Sustainable city in the globalNorth and South: goal or principle?

Md Masud Parves RanaDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies,

Rajshahi University, Bangladesh, and Department of Geography,National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to provide a conceptual framework to analyse whether the global conceptof sustainable city, generally produced as a goal in the cities of the global North, will be equallysuitable in the cities of the global South or not.

Design/methodology/approach – Research has been based on a review of the literature, whichhas been collected from books, journals, reports and soft-materials of the internet. A simpledescriptive analytical approach is followed to examine the argument. The paper argues that asustainable city should not be a goal, but a principle of effective service provisions based on socialequity and justice.

Findings – Despite the main premise that a sustainable city is to achieve environmental, social andeconomic sustainability, the concept is widely criticised due to its disputable application in the cities ofthe South. The paper suggests that the sustainable city discourse does not include the main problemsof the cities in the global South, even though, as a goal, it is efficient and effective in the developedcountries of the global North. Thus, the paper concludes that a goal-based sustainable city discourse ofthe global North will be misleading and inappropriate for the sustainable urban development in thecities of the global South.

Originality/value – Despite the widespread application of the sustainable city concept in developingcountries, cities are facing numerous social, economic and environmental problems. Realising this fact,it is imperative to investigate the root-causes of the problems. In line with this thinking, the paperoffers a conceptual framework to analyse urban development policies in the cities of the global South.

Keywords Sustainable development, Cities, Northern hemisphere, Southern hemisphere

Paper type Literature review

IntroductionAs a habitat of more than half of the world’s population, at present, cities are graduallygaining attention to the researchers, policy makers, government authorities andinternational organisations. The making and remaking of a sustainable city is a greatchallenge, particularly in the cities of the global South where urban population growthis unpredictable and even uncontrollable. It is estimated that with the current pace ofurban population growth, 65 per cent of the total world population will be urbandwellers by the year of 2025 (Pacione, 2007) and almost 90 per cent of urban populationgrowth will be in Asia, Africa and Latin America (UN, 2000). By the year 2015, 80 percent of the world’s largest cities will be in this region (Dhaliwal, 2000). Thisunprecedented urbanisation and urban growth has stimulated academics andpolicymakers to search for sustainable urban development options that can pre-emptmajor ecological and social upheavals.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

MEQ20,5

506

Received 20 February 2009Revised 25 March 2009Accepted 28 April 2009

Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International JournalVol. 20 No. 5, 2009pp. 506-521q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1477-7835DOI 10.1108/14777830910981195

The pursuit of a sustainable city or sustainable urban development has not onlybeen emerged as a major challenge to the governments (Pacione, 2007), but also awidely applicable sustainable development policy in the global South as well as inglobal North is arguable. Obviously, the major constraints are the dynamic nature ofcities and the dependency on single solution based on sustainability goals for all thecities in the world. As, for example, the present sustainable city discourses are basedon certain development goals, which might only be achieved by the cities of developedcountries. However, the hope of fulfilling the goals by the developing countries is autopia, where overwhelming rural-urban migration is uncontrollable, good governanceis rare, unequal resources distribution is explicitly visible. In this unpredictable andcomplex situation, any goal-based development policies will certainly be misleading orpartially achievable. Myllyla and Kuvaja (2005, p. 224) argue that:

[. . .] approaches to urban environment that have originated for the North carry inherentlynorthern connotations and policy solutions that may have particular constraints whenscrutinising sustainable development’s societal context in the South.

Therefore, the same goal of sustainable city will not be suitable in quest ofsustainability in all cities of the world, while societal and cultural resources aredifferent. In line with this thinking, the paper argues that a sustainable city should notbe regarded as a goal, but a principle for effective service provisions based on equityand justice.

The paper is based on published and unpublished literatures, which have beencollected from written materials such as books, journals, reports, and softcopies of theinternet. A simple descriptive analytical method has been followed to examine theresearch questions. After describing the genesis of the concept of “sustainabledevelopment” and “sustainable city”, the paper raises some critical questions toanalyse whether the sustainable city discourse addresses the main sustainabilityissues of the developing cities in global South or not.

Sustainable development and sustainable citySustainable development has been a “buzz-word” and commonly used phrase byvarious persons like politicians, researchers, and environmentalists. After itsintroduction by Gro Brundtland in Our Common Future prepared by the WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WECD, 1987), the term seems to havedeveloped a whole literary life of its own (Savage, 2006). Since 1987, there have been 50definitions of sustainable development coined by academics, politicians, andorganisations (cited in Savage, 2006, p. 37; Langhelle, 1999). Pearce et al. (1989) alsoquote 24 separate definitions in an appendix of their book Blueprint for a GreenEconomy. However, the most widely cited definition of sustainable development is“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). The difficulty withthis definition is that “needs” are not precisely defined (Hall, 1998). Hall (1998), further,asserts that the definition of sustainable development is “idealistic and somewhatimpractical”. Blowers and Pain (1999) also criticise that “what may be regarded asneeds in the cities of the North would be luxuries in those of the South”. Therefore, thevision of sustainable city based on sustainable development would certainly be

Sustainable city

507

debatable as the definition of sustainable development is quite unacceptable.Nonetheless, the concept has been a great catalyst to produce the notions, “sustainablecity”, “eco-city”, or “sustainable urban development”. This section discusses genesis ofthe concept of sustainable development and how it relates to sustainable city discourse.

