediate Technology Devel-opment Group, Nairobi, Kenya, discussion withMolly Sheehan, 8 May 2001.

7. Daniel Kaufmann, Frannie Léautier, andMassimo Mastruzzi, “Globalization and UrbanPerformance,” in Frannie Léautier, ed., Cities ina Globalizing World: Governance, Performance &Sustainability (Washington, DC: World Bank Insti-tute, 2006), pp. 38–49; Robert Klitgaard, RonaldMacLean-Abaroa, and H. Lindsey Parris, Cor-rupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Pre-vention (Oakland, CA: Institute for ContemporaryStudies, 2000), p. 32.

8. Perlman, op. cit. note 6; T. Abed and SanjeevGupta, eds., Governance, Corruption, and Eco-nomic Performance (Washington, DC: Interna-tional Monetary Fund (IMF), 2002); Vito Tanziand Hamid Davoodi, Corruption, Public Invest-ment and Growth, Working Paper 97/139 (Wash-

ington, DC: IMF, 1997); Sanjeev Gupta, HamidDavoodi, and Rosa Alonso-Terme, Does Corrup-tion Affect Income Inequality and Poverty? Work-ing Paper 98/76 (Washington, DC: IMF, 1998);Ratih Hardjono and Stefanie Teggeman, eds., ThePoor Speak Up: 17 Stories of Corruption (Jakarta:Partnership for Governance Reform, 2002).

9. UN-HABITAT, The State of the World’s Cities2004/2005 (London: Earthscan, 2004), pp.134–57.

10. Box 9–1 from the following: results of theoriginal study from Perlman, op. cit. note 4; recentstudy from Janice Perlman, “The Chronic Poor inRio de Janeiro: What has Changed in 30 Years?”in Marco Keiner et al., eds., Manging UrbanFutures: Sustainability and Urban Growth in Devel-oping Countries (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005),pp. 165–85 (41 percent of the original study par-ticipants, or 307 of the original 750, were found;the 307 original interviewees were interviewed,along with a random sample of their children(367) and grandchildren (208)); Ignacio Canoet al., O Impacto da Violência no Rio de Janeiro,Working Paper (Rio de Janeiro: Universidade doEstado do Rio de Janeiro, 2004); levels of violencefrom Luke Dowdney, Children of the Drug Trade(Rio de Janeiro: Viveiros de Castro Editoria,2003); police provoking violence from “Law-Enforcers on the Rampage; Brazil’s Trigger-HappyPolice,” The Economist, 9 April 2005.

11. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 9, pp. 134–57;François Bourguignon, “Crime, Violence, andInequitable Development,” paper prepared forthe Annual World Bank Conference on Develop-ment Economics, Washington, DC, 28–30 April1999.

12. For traditional views of environmentalistsand development specialists, see Eugene P. Odum,Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia:Saunders, 1971), and Michael Lipton, Why PoorPeople Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development(London: Temple Smith, 1977); Janice Perlmanand Bruce Schearer, “Migration and PopulationDistribution Trends and Policies and the UrbanFuture,” International Conference on Populationand the Urban Future, U.N. Fund for Population

235


Notes, Chapter 9

Activities, Barcelona, Spain, May 1986.

13. Perlman and Schearer, op. cit. note 12.

14. Ibid.

15. United Nations Population Division, WorldPopulation Policies 2005, at www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2005/Publication_index.htm.

16. United Nations High Commissioner forHuman Rights, “Statement by Mr. MiloonKothari, Special Rapporteur on adequate housingas a component of the right to an adequate stan-dard of living, to the World Urban Forum III,”Vancouver, 20 June 2006.

17. Martin Ravallion, On the Urbanization ofPoverty, Development Research Group WorkingPaper (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001);urban estimate comes from Michael Cohen,“Reframing Urban Assistance: Scale, Ambition,and Possibility,” Urban Update, ComparativeUrban Studies Brief, Woodrow Wilson Interna-tional Center for Scholars, No. 5, February 2004,p. 1; total assistance from OECD/DAC figures inWorldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Global Trends,CD-ROM, July 2005; lack of urban housing pro-grams from Daniel S. Coleman and Michael F.Shea, “Assessment of Bilateral and MultilateralDevelopment Assistance and Housing Assistancein Latin America, Asia, Africa and the MiddleEast,” Interim Working Draft for the Interna-tional Housing Coalition, 3 May 2006.

18. Aid from OECD/DAC, and private capitalfrom UNCTAD, both in Worldwatch Institute, op.cit. note 17.

19. David Satterthwaite, “Reducing UrbanPoverty: Constraints on the Effectiveness of AidAgencies and Development Banks and Some Sug-gestions for Change,” Environment and Urban-ization, April 2001, pp. 137–57.

20. Urban area expenditures from Frannie Léau-tier, World Bank Institute, e-mail to Molly Shee-han, July 2006; urban dimension missing fromDiana Mitlin, Understanding Urban Poverty: What

the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers Tell Us (Lon-don: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED), 2004).

21. William Alonso, “The Economics of UrbanSize,” Papers in Regional Science, December 1971,pp. 66–83; Rémy Prud’homme, “Anti-UrbanBiases in the LDCs,” Megacities InternationalConference, New York University, 1988; RémyPrud’homme, “Managing Megacities,” Le courrierdu CNRS, No. 82, 1996, pp. 174–76.

22. Alfredo Sirkis, Director of Urbanism, Riode Janeiro, discussion with Janice Perlman, 25August 2005.

23. Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 19, p. 140.

24. Alan Altshuler and Marc Zegans, “Innovationand Creativity: Comparisons between Public Man-agement and Private Enterprise,” Cities, February1990, pp. 16–24.