Sustainable development and sustainabilityThe common discourse of the global environmental agenda has been dominated by twointernational documents, namely, Brundtland’s Report (WECD, 1997), and Agenda 21(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio deJaneiro Earth Summit, 1992). The Brundtland Report provides an overall idealisticview of sustainability and development, which includes, for instance, conservation ofnatural recourses, resource management, and project planning for environmentalconsideration (Masreque and Khan, 2000). Noticeably, Agenda 21 of the summitparticularly gave more attention to the challenges of sustainable urban development.Besides these, in 1994, the Global Forum on Cities and Sustainable Developmentconsidered 50 cities’ reports on progress on achieving sustainable development(Pacione, 2007). According to United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (1996), CitySummit (Habitat II) monitored the progress of cities across the globe on achievingsustainability. In addition, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is also anothertarget-based initiative of the United Nations.

To follow this movement of development, currently, numbers of governmentorganisations, non-government organisations, international and national agencies aretaking up sustainable urban development programmes as a goal based on theprinciples of sustainable development, although Pacione (2007) argues “the level ofattention directed to the principles of sustainable development is less widespread incontrast to implementation of policies to achieve sustainable urban development”.Payne (2005) also critically analysed MDGs, from which, it is undoubtedly clear thatthe gap between public declarations of global environmental agenda and achievementof the goals is large. The following sections further illustrate the notions of sustainabledevelopment and sustainability in light of the Brundtland Report, Agenda 21 andMDGs.

Lee and Huang (2007) identify sustainable development as the most challenging andcontroversial issue with respect to its interpretation and application in global North aswell as in global South. In fact, it is interchangeably used as “ecologically sustainable”or environmentally sound development. Some take it as “sustained growth”, “sustainedchange” or simply “successful” development (Ahmed, 1993). Brundtland’s Reporthighlights the environmental issues and contemporary development strategies whichcause resource depletion without caring sustainability. The report urges to promoteinvestment for economic growth considering negative impact on the environment. Butthe report did not analyse the inequalities in terms of availability of resources withinand between the countries (see Reid, 1995; Verbung and Weigel, 1997; Langhelle, 1999).Atkinson (2004) asserts that “no significant recommendations were made concerningthe redistribution of the resources – through augmented aid packages – between thecountries of the North and South”.

Moreover, from the radicalist point of view, the sustainable development concept isalso criticised for its quest to achieve maximum economic growth. Lee and Huang

MEQ20,5

508

(2007) define sustainability as the ultimate goal of sustainable development; itdescribes the state that is to be reached by sustainable development. That state wouldbe achieved when all people can satisfy their basic needs and enjoy good quality of life,and the opportunities are also guaranteed for future generations. Most of thegovernments of developed countries believe that sustainable development andeconomic growth can be achievable simultaneously. It is true that economic growthcannot avoid environmental impacts; but the logic is, it can be sustainable bygenerating technical capacity or measures through economic growth (Langhelle, 1999).This implies necessity of ecological modernisation. But, the radicalists’ stance isagainst ecological modernisation, as they believe that economic growth is thefundamental cause of unsustianability (Blowers and Pain, 1999; Hall, 1998). In addition,achieving the same level of economic growth through modern environmentallyfriendly technology is not possible by all of the countries in global South. Therefore, itis obvious that with this type of ideological divisions and political debate thescholarship of sustainable development will continue to shape our future (Hall, 1998).

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was an important milestone (Atkinson,2004) in fulfilling the ideological targets of sustainable development at all levels ofspatial organisations (Pacione, 2007). In that summit, three international agreementswere proposed and Agenda 21 was placed. Atkinson (2004) argues that Agenda 21promoted similar solutions of free-market economics and economic growth as theBrundtland Report did to address the issues of economic disparities and poverty. Theyactually focused on economic growth and technological solutions of environmentalimpacts as an important part of strategic framework for achieving sustainability(Langhelle, 1999) rather than focusing on resource redistribution and socio-politicalissues of development. Apparently, it seems that there was involvement of majorcorporate interest in financing Agenda 21 (Chatterjee and Finger, 1994), which led toinefficient structural suggestions to achieve sustainable development (Atkinson, 2004).

Agenda 21 is a blueprint to formulating national, regional and local agendas. Mostof the countries responded positively to the movement but little progress is madeexcept in developed countries in the North (Atkinson, 2004). In response to the series ofconferences following UNCED, the International Non-governmental Organization(NGO) and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) werefounded and supported by International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) and theUnited Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Although a little response ofAgenda 21 was recognised in the beginning in the cities of South, a remarkableprogress was initiated by some Dutch and German-sponsored projects. Virtually, thetransfer of local experiences from North to South has been an important force topromoting Local Agenda 21(Atkinson, 2004). The UN Habitat II (City Summit) inIstanbul (1996) brought the issues of urban environment to the core of the globalenvironmental agenda as Habitat Agenda. The agenda accentuates decentralisationthrough transfer of power and resources to local government, NGOs as well as toresidents or community organisations (Leitmann, 1999; Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005).Moreover, urban environmental problems were considered as part of the plan ofimplementation in the latest UN conference (World Summit on SustainableDevelopment) held in Johannesburg in 2002. The focus was given to build upcapacities all social levels to implement Agenda 21 and Habitat Agenda in Africa and

Sustainable city

509

among slum dwellers around the world (Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005). Following the 2002Earth Summit, numerous international organisations and agencies like, theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the EuropeanCommunity, and World Bank, have taken sustainable city programmes to embracesustainable urban development as a goal (Pacione, 2007).

There is another goal or target-based global initiative of sustainable developmententitled MDGs, declared and adopted in the year of 2000 by United Nations. These setup global targets for different sectors, to be achieved by specified deadlines. In case ofurban development, focusing on urban poor and development of quality of life, thereare two key targets. The most significant is Goal 7, in which target 10 seeks to halvethe proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basicsanitation by 2015; and target 11 seeks to achieve a significant improvement in thelives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020 (Payne, 2005). But, surprisingly, bythe same way of Brundtland’s Report and Agenda 21, MDGs do not take into accountthe issues of resource redistribution, and even it does not consider the total amount ofurban poor that will be at the upper limit of the target year.

Therefore, the notion of sustainable development and sustainability are theproducts of different global developmental initiatives, albeit their applicability indevelopment programmes is still debatable. For instance, Saxena (1999) argues, ourapproach should be holistic on every resource sector and at all levels of local, regionaland global scale. In contrast to this idea, the question arises, whether it is possible todefine sustainability with a set of common indicators at all geographical scales or not.Obviously, we are living in the world with huge diversities and great inequalities;socially, economically, environmentally, culturally and politically. These diversitiesand inequalities become constraint to opt for global sustainable development. So,global solutions are not the significant goal what we are looking for. A similar debatealso appears when we analyse the notion of sustainable city and sustainable urbandevelopment.

Sustainable city and sustainable urban developmentThere is no satisfactory definition of city (Haughton and Hunter, 1994). However, it hasbeen often defined by population size and nature of activities. Cappon (1990, p. 9)defined city as:

[. . .] a more or less regular and recognisable agglomeration of buildings and thoroughfareswhere people live and work, and also engage in many of their social and cultural activities,usually requiring at least 10,000 residents (cited in Haughton and Hunter, 1994; p. 14).

In another view, cities are currently home of the majority of the world’s population,centre place of modernisation and communication, and engine of a country’s economicdevelopment (Girard, 2003). Moreover, cities are the agglomeration of the riches,economic activities and modern technological advancement and opportunities(Kleniewski, 2006). Besides these, cities are now very vulnerable places to live andenjoy quality of life because of environmental problems, rapid growth of urban poorand terrorism. For this reason, sustainable city or urban sustainability has been acommon goal of all countries in the world. However, it is almost unachievable in all

MEQ20,5

510

dimensions of human life, particularly in perspective of the cities of developingcountries.

A sustainable city must be economically viable, socially peaceful andenvironmentally friendly. More especially, a sustainable city is a place where peoplelive with sufficient income-earning, security and quality of life. Sustainable citydepends on society’s relationship with its environment, which is basically a product ofpowerful and influential groups in that society (Buckingham and Turner, 2008).Girardet (1999) defines sustainable city as:

[. . .] organized so as to enable all its citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance theirwell-being without damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions of otherpeople, now or in the future.

Haughton and Hunter (1994, p. 27) define sustainable city as:

[. . .] one in which its people and businesses continuously endeavor to impose their natural,built and cultural environments at neighborhood and regional levels, whilst working in wayswhich always support the goal of global sustainable development.

In addition, the idea of sustainable urban development has been seminal and highlysignificant among intellectuals and policy makers in the 1990s (Pugh, 2000). Pacione(2007) argues that:

[. . .] urban sustainability is fundamentally a political process rather than a technological ordesign problem in that one of the greatest obstacles to achieving enhanced urbansustainability is the absence of political support for policies aimed at implementingsustainable practices in local contexts.

For this reason, looking at the locally embedded environmental problems is importantfor sustainable urban development.

To achieve sustainable urban development or urban sustainability, urbanenvironmental problems are key issues in urban planning. McGranahan andSatterthwaite (2000) divide urban environmental problems into two agendas. First,there are the items on the conventional “sanitary” or environmental health agenda i.e.“brown agenda”, which have long been familiar to urban dwellers (Savage, 2006). Thisincludes unsanitary living conditions, hazardous pollutants in the urban air andwaterways and accumulations of solid waste (McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2000).These problems have immediate impact on urban dwellers, living in precarioussettlements directly (Hardoy et al. 1992) and to the affluence society indirectly. Second,there are environmental problems which have impact in long-term basis, namely,ecosystem disruption by consumption and waste generation, resource degradation andglobal climate change i.e. “green agenda” (McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2000). Thedistinction can be further exhibited in political attempts to divide radialfundamentalism from conservatism. On the one hand, a radical approach is to adopta strong position and to advocate the defence of nature and environmental capital. Onthe other hand, a conservative position would accept incremental, but significantadjustment to ongoing development (Pugh, 2000).