25. UN-HABITAT, Global Urban Observatory,at hq/unhabitat.org/programmes/guo.

26. Information in this section on new federa-tions of the urban poor provided by David Sat-terthwaite of IIED, 9 September 2006. See alsoDavid Satterthwaite, “Meeting the MDGs inUrban Areas: The Forgotten Role of Local Orga-nizations,” Journal of International Affairs, March2005, pp. 87–113; Sheela Patel, Sundar Burra, andCeline D’Cruz, “Slum/Shack Dwellers Interna-tional (SDI)–Foundations to Treetops,” Envi-ronment and Urbanization, October 2001, pp.45–59; and www.sdinet.org.

27. Sheela Patel, “Partnerships with the UrbanPoor: The Indian Experience,” UN Chronicle,March-May 2001, pp. 47–49.

28. See Robert Neuwirth, “Bricks, Mortar andMobilization,” Ford Foundation Report, spring-summer 2005, pp. 13–18.

29. Patel, Burra, and D’Cruz, op. cit. note 26.

30. Ibid.

236


Notes, Chapter 9

31. Solly Angel and Somsook Boonyabancha,“Land Sharing as an Alternative to Eviction,”Third World Planning Review, vol. 10, no. 2(1988).

32. Teena Amrit Gill, “Slum Communities Claima Stake in Their Community’s Future,” AshokaChangemakers Journal, January 2002; SomsookBoonyabancha, A Decade of Change: From theUrban Community Development Office (UCDO)to the Community Organizations DevelopmentInstitute (CODI) in Thailand: Increasing Com-munity Options through a National GovernmentDevelopment Programme, Working Paper 12 onPoverty Reduction in Urban Areas (London:IIED, 2003).

33. Somsook Boonyabancha, “Baan Mankong:Going to Scale with Slum and Squatter Upgrad-ing,” Environment and Urbanization, April 2005;Satterthwaite, “Meeting the MDGs in UrbanAreas,” op. cit. note 26.

34. UN-HABITAT, op. cit. note 2.

35. Yves Cabannes, “Participatory Budgeting:A Significant Contribution to ParticipatoryDemocracy,” Environment and Urbanization,April 2004, pp. 27–46.

36. Celina Souza, “Participatory Budgeting inBrazilian Cities: Limits and Possibilities in Build-ing Democratic Institutions,” Environment andUrbanization, April 2001, pp. 159–84; seeRebecca Abers, Inventing Local Democracy: Grass-roots Politics in Brazil (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rien-ner Publishers, 2000) for a description of the“negotiated solidarity” that emerged from thisprocess. Box 9–2 is based on Yves Cabannes, “LesBudgets Participatifs en Amérique Latine. DePorto Alegre à l’Amérique Centrale, en Passant parla Zone Andine: Tendances, Défis et Limites,”Mouvements, September-December 2006 (withthanks to Alexandra Celestin for editing the Eng-lish version).

37. Mona Serageldin et al., “Assessment of Par-ticipatory Budgeting in Brazil,” prepared for theInterAmerican Development Bank, 2002.

38. Yves Cabannes, University College London,e-mail to Molly Sheehan, 11 September 2006.

39. Chase Bank and Roper Starch, Global Lead-ers Survey (New York: 1997).

40. Mega-Cities Project, at www.megacitiesproject.org.

41. Rachel Leven, “The Pharaoh’s Garbage:Growth and Change in Egypt’s Waste Manage-ment System,” Tufts University NIMEP InsightsVolume II, spring 2006; Wendy Walker, The TorahZabbaleen: From Tin Shacks to High Rises (Cairo:Association for the Protection of the Environ-ment, 2005).

42. Eugenio M. Gonzales, From Wastes to Assets:The Scavengers of Payatas, International Conferenceon Natural Assets Conference Paper Series No. 7,December 2003; Asian Development Bank, TheGarbage Book: Solid Waste Management (Manila:2004); Ronnie E. Calumpita, “Corruption Hin-ders Waste Management,” Manila Times, 24August 2004.

43. Wael Salah Fahmi, “The Impact of Privati-zation of Solid Waste Management on the Zab-baleen Garbage Collectors of Cairo,” Environmentand Urbanization, October 2005, pp. 155–70;Jack Epstein, “From Cairo’s Trash, A Model ofRecycling/Old Door-to-door Method Boasts 85Percent Reuse Rate,” San Francisco Chronicle, 3June 2006; Mona Serageldin, Harvard University,discussion with Molly Sheehan, July 2006.

44. Marlene Fernandes, Reforestation in Rio’sFavelas, Environmental Justice, Mega-Cities Pro-ject, 1998.

45. Inter-American Development Bank, TheSocio-Economic Impact of Favela-Bairro: What dothe Data Say? Working Paper (Washington, DC:2005); Jorge Fiori, Liz Riley, and Ronald Ramirez,“Urban Poverty Alleviation Through Environ-mental Upgrading in Rio de Janeiro: FavelaBairro,” draft research report, Development Plan-ning Unit, University College London, March2005; Metropolis, Metropolis 2005 Standing Com-mission Report (Barcelona: 2005); numbers in

237


Notes, Chapter 9

2006 from John Fiori, director, housing andurbanism program, Architectural Association Grad-uate School, London, e-mail to Kenro Kawarazaki,Worldwatch Institute, 6 August 2006.

46. Sonia Rocha, Workfare Programmes in Brazil:An Evaluation of Their Performance (Geneva:International Labour Office, 2001); KristaLillemets, Exploring Participation: Waste Man-agement Cases in Two Favelas of Rio de Janeiro, the-sis submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements of the Degree of Master of Scienceat Lund University, Lund, Sweden, November2003.

47. Hugh Schwartz, Urban Renewal, MunicipalRevitalization: The Case of Curitiba, Brazil (FallsChurch, VA: Higher Education Publications, Inc.,2006); Robert Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: AGlobal Inquiry (Washington, DC: Island Press,1998), pp. 265–96.