“Brown agenda” was coined to accentuate the problems of cities in developingcountries, where a larger portion of urban dwellers are poor. This can be furtherclassified into two; those relate to environmental health due to inadequacy in access to

Sustainable city

511

housing and services, and those relating to industrialisation such emissions fromfactories and transportation (Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005; Leitmann, 1999). However, onthe one hand, “brown agenda” is mostly prevalent in large southern megacities, whichusually immediately affect urban poor community. On the other hand, the “greenagenda” focuses on reducing impact of production, consumption and waste generationand the negative human impact on environment, which usually relevant to thedeveloped cities in the North but has a delay or long-term effect (Myllyla and Kuvaja,2005).

The issues of prioritising “brown issues” of the cities in global South becomeproblematic when the policy makers and planners set their vision of sustainable city, oreco-city or ecological modernisation as defined by the global North. To deal with thisdichotomy, the notion of sustainable development and sustainability raises questionsthat are largely important to plan a sustainable city of developing countries in globalSouth.

Sustainable city discourse: some critical questionsThe previous sections discuss on the notion of sustainable development and policies ofurban sustainability, which do not properly address the main urban problems of thedeveloping countries in the South. As a result, obviously, the global initiatives in theSouth emphasise minor issues more than the major issues, for which almost half ofurban dwellers (urban poor) live in vulnerable environment. Aguilar and de Fuentes(2007) notice:

[. . .] today, the city is characterized by a complex and diverse urban reality, with serioussocial and environmental problems that include extensive low-income settlements, largesections of the population with inadequate access to housing and basic urban infrastructure(especially water and sewerage) . . . The city is now characterized by a range of problems,including large scale in-migration, land invasion, a high proportion of the workforce relyingon the informal economy for their livelihoods, a high cost of living, urban segregation andfragmentation, marked by socio-economic disparities (also environmental), lack ofenvironmental awareness among developers and constructions companies, theprivatization of urban services and week public administrations.

Despite few achievements in sustainable city programmes, the ever-rising urbanunsustainability in the global South stimulates to argue with present achievements indeveloping countries. This contention raises few questions against sustainable citydiscourse which are discussed below.

Does sustainable city discourse include poorer sector of the society?The patterns of contemporary urbanisation in the South differ substantially from thoseof Euro-American industrial urbanisation in the North (Dhaliwal, 2000). The“parasitic” (Constantino-David, 2004) form of development is shaping in the Southfollowing the development paradigm of the North, which actually excludes the poor. Itcan also be argued that participation in the global market to have economicdevelopment by the cities of South was not considering a country’s “carrying” and“caring” capacity which enhances inequality in service provisions in the cities.Therefore, it becomes obvious that the development strategies with the framework of

MEQ20,5

512

developed cities in the North do not encourage development considering the poorsection of the urban society.

Sustainable city discourse is not only criticised for emphasising economic growth ofthe cities but also it was hoped that the benefits of the growth would “tickle-down” tothe poorer section of urban society. Rather, it has made two types of negative impacts.First, the economic growth to one (rich) section of the society has widened disparitiesand inequalities with other (poor and middle class) sections of the society in terms of“quality of life”. Second, it has degraded the environmental quality of the cities exceptthe areas where the affluences live. This type of trend of economic growth based onsustainable city discourse push the poor to live in precarious settlements, which makesthem victim to and blamed for environmental pollution and degradation.

A study by Constantino-David (2004) shows that following Northern developmentparadigm, the high rate of urbanisation (5.1 per cent annually) in Metro Manila,Philippines, with environmental problems and lack of services have deterioratedquality of life. He argues that many of the political leaders and technocratsunfortunately perceive the engagement of the poor as messy. Moreover, civil societyorganisations tend to romanticise the poor, believing they have all the answers(Constantino-David, 2004). Joseph (2004, p. 147) argues that “sustainability” is an alienconcept for the urban poor in the Southern cities. He further asserts that “the urbanpoor are no longer citizens demanding economic and social rights; they are“beneficiaries” of the generosity of foreign governments and agencies” (Joseph, 2004, p.151). Osumanu (2007) points out that there are researches (see Satterthwaite, 1992,McGranahan et al., 2001) related to urban environments of low income cities(poor-quality housing, inadequate provision for water supply, sanitation and drainage),but less attention has been given to the urban poors’ environmental views and needs.In examining socio-economic outcomes of the development of cities in Southeast Asia,Savage (2006) argues that environmental dialectic is embedded in the socio-economicdualisms of the cities. This dualism divides urban society into two: upper circuit (veryaffluent, visible, well-educated, mobile, high-income people) and lower circuit (workers,hawkers, maids, artisans, prostitutes, drivers, shop assistant). Therefore, thesustainable city discourse also exhibits this dualism and foster unequal spatialdevelopment of the city space, as exclusive rich areas and precarious poor areas.

These analyses obviously suggest that the present sustainable city policies excludethe priority of the poor, which ultimately indirectly affects the whole urban ecosystem.

Does sustainable city discourse encourage urban fragmentation?The cities in the South are experiencing sustainable development in limited exclusiveareas. Myllyla and Kuvaja (2005) term this area as “ecological islets”. For them, the“ecological islets” emerge as a counter of expanding precarious settlements in the city.Moreover, they add, the “ecological islets” practices exclusive sustainabledevelopment, but contributes very little to the city-wide “eco-social morality” amongthe city people. In fact, the life of “ecological islets” very much similar to the standardof life in North. The members of “ecological islets” can find their affluence referencegroups from the North, they may create a new kind of solidarity towards those “distantothers” rather than building solidarity with those living in the same city (Myllyla andKuvaja, 2005). Savage (2006) terms the resident of upper circuit of the urban society as

Sustainable city

513

“circumscribed oasis” albeit within a deteriorating urban system and environment fortheir conspicuous consumption.

Corubolo (1998) provides a theoretical framework of urban fragmentationexamining neoliberal market-based economic policies and incapability ofgovernment. The neoliberal economic development gradually weakens the powerand authority of the government in terms of financial strength and service providing.As a result, on the one hand, the powerful affluent gets access to limited resources andfacilitates of the government, but the powerless poor cannot achieve it and becomegradually marginalised on the other. Corubolo (1998, p. 8) criticises this unevendevelopment as:

[. . .] on one side concentrations of wealth in voluntary self-secluded residential areas, and onthe other concentrations of misery, characterized by absence or poor maintenance of basicpublic utilities and infrastructure, poor living conditions and largely unplanned land usepatterns.

Therefore, it may be proved that sustainable city discourse encourages creatingsegregation or fragmentation in the city, which widen inequality in the society ratherthan minimise the gap between the rich and the poor.

Does sustainable city discourse consider environmental justice?Environmental justice has emerged as a policy issue for the last three decades. Withthe growing concern of socio-economic inequality, environmental justice issues are alsoobvious because of their interconnectedness with socio-economic disparities. It isexplicitly observable that socio-economically marginalised people are mostlyvulnerable to environmental problems. This is debatable to probe that who is thecontributors to and victims of environmental degradation in the cities. The poor aregenerally blamed for environmental degradation. On the contrary, the riches of theurban society are accused of conspicuous consumption. Savage (2006, p. 50) notes “it istragic that through an unequal capitalistic system, the rich are able to exploit theearth’s resources and capital through economic means and vested power”. He furthergoes on to say that urban riches are largely culprit for depletion of “environmentalcapital” of the earth. However, the issue of environmental justice is more political thatcreates social, economic and environmental inequalities in the cities.

Pacione (2007, p. 250) states that “environmental justice exists when environmentalpollution and environmental benefits are distributed equally among the societies”. But,present neoliberal market economy creates unequal competitive participation indevelopment process in which all people cannot equally participate. The condition issevere in developing countries, where poor and rich communities of urban society livein extreme opposite socio-economically, environmentally and politically.

It appears that present global capitalistic economic system constructs the society infavour of capitalists ignoring ability to access to the market by all, particularly thepoor. Unfortunately, sustainable development discourse allows this system to ensureeconomic growth. However, this market system gradually forces the poor to beoppressed and deprived of minimum quality of life. The result of oppression anddeprivation compel them to live in unhygienic environments, which undoubtedly

MEQ20,5

514

shows environmental injustice. Therefore, another shortfall of sustainable citydiscourse is that it cannot ensure equal environmental opportunities for all.

Does sustainable city discourse prioritise the “brown agenda” of the South?It is obvious that both the Brundtland’s Report and Earth Summit declarationemphasise global environmental challenges as “green agenda” such as globalwarming, loss of biodiversity, and ozone layer depletion considering the necessity ofurban sustainability of the North. On the contrary, most of the Southern cities arefacing environmental problems of “brown agendas” (McGranahan and Satterthwaite,2000; Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005). In 2001, 924 million people, or about 31 per cent of theworld’s urban population, were living in informal settlements or slums; 90 per cent ofwhich were located in the developing countries. By 2030, the number of slum dwellersis projected to reach two billion (UNFPA, 2007a,b). According to the report of IRIN(2008), in Dhaka of Bangladesh, 3.4 million of the city’s 13 million residents live in 5,000slums and squatter settlements. Moreover, 60 per cent populations of Nairobi arepacked into more than 130 informal settlements occupying only 5 per cent of the city’stotal land area, while the squatter settlements of Mumbai are growing 11 times fasterthan the city itself, with 300 people arriving from the countryside each day. The reportalso suggests that as urban populations increase, the number of people without accessto clean water is also rising, likely to be double from 108 million in 1990 to 215 millionby 2010. Moreover, in dense city environments – and in even more dense slumenvironments – communicable diseases can quickly become epidemics, making theconsequence of unsafe water and poor sanitation much more severe than in rural areas.

The condition of brown issues in developing countries depicts that thecontemporary policies for sustainable city do not address the issues with privilege.Critics, like Shiva (1993), have pointed out that “the priorities of the globalenvironmental agenda have created a situation in which problems that have beencaused and identified by the North are expected to be solved through northerninnovations implemented by South” (cited in Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005, p. 225). But it isimperative that sustainable city discourse should include local definitions ofenvironmental problems instead of considering broad and geographically biasedenvironmental aspects. Myllyla and Kuvaja (2005, p. 225) state, “this would createmore inclusive global discourses taking into account different regional and culturalmeanings given to environmental transformations and their implications”.