48. Michael Specter, “Environmental Rules, HowThey Dictate Region’s Agenda,” New York Times,25 November 1991.

49. Dennis Hevesi, “Test Runs for FuturisticBus-Tube System,” New York Times, 21 April1992.

50. For good evaluations, see Michael Eng, “AGreat New Ride,” Newsday, 10 June 1992; con-straints from Molly Sheehan’s interviews with AlAppleton, former Commissioner of Environmen-tal Protection, New York City, with Gene Rus-sianoff, New York Public Interest Research Group,and with Robert Newhouser, New York City Tran-sit, all in October 2006.

51. Thomas J. Lueck, “A Plan That Means to PutMore Rapid in the City’s Transit,” New YorkTimes, 8 June 2006; Robert Paaswell, AlbertAppleton, and Todd Goldman, Next Stop, BusRapid Transit: Accelerating New York’s Bus Systeminto A New Century (New York: Institute forUrban Systems, City University of New York,2004).

52. World Bank, Assessing Aid (Washington, DC:1998); World Bank, The Role and Effectiveness of

Development Assistance (Washington, DC: 2002);Paul Wolfowitz, President, World Bank Group,Address to Board of Governors of the World BankGroup, Singapore, 19 September 2006.

53. Klitgaard, MacLean-Abaroa, and Parris, op.cit. note 7; Winthrop Carty, Ash Institute forDemocratic Governance and Innovation, KennedySchool of Government, Harvard University, “Cit-izen’s Charters: A Comparative Global Survey,”translation from Spanish of Cartas Compromiso:Experiencias Internacionales, presented at thelaunch of the Mexican Citizen’s Charter Initiative,June 2004.

54. Philip Amis, “Municipal Government, UrbanEconomic Growth, and Poverty Reduction—Iden-tifying the Transmission Mechanisms BetweenGrowth and Poverty,” in Carole Rakodi with TonyLloyd-Jones, eds., Urban Livelihoods: A People-Centered Approach to Reducing Poverty (London:Earthscan, 2002), pp. 97–111; Perlman, op. cit.note 10; Janice Perlman, “Violence as a MajorSource of Vulnerability in Rio de Janeiro’s Fave-las,” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Man-agement, winter 2005.

55. A. Zaidi, “Assessing the Impact of a Micro-finance Programme: Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi,Pakistan,” in S. Coupe, L. Stevens, and D. Mitlin,eds., Confronting the Crisis in Urban Poverty:Making Integrated Approaches Work (Rugby, U.K.:Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd., 2006),pp. 171–88; Franck Daphnis and Bruce Fergus,eds., Housing Microfinance: A Guide to Practice(Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc, 2004).

56. C. K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom ofthe Pyramid (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,2006); David L. Painter, TCG International, incollaboration with Regina Campa Sole and Lau-ren Moser, ShoreBank International, “Scaling UpSlum Improvement: Engaging Slum Dwellers andthe Private Sector to Finance a Better Future,”paper presented at the World Urban Forum, Van-couver, June 2006.

57. UN Millennium Project Task Force onImproving the Lives of Slum Dwellers, A Home inthe City (London: Earthscan, 2005), pp. 55–56;

238


Notes, Chapter 9

Jane Tournée and Wilma van Esch, CommunityContracts in Urban Infrastructure Works (Geneva:International Labour Organization, 2001).

58. Bénédicte de la Brière and Laura B. Rawlings,Examining Conditional Cash Transfer Programs:A Role for Increased Social Inclusion, Social Pro-tection Discussion Paper No. 06083 (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2006); SYDGM and WorldBank, the 3rd Internatioanl Conference on Con-ditional Cash Transfer, Istanbul, June 2006, atinfo.worldbank.org/etools/icct06/welcome.asp;James Traub, “Pay for Good Behavior?” NewYork Times Magazine, 8 October 2006, pp. 15–16.

59. Janice Perlman, “Megacities and InnovativeTechnologies,” Cities, May 1987, pp. 128–36;William McDonough, “China as a Green Lab,” inHoward Gardner et al., “The HBR List: Break-through Ideas for 2006,” Harvard BusinessReview, February 2006, p. 35; Mara Hvistendahl,“Green Dawn: In China, Sustainable Cities Rise byFiat,” Harpers, February 2006, pp. 52–54; Box9–3 from Annie Sugrue, EcoCity Trust, Johan-nesburg, August 2006.

60. Box 9–4 from Jorge Wilheim, São Paulo,Brazil, September 2006.

61. Leonie Sandercock, Cosmopolis II : MongrelCities in the 21st Century (London: Continuum,2003).

62. Small Arm Survey, at www.smallarmssurvey.org; International Action Network on SmallArms, Reviewing Action on Small Arms (London:2006), pp. 17–22.

63. Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 19, pp. 146, 148;Göran Tannerfeldt and Per Ljung, SIDA, MoreUrban, Less Poor: An Introduction to Urban Devel-opment and Management (London: Earthscan,2006); Esquel Foundation, at www.synergos.org/latinamerica/ecuador.htm.

64. William Easterly, The White Man’s Burden:Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have DoneSo Much Ill and So Little Good (New York: PenguinPress, 2006), p. 378.

65. Urban Sustainability Initiative, at bie.berkeley.edu/usi.

66. UN Millennium Project Task Force, op. cit.note 57, p. 101; Yves Cabannes, “Children andYoung People Build Participatory Democracy inLatin American Cities,” Environment and Urban-ization, April 2006, pp. 195–218; SheridanBartlett, “Integrating Children’s Rights intoMunicipal Action: A Review of Progress andLessons Learned,” Children, Youth, and Envi-ronments, vol. 15, no. 2 (2005), pp. 18–40.

67. “YA! Youth Activism,” NACLA Report on theAmericas, May/June 2004, p. 48.

68. Rose Molokoane, presentation at Future ofthe Cities panel, World Urban Forum, Vancouver,23 June 2006.

69. Watson quoted in Ernie Stringer, ActionResearch (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,1999).

239


Accord 21 Building (China), 95Accra (Ghana), 16, 48–49, 54, 124Affro-Reggae (Brazil), 190Africa

circular technologies, 186electrical needs, 93–96, 102HIV/AIDS, 5infectious disease, 139, 142infrastructure collapse, 46–47pollution, 138population growth, 4, 7–8urban farming, 51, 64–65urban growth, 8–9, 16, 46water needs, 16, 27, 39see also specific countries

Agarwal, Anil, 74Agni (India), 122agriculture, 48–63

aquaculture, 51, 55–56bourgou, 22–23garden cities, 3, 59–63, 144honey bees, 57–58livestock, 22–23, 56–59see also urban farming

air pollution, 74, 93, 124, 137–39, 144–45Akrawi, Aysar, 151Alcantâra, Adilson, 82Altshuler, Alan, 178Alvarado, Jorge Muños, 24Ambre, Malti, 132–33American Insurance Group, Inc., 119American Public Transportation

Association, 79Amsterdam (Netherlands), 68, 95Angel, Shlomo, 11Annan, Kofi, 159aquaculture, 51, 55–56

ArgentinaBuenos Aires, 38, 136, 158co-ops, 158recycling, 57Rosario, 60–62urban farming, 60–62water needs, 38

Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (SierraLeone), 64–65

ASCOBIKE (Association of Bicycle Riders), 82Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, 179Asian Development Bank, 20, 177Atlanta (United States), 68–71, 84–85, 144Australia

carbon emissions, 74, 88–89green transportation, 66–71, 83Melbourne, 20, 88–89, 103Perth, 66–68, 84–85renewable energy, 88, 100, 103Sydney, 69, 83, 100

automobilesair pollution, 145, 184Greenfleet, 89land use, 69–77traffic deaths, 139–40, 145see also carbon emissions

Badan Kredit Kecamatan (Indonesia), 160Bai, Xuemei, 108–09Banda Aceh (Indonesia), 116, 118, 122Bangkok (Thailand), 50–51, 59, 68–70, 79, 179Bangladesh

Dhaka, 117, 136floods, 117, 120Grameen Bank, 125, 159–61, 169livestock production, 57population growth, 9

Index

241

Bangladesh (continued)sea level rise, 120social inequity, 136

Barcelona (Spain), 100–01Beatley, Timothy, 19bees, 57–58Beijing (China), 41, 48–49, 100, 103, 129, 145Bell, Beverly, 122–23Bellows, Anne, 53Benjamin, Charles, 22–23Berkshire Hathaway, 119Bhopal (India), 139Bhuj (India), 125–26bicycles, 67–68, 78–82, 146, 174biofuel, 19, 97–98biomass, 40, 93, 98, 138Bloomberg, Michael, 184Bocoum, Aly, 22–23Bogotá (Colombia), 80–81, 145Boonyabancha, Somsook, 179Boston (United States), 52, 92, 99, 120Botswana, 136bourgou, 22–23Brazil

Affro-Reggae, 190conditional cash transfer program, 186Curitiba, 80–81, 143, 183–84Favela Limpa, 183green transportation, 80–81, 84, 183participatory budgeting, 180–81reforestation project, 183Rio de Janeiro, 140, 143, 175, 183São Paulo, 80, 82, 140, 184, 187urban development, 141, 143, 177, 187urban violence, 140, 143, 174–75water management, 33, 43

Britton, Eric, 72Brno (Czech Republic), 170–71Buenos Aires (Argentina), 38, 136, 158Burwell, David, 76Business Alliance for Local Living Economies,

164bus rapid transit, 76, 78–81, 184Buy Local Philly campaign, 164Buy Local, Support Yourself (Vancouver), 164

Cabannes, Yves, 180Cairo (Egypt), 52, 182–83Calatrava, Santiago, 110Calthorpe, Peter, 85

Cambodia, 20, 55Canada

credit unions, 161–62green development, 76, 78, 164local tax shifting, 165Toronto, 53, 99urban farming, 48–49, 58Vancouver, 48–49, 58, 78, 161–62, 164

Cape Town (South Africa), 102carbon emissions

automobiles, 145, 184global sources, 92, 119, 134reduction methods, 88–89, 92, 110, 155–56taxes, 165

Casey Trees Foundation (United States), 120Castillo, Dr. José Bolívar, 24Cebu (Philippines), 33CEMEX (Mexico), 186Ceneviva, Laura, 82Center for Research on the Epidemiology of

Disasters, 113Center for Transit-Oriented Development

(United States), 83Centre for Science and Environment (India), 74Chicago Carbon Exchange, 89, 102Chicago (United States), 101, 105, 120, 140, 144China

Accord 21 Building, 95automobile use, 71, 75, 145Beijing, 41, 48–49, 100, 103, 129, 145bicycles, 81biofuel use, 186coal use, 93Dongtan, 3–4, 99, 106earthquake monitoring network, 117, 126economic development, 9, 20, 153–54eco-sanitation, 34energy consumption, 91, 93–94, 103environmental instability, 153–54flood control, 123green architecture, 3–4, 95–96Huashui, 153–54Kunming, 34pollution, 9, 12, 93, 138, 153population growth, 5Rizhao, 108–09Shanghai, 68–69, 93, 126solar power, 97, 108–09State Environmental Protection Agency, 109sustainable development, 3–4, 34, 106

242

Index


urban farming, 48–49urban growth, 9, 93

circular urban metabolism, 18–20, 98, 173, 186Cities Alliance, 173Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, 88, 103Cities Transformed, 11CITYNET, 122Clean Development Mechanism, 102climate change, 88–93, 100–06, 119–21, 140

greenhouse gases, 98, 102–06heat island effect, 94–95, 117, 140, 144heat waves, 101, 117, 119, 140sea level rise, 115, 119–20tropical storms, 55, 116, 119, 122–27, 164