From this explanation, it is noticeable that sustainable city discourse does notprioritise “brown agenda” of the South as much as it does for “green agenda”. Whilebrown issues are the main environmental problems in cities of developing countries, itis urgent to consider not only as local problems, but also the problems what the largerportion of the populations face.

Does sustainable city discourse consider urban population growth properly?The world is increasingly becoming urban. Not even wars, natural disasters and publicpolicies decrease the pace of urbanisation rather increase it. Kasarda and Rondinelli(1990) state that a similar kind of “urban revolution in industrial countries in latenineteenth century” is now taking place in the developing countries. The developingworld is very quickly becoming urban from predominant rural. In 1950, only 18 per

Sustainable city

515

cent of people were living in cities in developing countries. In 2000 the proportion was40 per cent, and by 2030 the developing world will be 56 per cent urban (UNFPA, 2004;Osumanu, 2007). Cities are already home of more than half of the world’s populationand over the next 30 years, most of the two billion-plus person increase in globalpopulation is expected to occur in urban areas in the developing world (Cohen, 2006).There were 83 cities or city systems with populations of more than 1 million in 1950, 34of them in developing countries. In 2000, there were 280 such cities and this number isexpected to double by 2015 (Rodrigue et al., 2007) and just under 500 in 2025 (Doganand Kasarda, 1988; Kasarda and Rondinelli, 1990). Noticeably, all the new millionairecities, and 12 of the world’s 15 largest cities are in the developing countries. If cities of 8million are considered, 28 were existed in 2000 in total, in which 22 of them were indeveloping countries. Moreover, by 2025, according to the Far Eastern EconomicReview, Asia alone will have at least ten hypercities, those with 20 million people ormore, including Jakarta, Indonesia (24.9 million people), Dhaka, Bangladesh (25million), Karachi, Pakistan (26.5 million), Shanghai (27 million) and Bombay (with astaggering 33 million) (Davis, 2004). Chinese experts forecast that Chinese cities willcontain 800 million people by 2020 (People’s Daily Online, 2004). Therefore, a hugepopulation growth will be observed in developing countries within few decades. Now,the question is, whether we are considering this trend of urban population growth inplanning of sustainable city or not?

The previous research suggests that a target or goal-based development policies canserve only a small portion of the total population (Payne, 2005). To examine theproposition of global environmental discourse and MDGs, Payne (2005) argues that ifthe MDG target is achieved, it may meet only 11 per cent of existing needs and only 7per cent of future estimated needs by 2020. For instance, UN-Habitat estimates thatthere are currently 924 million slum dwellers in the world, and this number could growto 1.5 billion by 2020 and more than 2 billion by 2030 (UN, 2003). In addition, however,several researchers (see McCarney et al., 1995; Atkinson, 1994) have also pointed outthat global environmental and development agendas have not included the issues ofurban populations properly (cited in Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005).

Despite there being an increasing recognition of urbanisation and urbanenvironmental problems, there is not much coherence among the actors (IIED, 2001)and even the concept of urban environmental problems in Southern context is stillunspecified (Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005). Therefore, the defined target may beachievable, but will not provide an appropriate solution to all (Payne, 2005).

The analysis indicates that urban population in developing countries isuncontrollably and unpredictably increasing, which makes complexity inimplementation policies in long-term basis. Therefore, the target of sustainable cityin the cities of developing countries will provide sustainability to a few, but not to all infuture.

Do the “eco-city” and “ecological modernisation” concepts include affordability of thepoor countries?The development process of cities in developing countries is based on the approachesof “eco-city” or “ecological city”. Both of the concepts take into account environmentalimpacts of development and economic growth. Particularly, “eco-city” approaches

MEQ20,5

516

have come out realising the environmental degradation from the modernisation, whichis very much familiar in cities of North. The concept could be successfully implementedwhere there is a strong partnership and cooperation between the communities andgovernment as well. So, the success of “eco-city” approaches depends on somepre-requisites of cities, in which the cities of South are lacking in. Realising this fact,Myllyla and Kuvaja (2005) argue that “an “eco-city”, which derives from northernrealities and experiences does not respond to the fundamental challenges rising from asouthern social context, and therefore, it may be inherently incapable of proving a solidtheoretical toolbox when analysing various strategies for urban environmentalchallenges in the South”.

Similarly, the concept of “ecological city” could be proven as unsustainable inperspective of developing countries, especially in the megacities where about half ofthe city people live under poverty line. Actually, the concept is established based on“ecological modernisation”. Ecological modernisation also includes the issue ofenvironmental impacts of economic growth but proposes that the environmentalproblems can be solved by technological development. Carter (2007) states it as “analternative approach to greening capitalism”. Obviously, the concept encourages moredevelopment programmes instead of making any limit of ecological destruction andnot considering materialistic human behaviour. Carter (2007) also states that “thepolitical message of ecological modernization is that capitalism can be made more‘environmentally friendly’ by the reform of existing economic, social and politicalinstitutions”. Certainly, the concept mostly focuses on environmental problems ofcapitalistic-industrialised countries, which have affordability to have technologicalsolutions. As Carter (2007) says ecological modernisation is “strangely silent onNorth-South issues”. From this point of view, a question arises that whether the citiesin developing countries are compatible or affordable to follow the theory of ecologicalmodernisation or not. Myllyla and Kuvaja (2005) criticise “the whole notion of“ecological city” has turned into a “commercial eco-city” for its emphasis ontechnological solutions”. The “ecological city” concept also makes the city-societydivided in terms of capacity to use technological solutions. Therefore, in the economicperspective of developing cities, a small segment of population will be affordable to livein ecologically sustainable areas (Myllyla and Kuvaja, 2005).