Clinton, Bill, 105Clinton Climate Initiative, 89, 120–21coal, 92–93, 104, 138Cofie, Olufunke, 64–65Coker, Olumuyiwa, 47Colombia, 80–81, 123, 145, 181ComEd (United States), 101community economic development, 167–69Community Organizations Development

Institute (Thailand), 180, 188composting, 20, 57–58compressed natural gas, 74Condé Nast, 19Connecticut Food Policy Council, 62construction industry, 22, 86, 92co-ops, 52, 157–59, 163–64Copenhagen (Denmark), 68, 81–82, 103Corporate Network for Disaster Response

(Philippines), 119corporate social responsibility, 89, 166corruption, 131, 168, 174, 185Crauderueff, Rob, 24–26credit unions, 160–61crime, 140, 143–44, 174–75, 188Cuba, 52, 55, 127, 176Cueva, Marlon, 25Cuff, Dana, 86–87Curitiba (Brazil), 80–81, 143, 183–84Czech Republic, 170–71

Daegu (South Korea), 101–02Daley, Richard, 120Dana Nature Reserve (Jordan), 151Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), 51, 57, 61, 63Darrundono, Haryatiningsih, 183D’Cunha, Gerson, 122

Delanoë, Bertrand, 79Delhi (India), 74, 116Democratic Republic of Congo, 117, 126Demos Institute (United Kingdom), 77Denmark, 19, 68, 81–82, 103Denver (United States), 77–78Devi, Gayathri, 56Dhaka (Bangladesh), 117, 136Dilley, Maxx, 127disasters, see natural disastersdisease, see healthdistributed generation, 96–100Dominican Republic, 123–24Dongtan (China), 3–4, 99, 106Drechsel, Pay, 54

Earth Institute (United States), 155Earth Pledge, 62earthquakes, 76, 112–18, 122–27Easterly, William, 188EcoCity (South Africa), 186ecological footprint, 15, 90, 155ecology

green architecture, 88–95, 101, 110–11, 189nature’s health effects, 6, 21, 24–25, 145, 158see also sustainable development

economy, 152–69community-based finance, 159–62community economic development, 167–69conditional cash transfer program, 186cooperatives, 158–59, 163credit unions, 160–61economic demand management, 167economic leakage, 156economies of scale, 16, 32, 91, 173fair trade movement, 162–64, 166global economy, 154–57industrialization, 5–6, 90, 135insurance industry, 115, 119, 124–26jobs, 52–53, 100, 141–42, 185–86local economies, 152–69participatory budgeting, 180–81socioeconomic impact, 125

Ecuador, 24–26, 188Egeland, Jan, 127Egypt, 52, 120, 182–83El Salvador, 55, 122, 124Emilia Romagna (Italy), 157, 169energy, 90–107

demand reduction, 93–96

243

Index


energy (continued)distributed generation, 96–100environmental impact, 92fuel cells, 19, 94, 97green architecture, 88–95, 101, 110–11, 189local production, 96–100, 106needs, 91–93pioneering cities, 100–03policy change, 103–07see also fossil fuels; renewable energy

England, 58, 75–76, 122, 141environmental injustice, 172–90E.ON Sweden, 110European Housing Exhibition, 110

Fairtrade Labelling OrganizationsInternational, 163

fair trade movement, 162–64, 166Federation of the Urban Poor (South Africa),

179, 190Firas, Dana, 150–51fish farming, 51, 55–56flooding, 23, 116–23, 130–31, 183Food Policy Institute (United States), 53Food Trust Supermarket Campaign, 61fossil fuels

climate change effects, 93, 163coal, 92–93, 104, 138costs, 104, 157natural gas, 74, 94, 97–98, 107oil, 66–67, 72–74, 164use reduction, 14, 104, 164

France, 78–79Free Congress Foundation (United States), 83Freetown (Sierra Leone), 55, 64–65Friends of the Railway (Australia), 66–67fuel cells, 19, 94, 97

Garden cities, 3, 59–63, 144Gehl, Jan, 77geographic information systems, 11, 20, 61geothermal energy, 98Germany, 55, 100, 103Ghana, 16, 48–49, 54, 124, 139Ghelco Ice Cream Factory (Argentina), 158Girardet, Herbert, 18Glendening, Parris, 81Global Leaders Survey, 181Global Urban Observatory, 11, 178global warming, see climate change

Goma (Democratic Republic of Congo), 117, 126Grameen Bank (Bangladesh), 125, 159–61, 169Green Alert, 184green architecture, 88–95, 101, 110–11, 189Greenfleet, 89greenhouse gases, 98, 102–06GreenHouse People (South Africa), 186green roofs, 62, 95–97, 101GreenSaver program (Australia), 88Green Star rating, 88Greger, Michael, 57Guadalajara (Mexico), 185–86

Hagen, Jonas, 82Haiti, 122–23Hammarby Sjöstad, 19Hanoi (Viet Nam), 51–52, 56, 60Harris, Jeremy, 20Hartford Food System, 62Hausker, Karl, 20Havana (Cuba), 52health, 134–47

data collection, 135HIV/AIDS, 5, 136, 161holistic future, 146–47improvements, 141–46infectious disease, 137, 139, 141nature’s effect, 144, 156obesity, 146traffic deaths, 139–40, 145urban challenges, 135–41

heat island effect, 94–95, 117, 140, 144heat pumps, 88, 98, 110heat waves, 101, 117, 119, 140Hewlett Foundation (United States), 94HIV/AIDS, 5, 136, 161honey bees, 57–58Hook, Walter, 80–81Houston (United States), 16, 93, 95, 119,

126–27Howard, Ebenezer, 59, 64Huashui (China), 153–54Humane Society (United States), 57hurricanes, 55, 116, 119, 122–27, 164Hyderabad (India), 56, 81Hyogo Framework, 128

IBM, 19ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability,

88, 103

244

Index


Ignacio, Me’An, 182Ilo (Peru), 142–44India

air pollution, 74All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, 126Bhopal, 139Bhuj, 125–26block toilets, 36–37Delhi, 74, 116democracy, 5disease, 139, 141–42earthquakes, 117, 125–26energy use, 91green transportation, 74Hyderabad, 56, 81infectious disease, 139, 141–42Kolkata, 56, 139, 142–43local policing programs, 132–33microinsurance plans, 125–26Mumbai, 37, 44, 79, 121–22, 132–33, 145National Slum Dwellers’ Federation, 37,

132–33, 178New Delhi, 92–93panchayats, 132–33population growth, 9poverty, 139, 142, 172Pune, 37, 44, 132tropical storms, 116urban farming, 55–56, 64urban growth, 36, 44, 56

IndonesiaBadan Kredit Kecamatan, 160Banda Aceh, 116, 118, 122corruption, 174green transportation, 81Jakarta, 38–41, 80–81, 130–31, 183river management, 130–31Surubaya, 81

industrialization, 5–6, 90, 135Institute for Simplified Hydroponics

(Mexico), 62Institute of Sustainability and Technology

Policy (Australia), 67insurance industry, 115, 119, 124–26InterAmerican Development Bank, 180Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 5International Awards for Livable Communities’

Nations in Blooms, 25International Charter on Space and Major

Disasters, 126

International Demographic and Health Survey, 11

International Development Association, 47International Development Cooperation

Agency, 188International Development Research Centre, 189Internationale Nederlanden Bank, 95International Energy Agency, 79, 93, 97International Institute for Environment and

Development, 10, 176, 189International Labour Organization, 22,

157–58, 168International Monetary Fund, 154International Network of Resource Centers for

Urban Agriculture and Food Security, 65International Solar Cities Initiative, 103International Strategy for Disaster Reduction,

128International Union of Public Transport, 67International Water Management Institute,

54, 56Investa Property Group, 89Italy, 120, 157

Jakarta (Indonesia), 38–41, 80–81, 130–31, 183Jamii Bora, 161Jaramillo, Wilson, 24jobs, 52–53, 100, 141–42, 185–86Jockin, A., 132–33, 178–79Johannesburg (South Africa), 96, 186Jordan, 150–51Josaphat, Lovly, 122–23

Kalundborg (Denmark), 19Kampala (Uganda), 40Kampung Improvement Program (Indonesia),

81, 131, 183Karachi (Pakistan), 18, 34–36Kenya, 59, 148–49, 174Khartoum (Sudan), 123Kibera (Kenya), 148–49Kildsgaard, Ivana, 110–11Kisumu (Kenya), 59Kolkata (India), 56, 139, 142–43Konaté, Aly Bacha, 22–23Koolhaas, Rem, 46Koppel, Ted, 127Kothari, Miloon, 176Kumasi (Ghana), 54, 139Kung, Stephanie, 92

245

Index


Kunming (China), 34Kuznets, Simon, 13Kyoto Protocol, 102, 121Kyungpook National University, 102

Lagos (Nigeria), 46–47Lagrotech Consultants (Kenya), 59Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, 89Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (United States),

119Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design (United States), 101Leggett, Jeremy, 74Lerner, Jaime, xx-xxii, 80, 183light-emitting diodes, 94, 96Lima (Peru), 56livestock, 22–23, 56–59Livingstone, Ken, 75Li Zhaoqian, 108–09Local Exchange Trading Systems, 167Loja (Ecuador), 24–26London (England), 58, 75–76, 122, 141Los Angeles (United States), 55, 86–87

MacLean-Abaroa, Ronald, 174Maggie’s Organics (United States), 164Mahila Milan (India), 37, 132–33, 179Mali, 22–23, 57Malmö (Sweden), 98–99, 110–11Manila (Philippines), 73, 182Marchetti, Cesare, 71Masonganye, Clara, 186Matovu, George, 63Mayors’ Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit, 20McDonough, William, 186Medellin (Colombia), 123, 181Mega-Cities Project, 181–84, 189Mehta, M. C., 74Melbourne (Australia), 20, 88–89, 103methane, 97–98Metro Cebu Water District (Philippines), 33Mexico

air pollution, 74, 102, 145corruption, 177earthquakes, 115–17Guadalajara, 185–86Mexico City, 41, 74, 102, 145poverty, 11sustainable development, 12, 185–86Tijuana, 13, 21

urban farming, 62water scarcity, 41

Microcredit Summit (Washington, DC), 159Midrand Eco Savings and Credit Cooperative

(South Africa), 186Millar, William, 79Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 6Millennium Villages Project, 155Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico

(Italy), 120Mohite, Shalini Sadashiv, 44Molokoane, Rose, 190Montesinos, Fernando, 25Moore Foundation (United States), 189Mumbai (India), 37, 44, 79, 121–22, 132–33,

145Munich Re (Germany), 117Municipal Development Partnership

(Tanzania), 63

Nagara, Biko, 130–31Nairobi (Kenya), 140, 148–49, 177Narain, Sunita, 74National Housing Authority (Thailand), 179National Slum Dwellers’ Federation (India), 37,

132–33, 178natural disasters, 112–29

action strategies, 126–29climate change effects, 119–21definition, 114–15earthquakes, 76, 112–18, 122–27government’s role, 121–22heat waves, 101, 117, 119, 140prevention, 122–26risk, 114–18toll, 113–14tropical storms, 55, 116, 119, 122–27, 164tsunami, 118, 122urban hazards, 114–16

natural gas, 74, 94, 97–98, 107natural resources, see specific typesnature, 6, 21, 24–25, 145, 158Netherlands, 68, 95, 120New Delhi (India), 92–93New Orleans (United States), 55, 115–16, 120,