Thus it is quite explicit that the concept of “eco city” and “ecological city” encourageeconomic growth with modern technical solutions of environmental impacts. Partly theconcepts provide ways of urban sustainability, but not as a unique or universal methodthat can be applicable in the cities of South. Obviously the reason is unequal capacityto have access to modern technical solution of environmental problems. Thisunderstanding provokes us to look for a significant way of achieving sustainable citybased on locally embedded or city-specific and even country-specific strategies ofsustainability, instead of global sustainable city discourse.

ConclusionIn the present era of urbanisation, sustainable city is a common expectation to both ofthe developing and developed countries. But, in this unequal world, a common policy“one size fit for all” of sustainable city and its ubiquitous applicability as a goal isarguable. From this point of view, the article focuses on the process of making

Sustainable city

517

sustainable city in the global South, which follows sustainable city discourse of theglobal North. Indeed, the article provides a conceptual framework to explore thiscontestation in perspective of cities of global south.

Sustainable city discourse is basically originated through the concept of SustainableDevelopment and Agenda 21. Various countries (members of the UN), organisationsand communities have adopted it as a common development goal. But, thedevelopment policies, likely to be fulfilled by achieving certain goals, are debatable.Analysing MDGs and consideration of urban population growth, Payne (2005) arguesthat a target-driven policy agenda detracts attention from the real issues that need tobe addressed. Constantino-David (2004) also admits that the problem with the conceptof sustainable development is that it implies movement toward a goal. A run afterachieving certain goals become misleading or appear to be achievable for minority ofthe urban society in perspective of cities of the South where socio-economic disparitiesare explicitly visible. Myllyla and Kuvaja (2007, p. 235) argue that:

[. . .] it is reasonable to recognise that some of the present development process of Southernmegacities may be environmentally friendly and even sustainable, but they do notautomatically contribute to the transformation towards a more just and equal society.

Therefore, the question arises, whether sustainable city concept will be effective as agoal or as a principle? The previous research suggests that as a goal it could bepossible to achieve by the countries of North. Nonetheless, surprisingly, the countriesin the South blindly follow their policies and discourse of sustainable city. Therefore, itis imperative to analyse further the sustainable city discourse with empiricalevidences. The conceptual background of this paper might be helpful to explorewhether sustainable city discourse should be a goal or principle of sustainable urbandevelopment in the cities of global South.

References

Aguilar, M.D. and de Fuentes, A.G. (2007), “Barriers to achieving the water- andsanitation-related Millennium Development Goals in Cancun, Mexico at the beginningof the twenty-first century”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 243-60.

Ahmed, S. (1993), “Environment and rural development”, in Quddus, M.A. (Ed.), RuralDevelopment in Bangladesh: Strategies and Experiences, BARD, Comilla.

Atkinson, A. (1994), “The contribution of cities to sustainability”, Third World Planning Review,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 101-97.

Atkinson, A. (2004), “Promoting environmentalism, participation and sustainable humandevelopment in cities of Southeast Asia”, in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), From Unsustainable toInclusive Cities, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Blowers, A. and Pain, R. (1999), “The unsustainable city”, in Pile, S., Brook, C. andMooney, G. (Eds), Unruly Cities? Order/Disorder, Routledge, London.

Buckingham, S. and Turner, M. (Eds) (2008), Understanding Environmental Issues, Sage, LosAngeles, CA.

Cappon, D. (1990), “Indicators for a healthy city”, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 9-18.

Carter, N. (2007), The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

MEQ20,5

518

Chatterjee, P. and Finger, M. (1994), The Earth Brokers: Power, Politics and World Development,Routledge, London.

Cohen, B. (2006), “Urbanization in developing countries: current trends, future projections, andkey challenges for sustainability”, Technology in Society, Vol. 28, pp. 63-80.

Constantino-David, K. (2004), “Unsustainable development: the Philippine experience”,in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), From Unsustainable to Inclusive Cities, United NationsResearch Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Corubolo, E. (1998), “Urban management and social justice”, DPU Working Paper No. 92,University College London, London.

Davis, M. (2004), “Planet of slums Third World megacities”, The Black Commentator, No. 88,available at: www.blackcommentator.com/88/88_reprint_planet_slums.html (accessed5 January 2009).

Dhaliwal, C. (2000), Fundamentals of Environmental Science, Kalyani Publishers, Delhi.

Dogan, M. and Kasarda, J.D. (1988), “How giant cities will multiply and grow”, in Dogan, M. andKasarda, J.D. (Eds), The Metropolis Era, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Girard, L.F. (2003), “Introduction”, in Girard, L.F., Forte, B. and Cerreta, M. (Eds), The HumanSustainable City: Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate,Aldershot.

Girardet, H. (1999), Creating Sustainable Cities, Green Books, Totnes.

Hall, T. (1998), Urban Geography, Routledge, London.