125New York (United States), 53, 58, 62, 94, 98,

120, 184Nicaragua, 164Nickels, Greg, 121

246

Index


Nigeria, 46–47, 134Nobel Peace Prize, 160nonmotorized transport, 67–70, 78–85, 146,

174nuclear power, 100, 104Nueva Vida (Nicaragua), 164

Oakland (United States), 83, 127Obwaya, Patrick, 148Olukoju, Ayodeji, 46–47Orangi Pilot Project (Pakistan), 18, 34–36, 43organic waste, 17, 24, 56–58, 98–99Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund

(Japan), 177

Pakistan, 18, 34–36, 43panchayats, 132–33Paris (France), 78–79Peace Corps, 49–50, 53Pedini, Paul, 92Pelling, Mark, 115Peñalosa, Enrique, 80, 145Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, 61Perlman Principles, 173Perth (Australia), 66–68, 84–85Peru, 56, 61, 142–44, 181Petra (Jordan), 150–51Philadelphia (United States), 61, 164Philippines, 33, 119, 182pollution

air, 74, 93, 124, 137–39, 144–45organic waste, 17, 24, 56–58, 98–99tax, 165water, 6, 43, 54see also recycling; sanitation

population growth, 4–8, 40, 70, 115, 176Port-au-Prince (Haiti), 122–23Portland, Oregon (United States), 59, 103,

164, 167poverty, 172–90

collaboration, 181–85equality barriers, 124, 146, 174–78future directions, 185–90health inequities, 135–37microfinancing, 159–62reduction programs, 63, 124, 128, 154,

178–85rural poverty, 8, 11U.N. Millennium Development Goals, 11,

30, 154–55, 174

urban poverty, 9, 17, 43, 87see also slums

power, see energyProaire initiative (Mexico), 102Programa de Agricultura Urbana (Argentina), 61Project for Public Spaces (United States),

76–77, 170Pruess, Jane, 121public health, see healthPune (India), 37, 44, 132

Quito (Ecuador), 80

R alph’s Grocery Company (United States), 57recycling

circular urban metabolism, 18–20, 98, 173,186

composting, 20, 57–58ecological cities, 24–26income production, 167, 182organic waste, 17, 24, 56–58, 98–99taxes, 25wastewater, 54–55

Rees, William, 15renewable energy

biofuel, 19, 97–98biomass, 40, 93, 98, 138fuel cells, 19, 94, 97geothermal power, 98methane, 97–98solar power, 88, 97, 100–01, 108–09wind energy, 99

Renner, Michael, 118–19Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and

Food Security, 63Revolutionary United Front (Sierra Leone), 64Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 140, 143, 175, 183Rizhao (China), 108–09Roberto, Alex, 143Roberts, Wayne, 53Roper, Tom, 88–89Roper Starch International, 181–82Rosario (Argentina), 60–62Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 187Roy, A. N., 132–33Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), 20

Sacramento (United States), 101Salinas, Ermel, 24Samaniego, Lolita, 25

247

Index


San Francisco (United States), 76, 99, 127, 164sanitation, 26–45

communal provision, 36–37costs, 35deficiencies, 27–30, 42–45ecological cities, 24–26eco-sanitation, 34–35environmental impact, 17management, 30–36, 48organic waste, 17, 24, 56–58, 98–99private-sector participation, 37–40wastewater recycling, 54–55see also pollution; water

Santa Domingo (Dominican Republic), 123–24San Salvador (El Salvador), 55, 124Santa Tecla (El Salvador), 122São Paulo (Brazil), 80, 82, 140, 184, 187Schumacher, E. F., 166sea level rise, 115, 119–20Seattle (United States), 123Seidler, Edward, 60–61Seoul (South Korea), 76, 81Serageldin, Mona, 183Shanghai (China), 68–69, 93, 126Sharma, Kalpana, 132–33Sheppard, Stephen, 11Shorebank Pacific (United States), 162Sierra Leone, 55, 64–65Singapore, 21, 124, 185slums

health risks, 10informal cities, 4, 18, 28, 172infrastructure needs, 11, 14, 28, 37Kibera (Kenya), 148–49local policing, 132–33natural disaster risk, 115, 123–24population growth, 4–5, 8, 115upgrade programs, 21, 31, 37, 42, 124see also poverty

Slum/Shack Dwellers International, 179Smit, Jac, 49So, John, 88–89Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centers

(India), 37, 179socioeconomic impact, 125Solarcentury, 74solar power, 88, 97, 100–01, 108–09South Africa

Cape Town, 102Federation of the Urban Poor, 179, 190

Johannesburg, 96, 186South Korea, 76, 81, 101–02Spain, 100–01Spiaggi, Eduardo, 57Sri Lanka, 117–18, 121Stanková, Eva, 170–71Stockholm (Sweden), 19, 76Sudan, 123Sugrue, Annie, 186Suharto, 38–39Surface Transportation Policy Project (United

States), 82Surubaya (Indonesia), 81sustainable development

community economic development, 167–69garden cities, 3, 59–63, 144green architecture, 88–95, 101, 110–11, 189Perlman Principles, 173urbanization, 5–6, 152–53, 187–88see also recycling; renewable energy;

transportation; urban farmingSustainable Energy Communities and Urban

Areas in Europe, 110–11Sweden, 19, 76, 98–99, 110–11Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and

Climatology, 119Sydney (Australia), 69, 83, 100

Tacoli, Cecilia, 10Tanzania, 51, 57, 61, 63Tapia, Humberto, 24taxes

bicycles, 174congestion, 75–76development, 187local tax shifting, 165recycling, 25

Terille, Raul, 61Texas Transportation Institute, 75Thailand

Bangkok, 50–51, 59, 68–70, 79, 179Community Organizations Development

Institute, 180, 188land sharing, 179–80mass transit, 79

Think Local First Campaign (Portland,Oregon), 164

Tibaijuka, Anna, xvii–xixTijuana (Mexico), 13, 21Timbuktu (Mali), 22–23

248

Index


Todd Whitman, Christine, 81Toronto (Canada), 53, 99Toronto Food Policy Council, 53tourism, 150–51Transit Alliance (United States), 78TransJakarta, 81TransMilenio (Colombia), 80–81transportation, 66–85

bicycles, 67–68, 78–82, 146, 174bus rapid transit, 76, 78–81, 184land use, 67–70mass transit, 19, 73, 77–81policy change, 84–85walking, 67–68, 71, 77–78, 84–85, 146see also automobiles

Transportation Priorities Project (UnitedStates), 84

tropical storms, 55, 116, 119, 122–27, 164tsunami, 118, 122Turer, Ahmet, 125

Ubuhle Bemvelo (South Africa), 186Uganda, 40United Cities and Local Governments, 173United Nations

Capital Development Fund, 22Development Programme, 50, 100, 127, 136Disaster Reduction Unit, 127Environment Programme, 25, 89, 119, 177Food and Agriculture Organization, 50, 59,

60, 63, 65Fund for Population Activities, 176HABITAT, 11, 149, 173, 177, 180International Day of Cooperatives, 159Millennium Development Goals, 11, 30,

154–55, 174, 180population projections, 70Special Project for Food Security, 65World Heritage Sites, 150

United StatesAgency for International Development, 20,

181Atlanta, 68–71, 84, 144automobile use, 68, 74–75, 82–85Boston, 52, 92, 99, 120Chicago, 101, 105, 120, 140, 144Clean Air Act, 184Denver, 77–78emergency preparedness, 127energy consumption, 74, 93, 101

Environmental Protection Agency, 95, 120,144

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 123Federal Housing Administration, 86Federal Transit Administration, 184fuel efficiency, 74–75Geological Survey, 122Green Building Council, 101heat waves, 101, 117, 140Houston, 16, 93, 95, 119, 126–27hurricanes, 55, 116, 119, 125–27Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act of 1991, 82Los Angeles, 55, 86–87mass transit, 77–78, 83–85, 184Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement,

102–03, 120military, 98mortality rates, 142NASA, 186National Institute of Health, 61–62National Research Council, 7National Science Foundation, 11New Orleans, 55, 115–16, 120, 125New York, 53, 58, 62, 94, 98, 120, 184Oakland, 83, 127obesity, 146Philadelphia, 61, 164Portland, Oregon, 59, 103, 164, 167Sacramento, 101San Francisco, 76, 99, 127, 164sea level rise, 120Seattle, 123solar energy, 19urban farming, 53, 55, 60–61, 144urban sprawl, 68–71, 86–87Urban Sustainability Initiative, 189urban violence, 140, 144Washington, DC, 120

Unitus (United States), 161Urban Agriculture Network, 49Urban Community Development Office

(Thailand), 179–80urban farming, 48–63

aquaculture, 51, 55–56garden cities, 3, 59–63, 144historical perspective, 49–50infrastructure, 53–59local produce, 50–53, 157organic wastes, 57

249

Index


urban farming (continued)wastewater use, 54see also agriculture

urbanization, 3–21anti-urban bias, 175–76circular metabolism, 18–20, 98, 173, 186definition, 60economic development, 152–54environmental challenges, 124fear of change, 177–78global challenges, 4–6, 102green architecture, 88–95, 101, 110–11, 189human well-being, 156infrastructure, 46–47, 168, 186international assistance, 176–77modernization, 4–5, 21, 94socioeconomic impact, 125suburban sprawl, 86–87sustainable development, 5–6, 152–53,

187–88violence, 140, 143–44, 174–75, 188see also slums

VanCity Savings Credit Union (Canada),161–62

Vancouver (Canada), 48–49, 58, 78, 161–62,164

Vankovka Civic Association (Czech Republic),170–71

van Veenhuizen, René, 63Venice (Italy), 120vermiculture, 58Vétérinaires Sans Frontières, 23Viet Nam, 51–52, 56, 60, 120Villa María del Triunfo (Peru), 61violence, 140, 143–44, 174–75, 188Volvo, 184Vons Companies Inc. (United States), 57

Wackernagel, Mathis, 15Wadi Musa (Jordan), 150–51Wafula, Dieudonne, 126Waghmare, Chhaya, 44

Wal-Mart, 155–56walking, 67–68, 71, 77–78, 84–85, 146Wamsler, Christine, 124Wang Shuguang, 108Warah, Rasna, 148–49Washington, DC (United States), 120water, 26–45

communal provision, 36–37condominial supply, 33, 43costs, 16, 30–31environmental impact, 17flooding, 23, 116–23, 130–31, 183management, 30–33, 40–42pollution, 6, 43, 54private-sector participation, 37–40pure water, 46supply needs, 27–30, 42–45waste recycling, 54–55wastewater use, 54see also sanitation

WaterAid, 36Watson, Lilla, 190Wiley-Schwartz, Andy, 77Wilheim, Jorge, 187wind energy, 99, 110Winne, Mark, 62Winnebah, Thomas R. A., 64–65Wolfowitz, Paul, 185Women’s International Sewing Cooperative of

Nueva Vida (Nicaragua), 164woodlots, 22–23World Bank

economic development programs, 154, 177green power funding, 102International Demographic and Health

Survey, 11, 174poverty study, 113Structural Adjustment Program, 46urban development programs, 142urban livestock report, 58water privatization, 37–38

World Conference on Disaster Reduction(Kobe), 128

250

Index


Documents

STATE OF THE WORLD - Our Urban Future