Hardoy, J.E., Miltin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (1992), Environmental Problems in Third WorldCities, Earthscan, London.

Haughton, G. and Hunter, C. (1994), Sustainable Cities, Regional Policy and Development Series 7,Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2001), Urban EnvironmentalImprovement and Poverty Reduction, Human Settlements Programme of IIED, London.

IRIN (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2008), “Tomorrow’s crises today:the humanitarian impact of urbanization – overview”, available at: www.irinnews.org/InDepthMain.aspx?InDepthId¼63&ReportId¼73996. (accessed 1 March 2008).

Joseph, J. (2004), “Sustainable development and democracy in the megacities”,in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), From Unsustainable to Inclusive Cities, United NationsResearch Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Kasarda, J.D. and Rondinelli, D.A. (1990), “Mega-cities, the environment, and private enterprise:toward ecologically sustainable urbanization”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,Vol. 10, pp. 393-404.

Kleniewski, N. (2006), Cities, Change and Conflict: A Political Economy of Urban Life,Thomson-Wadsworth, Sydney.

Langhelle, O. (1999), “Sustainable development: exploring the ethics of Our Common Future”,International Political Science Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 129-49.

Lee, Y.-J. and Huang, C.-M. (2007), “Sustainability index for Taipei”, Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 505-21.

Leitmann, J. (1999), Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in UrbanDesign, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

McCarney, P., Halfani, M. and Rodriquez, A. (1995), “Towards an understanding of governance:the emergence of an idea and its implications for urban research in developing countries”,

Sustainable city

519

in Stren, R. and Kjellberg, B. (Eds), Perspectives on the City, Centre for Urban andCommunity Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, pp. 91-142.

McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2000), “Environmental health or ecologicalsustainability? Reconciling the brown and green agendas in urban development”,in Pugh, C. (Ed.), Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries: Theory and Practice at theMillennium, Earthscan, London.

McGranahan, G., Jacobi, P., Songsore, J., Surjadi, C. and Kjellen, M. (2001), The Citizens at Risk:From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities, Earthscan, London.

Masreque, M.S. and Khan, N.A. (2000), “Indigenous knowledge: a suitable strategy of sustainabledevelopment”, Grassroots Voice: A Journal of Resource and Development, Vol. 3 Nos 1 and2, pp. 1-8.

Myllyla, S. and Kuvaja, K. (2005), “Societal premises for sustainable development in largesouthern cities”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 224-37.

Osumanu, I.K. (2007), “Environmental concerns of poor households in low-income cities: the caseof the Tamele Metropolis, Ghana”, GeoJournal, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 343-55.

Pacione, M. (2007), “Sustainable urban development in the UK: rhetoric or reality?”, Geography,Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 248-65.

Payne, G. (2005), “Getting ahead of the game: a twin-track approach to improving existing slumsand reducing the need for future slums”, Environment and Urbanization., Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 135-45.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E.B. (1989), Blueprint of a Green Economy, Earthscan,London.

People’s Daily Online (2004), “China’s urban population to reach 800 to 900 million by 2020”,available at: http://english.people.com.cn/200409/16/eng20040916_157275.html (accessed8 February 2008).

Pugh, C. (2000), Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries: Theory and Practice at theMillennium, Earthscan, London.

Reid, D. (1995), Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide, Earthscan, London.

Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C. and Slack, B. (2007), The Geography of Transport System, Routledge,New York, NY, available at: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/ (accessed 12 February2008).

Satterthwaite, D. (1992), “Sustainable cities: introduction”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 4No. 4, pp. 3-8.

Savage, V.R. (2006), “Ecology matters: sustainable development in Southeast Asia”,Sustainability Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-63.

Saxena, H.M. (1999), Environmental Geography, Rawat Publications, New Delhi.

Shiva, V. (2007), The Violence of the Green Revolution. Third World Agriculture, Ecology andPolitics, Zed Books, London.

United Nations (UN) (2000), World Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision, United Nations,New York, NY.

United Nations (UN) (2003), The Challenges of Slums, Earthscan, London.

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2007a), State of World Population 2004 – The CairoCensus at Ten: Population, Reproductive Health and the Global Effort to End Poverty,UNFPA, New York, NY.

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2007b), “State of world population”, available at:www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/chapter_2/slums.html (accessed 8 February 2008).

MEQ20,5

520

Verbung, R.M. and Weigel, V. (1997), “On the compatibility of sustainability and economicgrowth”, Environmental Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 247-65.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Further reading

Renkema, J. (2004), Introduction to Discourse Studies, John Benjamins Publishing Company,Amsterdam.

UNFPA (2008), “Reproductive health and rights are fundamental for sound economicdevelopment and poverty alleviation”, available at: www.unfpa-bangladesh.org/pdf/success_05.pdf (accessed 13 February 2008).

About the authorMd Masud Parves Rana (Master of Science and Master of Philosophy in Geography) is AssistantProfessor of Geography and Environmental Studies, Rajshahi University, Bangladesh. Atpresent, he is a PhD Fellow in the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore,Singapore. His research interests include sustainable urban development, environmentalism ofthe poor, and environmental sustainability. Md Masud Parves Rana can be contacted at:mmprana@yahoo.com

Sustainable city

521

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints