_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest07 March 2012 03:42

_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1

A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American, European and Indian

citiesSmardon, Richard. Management of Environmental Quality 19. 1 (2008): 118-137.

_______________________________________________________________ Abstract The purpose of this paper is the comparison of Local Agenda 21 - sustainability plan

implementation and research activity between Europe, North America and India. Intensive

literature and web search for European, North American and Indian Local Agenda 21

sustainability planning and implementation status. Close to 6,000 sustainability plans have

been prepared for European communities versus about 100 for North American communities.

A total of 20 Indian cities have started sustainability planning efforts. There is an extensive

support network for European communities and much less so for North American and Indian

communities. Most sustainability/biodiversity/urban ecosystems research is ongoing in

Europe and North America and there is a beginning surge of activity in India. Knowledge of

Local Agenda 21 implementation status between these three regions can hopefully spur

more activity in North America and India. Comparisons of applicable planning innovations

and approaches could be useful. There has not been a comparison of Local Agenda 21

implementation that compares Europe, North America and India. There have been some

reviews respective to each region.

_______________________________________________________________ Full Text Urban ecosystems overview: definitions and principles

Before there was sustainability planning, an earlier field of research was urban ecosystems

research. The early work of the US Forest Service ([48] Santamour et al., 1976; Heisler and

Herrington, 1977) and US Fish and Wildlife researchers in the 1970s was mostly focused on

urban vegetation and urban wildlife. Active schools at this time were SUNY Syracuse ([27]

Hopkins, 1980; [41] Miller, 1973) and University of Mass, Amherst ([43] Noyes and

Progulske, 1973; [35] Little and Noyes, 1970). Later in the 1980s the emphasis shifted to

more systems perspective as expressed by [28] Hough (1984) and [15] Douglas (1983). John

T. [36] Lyle (1993) expresses this same systems perspective in his book Urban Ecosystems:

Cities of the Futureand Anne [58] Spirn (1984) in her book The Granite Garden, embraces

the ecology of the urban landscape and people - rather than set themselves apart. Also see

Penny Firth (2002) Cities as Urban Ecosystemsfrom the Environmental Literacy Council

(from Baltimore LTER Project) which also is a systems perspective treatment, as well as Paul

[21] Gobster's (2003) Human Dimensions of the Urban Ecosystem. [55] Smardon (1988) also

has reviewed the role of urban vegetation in cities from cultural and aesthetic perspectives.

Historical antecedents to the environmental systems perspective include: Jay Forester:

Urban Dynamics: interactive systems which has an inclusive treatment of both physical and

socio-economic systems. Richard N.L. Meyers: work on cities as information systems; and

Howard Odum work on energetics and ecological theory; all derive from the general systems

theory.

The problem, before 1980, of applying natural systems ecological models to urban peopled

systems is a radical idea. From the above cited work, it can be seen that urban ecology has

four perspectives:

human activity concentrated in an urban cluster;

humans as species dominating earth's ecosystems;

model of ecology must include human impact; and

understanding such processes provides utility to problem solving.

Demographic growth trends with attendant impact or humans are thought of as confounding

variables.

The ecology of urban ecosystems can be thought of from a systems perspective as:

ecological effects of land use change, spatial distribution of resources (abiotic) or population

(biotic), and whole system metabolism (energy flow). As urban ecologists, one needs a set of

research protocols for three biophysical forces/drives, which are:

flow of energy;

cycling of matter; and

flow of information (See [11] Decker et al.2000).

These forces exert influence on five major patterns/processes, which are:

primary production (energy by plants form photosynthesis);

populations (growth and decline);

organic matter (raw food);

nutrients (available food);

disturbance (human and natural).

Socioeconomic drives which in turn affect the previous biophysical processes include:

- information flow;

- cultural values and institutions;

- economic system;

- power hierarchies;

- land use and management;

- demographic patterns;

- designed or built environment.

There is also a need of integration mechanisms for incorporating socio-economic drives into

natural drivers within urban systems via Jay Forester or Howard Odum, e.g. diversity studies

conducted in urban areas needs to accept human presence as part of the model. From this

theoretical work - one can move to sustainability as a concept and its evolution.

Short history of the sustainable cities movement

Environmental consciousness began to increase after the first United Nations (UN)

Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Urban environmental

agendasthat evolved from this conference were named the "Brown Agenda" ([49] Serageldin,

1995) by the international development agencies such as the World Bank. The second UN

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992

and subsequent UN Habitat II Conference held in Istanbul in 1996, developed the concept of

"Sustainable cities", leading to setting a number of international directions in making cities

sustainable. The Rio conference developed the Green Agendaof deforestation, resource

depletion, global warming, biodiversity and pollution. The Sustainable cities concept merged

the Brown and Green agendasand attempts to implement Agenda 21in an urban context thus

launching the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP).

The Sustainable Cities Program (SCP) is a joint UNCHS/UNEP program. It works toward the

development of a sustainable urban environment, building capacities in urban environment,

building capacities in urban environmental planning and management, and promoting a

board-based participatory process. At the moment the SCP is a locally focused program, in

which there is some national, regional and global support for activities and programs at the

city level. SCP provides a framework of linking local actions and innovations to activities at

the national, regional and global levels. Global networks such as the UN programs and the

International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which work in a coordinated

fashion, are very important in this regard.

The primary focus of SCP is at the city level where, the program applies more than 95

percent of its resources in the first five years. The SCP brings together all the stakeholders

whose cooperation is required:

- to clarify environmental issues;

- agree on joint strategies and coordinate action plans;

- implement technical support and capitol investment; and

- institutionalize continuing environmental planning and management.

The SCP is based on a development paradigm that:

- cities make an important contribution to social and economic development at national and

local levels;

- cities are important engines of economic growth;

- cities absorb two-thirds of the population growth in developing countries;

- cities offer significant economies of scale in provision of jobs, housing and service; and

- cities are important centers of productivity and social enhancement.

It argues that full realization of cities potential contribution to development are often

obstructed by severe environmental degradation in and around rapidly growing

environmental centers. It further accepts that environmental degradation threatens:

- economic efficiency in the use of scarce resources;

- social equity in the distribution of development benefits and costs;

- sustainability of hard won development achievements; and

- productivity in the urban economy in provision of goods and services.

From this general history of urban sustainability planning - one can now examine such

planning in Asia with specific reference to Indian cities, which are undergoing tremendous

rates of growth.

Urban policies in India address two levels of policy making:

the regional level which deals with urbanization and industrial location policies; and

the local level that covers; urban land use planning, housing including slums, poverty

alleviation, and urban governance which includes institutions of decision making and finance.

The post-independence period in India is divided into two periods for understanding the

major thrusts in urban policies over time ([37] Mahadevia, 2003) including pre-economic

reforms and post-economic reforms. An in-depth treatment of these policies and reforms is

presented by ([37] Mahadevia, 2003, pp. 22-66). For a review of India's national policies on

sustainability and biodiversity conservation the reader should refer to the [60] United Nations

(2002) Country Profile of India

The author's purpose is merely to present the current scorecard of Agenda 21Chapter 28

implementation of sustainable city programs in Europe, North America and India in

comparative fashion. By showing what has been done with such implementation - each

region illustrates the interaction of international and national agencies as well as NGOs in

support of such activities. As we compare and contrast European, North American and Indian

cities, one should note that Asian cities and especially mega cities have much higher

population densities ([57] Sorensen et al., 2004). This one factor presents unique challenges

to sustainability planning implementation, which will be outlined.

International programs

International programs for biodiversity within Urban areas can divided into about three areas;

those programs:

focused on making cities more sustainable under Agenda 21;

assessing urban biodiversity and urban biosphere reserves; and

green space protection and function.

Urban sustainability programs under the aegis of agenda 21include:

- Best practices database in UN-Habitat at www.bestpractices.org.html

- Caretakers of the Environment International - A global network of secondary school

teachers and students active in environmental education at www.caretakers.boker.org

- Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) a worldwide action agendafor reduction of greenhouse

gases and energy conservation at www.iclei.org/ccp/ This program includes some 500 cities

worldwide.

- International Center for Sustainable Cities promotes sustainability in cities around the world

through practical demonstration projects using Canadian expertise and technology at

www.icac.ca/index.html

- International Institute for the Urban Environment, which is a proposal to establish a network

on MILU: Multifunctional Intensive Land Use in Cities in Europe 2004-2007 at www.urban.nl/

- Urban Environmental Forum - UN Human Settlements Program - A global coalition of cities

and international support programs working on the urban environment at

www.unchs.org/progammes/uef/

- The UN Habitat Human Settlements Program the Sustainable Cities Program at

www.unesco.org/mab/urban/ This program includes at least 40 cities worldwide.

- The Virtual Library; Urban Environmental Management - Projects, features and themes

addressing urban environmental management at www.gdrc.org/uem/

- The WHO Healthy Cites Program includes some 1,500 localities.

International Biodiversity and Biosphere Reserve Programs

There exists the UNEP Activities in Biodiversity and Global Biodiversity Assessment at

www.unep.org/themes/biodiversity This program sets general assessment standards under

the Convention on Biodiversity. There also is the MAB Program - Biosphere Reserves and

urban issues. The MAB Urban group was created to stimulate discussion and information

concerning the contribution of the Biosphere Reserve concept to sustainable development.

There are four purposes or aims of this group:

Identify contributions that the biosphere reserve concept have made or could make to urban

planning and management, including in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity

with its focus on the ecosystem approach.

Examine if there is, or should be, a place for urban areas and cities in the World Network of

Biosphere Reserves,

Explore alternative ways and means of recognizing selected cities, or parts thereof, as sites

that exemplifies the Biosphere Reserve model.

Stimulate a discussion within MAB and with relevant partner institutions and organizations,

on the development of an agendafor possible MAB activities. See the paper [59] UNESCO-

MAB (1998) Application of Biosphere Reserve Concepts to Urban Areas and their hinterlands

and www.unesco.org/mab/urban/urbangroup.htm for further information.

Examples of biosphere reserves outside cities providing functions and benefits for urban

areas (watershed protection, tourism and recreation) include:

- Green belts around Rio de Janeiro and San Palo.

- Cerrado Biosphere Reserve around Brasilia.

- Cordillera Volconica Central Biosphere reserve near San Jose Costa Rica.

- Alto Manzanaris Biosphere Reserve near Madrid.

The Urban working group may look at the following scenarios for urban biosphere Reserves

(See [59] UNESCO-MAB, 1998 and [1] Alfonsen-Norodom et al., 2004):

city as biosphere reserve;

greenbelt biosphere reserve around the city;

mixture of (1) and (2) above.

There are two ongoing urban study groups: the New York Urban Biosphere Group and the

South Africa, Cape Town group at www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/cubes/groups/urbanbio/

Urban greenspace assessment

The programs below stress protecting, maintaining or restoring urban green space for the

functions that they provide (air quality, watershed protection, habitat) as well as for food and

fiber production:

- La Ciuda Necesita Espcios Verdes con Mayor Biodiversidad Autotona - the necessity of

Urban Greenspace and Biodiversity at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html

- FAO's urban and periurban agriculture on the policy agenda, (see paper by [42] Nilsson and

Randrop (1997)) "Urban and periurban forestry" at www.fao.org/urbanag).

- RUAF - Resource Center on Urban Agriculture and Forestry is a global resource center

initiated by the international support group on urban agriculture funded by DGIS

(Netherlands) and IDRC (Canada) at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html

- FAO's Trees for the Urban Millennium: Urban Forestry Update at

www.fao.org/docrep/x3989e/x3989e09.htm

European urban ecosystem and biodiversity programs

Within Europe there are several notable programs that address urban ecosystems and

biodiversity. The MAB-ROME project was begun in the 1970s as part of the MABn.11

Projects on Urban Ecosystems. According to Francesco [14] Di Castro (1984), "the general

aim (of the MABn.11 Projects) is to provide insights on how ecological research can

contribute to improving urban and regional planning and thus to help to counter the sectoral

and fragmented approach that has tended to dominate urban planning in the past". i.e. ...

approaching environmental problems by "testing the ecological approach', with its emphasis

on understanding the interactions within and between systems and long-term perspectives

rather than short-term expediency".

Although the initial work of the project focused on plant ecology - in 1978 a group of social

and environmental psychologists worked on the "human dimension" or "environmental

perception aspects "A good overview of the history of the Rome Project can be seen in the

paper by Bonnes (2000).

Another more recent development is the Aalborg Charter, which is the Charter of European

Cities and Towns Toward Sustainability ([30] ICLEI, 1994). This is a consensus declaration

(Part 1), the European Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign (Part II) and engaging in

Local Agenda 21Processes toward local action plans (Part III). See

www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER

Part III processes is that part that includes the following specific steps:

Recognition of the existing planning and financial frameworks as well as other plans and

programs.

The systematic identification, by means of extensive public consultation, of problems and

their causes.

The prioritization of tasks to address identified problems.

Creation of a vision for sustainable community through a participation process involving all

sectors of the community.

Consideration and assessment of alternative strategic options.

Establishment of a long-term local action plan towards sustainability which involves

measurable targets.

The programming of the implementation of the Plan including the preparation of a timetable

and statement of allocation of responsibilities.

The establishment of systems and procedures for monitoring and reporting on

implementation of the plan.

Local Agenda 21from UNCED 1992 is a locally tailored program for sustainable

development. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21articulates the process by which sustainable

development plans must be developed and implemented. Chapter 28 does not specify what

local plans should include, but is process oriented. Development of local plans should

address local needs and concerns through education and mobilization of local citizens. Some

5,292 local authorities from 36 countries in Europe have Agenda 21action plans and a good

percentage of these have biodiversity assessment components.

Other regional European programs include:

- Cities Environment Reports on the Internet/Urban Environment Info Gateway at

www.ceral.net

- European Academy of the Urban Environment including conferences, seminars, workshops,

publications and SURBAN database on urban development at www.eaue.de

- The European Commission including the DG Environment page on Urban Issues at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/htm

- European Environment Agency including Europe's Environment - the Dubois Assessment

37 Urban Stress and Environment in EU at the Turn of the century at

www.bcdcold.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban

- ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) - European program

includes news and information, local government associations, campaigns and programs,

training and exchange and European Secretariat at www.iclei.org/europe This includes the

Local Agenda 21campaign plus Cities for Climate Protection, Sustainable Transportation plus

Water Campaigns.

As an example of Greenspace planning in Europe there is URGE - Development of Urban

Green Spaces to Improve the Quality of Life in Cities and Urban Regions. The European

Union-funded project is developing an integration toolkit of criteria and indicators to be used

by urban planners to assess ecological, social and economic sustainability of urban green

areas. URGE has two levels: whole city scale and urban green areas. Whole city scale

indicators include:

- fragmentation of urban green (indicators: size, shape, isolation, connectivity);

- level of nature protection (indicator: preparation for protected urban green);

- biodiversity - both species diversity and habitat(indicators: diversity of breeding birds and

vascular plants, biotype diversity).

On site scale:

- fragmentation (can be used for single site as well);

- biodiversity -species diversity (indicators: diversity of birds, vascular plants, carbid beetles,

butterflies and biotypes);

- naturalness (indicator: degree of disturbance/wear, exotica and rare species) at www.urge-

project.org/reports.htm

An example of support systems for sustainability planning in Europe include the Regional

Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe at www.rec.org/REC/Programs/ and

the UNEP-European Regional Portal - Urban areas which contains State of Environment

reports, policy/strategy documents and data sets and can be seen at

http://europe.unep.net/index.php?struct_id=urbarea

Some of the European Urban Biodiversity action plans, especially Brussels ([25] Gosiun,

2001), Moscow, and Devon are very good examples of locally-based action plans (also see

[16] European Commission, 1990).

North American urban ecosystems and biodiversity programs

In North America (Canada and USA) there is a much different texture in terms of biodiversity

research and implementation. In the USA there is urban ecosystems research movement but

little implementation of Biodiversity plans. In Canada - there is less research but more

implementation of wildlife habitat protection programs and green space programs in larger

cities.

The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was charged with developing

and recommending a national sustainable development strategy in 1993 but disbanded in

1999. There was a Gore-Clinton Livable Communities Initiative in 1999 but the Bush

Administration eclipsed this. A Smart Growth Network, a partnership of government,

business and civic organizations, was established in 1996. The Sustainable Communities

network was established in 1993, which is a partnership of 15 non-profit organizations. Then

there is the joint Center for Sustainable Communities established in 1996 and sponsored by

several US Federal agencies such as US Environmental Protection Agency, Department of

Energy, Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of

Agriculture and National Oceanographic Administration to support these activities. Dozens of

Non-governmental organizations, states and cities are supporting LA21 activities, In North

America there are 101 local authorities in two countries that have Agenda 21like plans but

only a few have biodiversity themes or components.

In the USA there is a major urban ecosystems research program called Urban LTER (Long

Term Ecological Research Program) which is funded by the National Science Program.

Initially there were two major sites: Baltimore metropolitan area and Phoenix, Arizona. The

NSF official abstracts are presented below.

Urban LTER: Human Settlement as Ecosystems: Metropolitan Baltimore from 1997-2001,

Stewart T.A. Picketts, Primary investigator, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY.

Objectives for the project included:

- How do the spatial structure of socio-economic, ecological and physical factors in an urban

area relate to one another and how do they change over time?

- What are the fluxes of energy, matter, capitol and population in urban systems, and how

they change over time?

- How can people develop and use an understanding of the metropolis as an ecological

system to improve their understanding?

Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showard?awards=9714835

Other links to this project include:

- www.sceincenetslinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=276

- www.beslter.org/frame5-page_2f.html

- www.enviroliteacy.org/article.php/530.html

There is also a new book based on this LTER project entitled Understanding Urban

Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education([6] Berkowitz et al., 2001) at

www.ecostudies.org/cary8/cc8book_toc.html

The second LTER Project is Central Arizona-Phoenix LTER. Investigators: Nancy Grim,

Jiange Luv, Stuart Fisher, Charles Redman and Alfredo de los Santo of Arizona State

University. Objectives of the project include:

- generate and test general ecological theory in an urban assessment;

- enhance understandability of the ecology of cities;

- identify feedback between ecological and socio-economic factors; and

- involve K-12 students in the enterprise of scientific discovery.

Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/seulet/showawd?award=14833

Similar research projects can be found in both Canada and the USA. Effects of urbanization

on biodiversity in Canada from Biodiversity in Canada: A Science Assessment for

Environment Canada. Recommendations include:

- Native biodiversity in a city can be enhanced if the biologically rich areas, such as ravines,

are linked to each other and to wild habitats outside.

- Need Information on the effect of increased human diversity and cultural diversity on nature

diversity within urban areas.

- Need to determine the exposure to urban biodiversity on the attitudes of citizens and

decision-makers.

Source: www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/biodiv-sci-assess/biodiversity/

Other projects in North America include:

Sustainable Forest Management Research Group at the University of British Columbia has a

research theme on Urban Ecology within forested parks in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Center for Urban Ecology (CUE) in Washington, DC has a team of multidisciplinary scientists

dedicated to developing a better understanding of the ecology of landscapes influenced by

human activities with the National Park Service. Source: www.nps.gov/cue/cuento

Center for Urban and Regional Ecology (CURE) is a multi-university and multidisciplinary

program to explore and promote options in sustainable human health and prosperity while

improving air, water, land use and biodiversity at the scale of regional ecosystems. This

group includes University of Georgia, Georgia State, Emory, and Morehouse at

www.cure.gatech.edu

The Ecological Cities Project is a quasi-independent program of research and outreach at the

department of Geosciences and the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the

University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This project seeks to promote sharing of knowledge

and experience among disciplines, sectors and urban regions regarding new approaches to

urban green space creation and management. See www.umass.edu/ecologicalcities and [44]

Platt (1994).

The Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College studies the merging field of urban ecology to

help residents understand natural resources in their communities in the Boston metro area.

Urban Eco the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory at the University of Washington Seattle

has three ongoing projects:

- NSF Biocomplexity Program - modeling the interactions among urban development, land

coverage and bird diversity.

- Impact of urban patterns on ecosystem dynamics through physical changes on an urban to

rural gradient.

- Analysis of the behavior of landscape metrics along urban to rural gradients (see

www.urbaneco.washington.edu/biocomplexity.htm)

The US Forest Service Urban Forestry Research program is involved with the Baltimore

LTER and the Houston Texas Urban Forestry Study which is the largest in the USA. See

http://cswgcin.nbii.gov/ecoregion/urban/urbanforests/index.htm

The US Environmental Protection Agency is also linked to the Baltimore LTER at EPA region

3 and has a green communities program at www.epa.gov/maia/html/urban.hmtl

The Metropolitan DC Urban Biodiversity Mode provides tools and makes them available to

decision-makers and stakeholders in the Washington DC Region. This node includes US

Geological Survey and Virginia Technological and State University plus others. See www.do-

urbanbiodiversity.nbii.gov

Actual biodiversity-related implementation support programs include:

- sustainability and food production;

- urban green space; and

- urban wildlife programs.

The following includes a few examples of each.

Sustainability and Food Security programs include:

- Cities Feeding People Program IDRC, Canada. Trying to bridge the gap in supporting

research and development activities that increase the food security and incomes of the poor

while maintaining public health and a clean urban environment. Source: www.bcd-

cbd/naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/urban

- New Jersey Urban Ecology Program at Rutgers. To ensure that all New Jersey

communities are food secure and that residents should have access to safe, nutritious and

culturally acceptable food that is procured by socially acceptable means. Source:

http://acscp.rutgers.edu/-niep/

Urban Greenspace Program examples include:

- Evergreen registered national charity in Canada has a mandate to bring nature to cities

through naturalization projects. See www.evergreen.ca/cn/about/about.htm

- Greenlinks Project: Restoring Habitat at Douglas College, its purpose is to increase the

ecological value and biodiversity of urban wildlife habitats ands green spaces in the lower

mainland - connecting or linking fragmented urban habitats. See

www.douglas.bc.ca/ine/restoring/connections.htm

- Audubon Society of Portland Oregon. Wild in the Citypublication emphasizes ecological

linkages among natural areas and offers 100 sites guide with detailed maps to natural

spaces, trails, waterways, parks, golf courses and cemeteries. At

www.audubon.portland.org/index.htm

- Open Lands Project: Urban Greening supports community and school based greening with

the City of Chicago with programs such as Neighborhood open space planning, tree keepers

and teaching for school gardens. See www.openlands.org/

- Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature preserve that includes more than 20,000 acres of

protected natural lands in the metro Chicago region. There is also a Biodiversity Recovery

Plan for this program, which is very detailed and is accessible at www.chicagowilderness.org/

More urban ecosystem conservation and biodiversity related programs. As we look to more

pragmatic means of incorporating biodiversity within Urbanizing areas in both Europe and

North America there may be some axioms that approach principles or trends of activity.

For Europe Agenda 21and the Aalborg Charter provide promising means of incorporation of

both participatory processes and pragmatic biodiversity assessment and action plans. For

North America Agenda 21does not have the same currency. For the USA the current wave is

"Smart growth" and in Canada the catchword is sustainability. For Canada and USA there is

strong interest in both multiple purpose urban greenway, private acquisition of open space

and ecosystem restoration.

Greenways are very popular for connecting opens pace and habitat, multimodal recreation

(bicycle and pedestrian), aesthetics and recreation benefits, air and water quality

maintenance. A book by [17] Fabos and Ahern (1996) assesses the international greenway

development. What is critical in the states as well as Canada is the growth of private land

trusts, which are actually acquiring pieces of real estate, which then can be subsumed into

Greenways. An excellent support network is the Land Trust Alliance, which is a national

support for hundreds of land trusts throughout the USA (see www.lta.org) Other such

organizations include: America Trails (see [47] Ryan, 1993): www.americatrails.org,

Treebranch Network in New York City www.treebranch.com and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

www.railstrails.org

The second area of activity is urban river restoration work in Canada and USA. There is a

recent Urban River Restoration initiative sponsored by US EPA, which focuses on urban

stream sediment remediation (Deason, 2001). Other major factors affecting urban river

restoration are flood damage reduction and riverine ecology restoration ([56] Smardon et al.,

1995, [18] Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 2001) and citizen

activated planning ([46] Riley, 1998). There are many NGO groups who support this

movement and examples can found in [40] Meier (2002) and [46] Riley (1998).

It should be noted that there are European examples as well, especially in the UK and

mainland Europe. Many of these projects are documented in the river restoration news at

www.quest.demon.co.uk/rrc/rrc.htm Probably the most noted river restoration projects in the

USA are the San Antonio River In San Antonio Texas followed by The South Platte River in

downtown Denver.

From the European and North American sustainability planning activity - one can shift to the

Indian experience, which is detailed in the following sections.

Sustainability and biodiversity programs in India

The cities of Chennai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Delhi and Kolkatta have been directly

connected with the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP). While Chennai was the only Indian

partner for SCP activities, other cities joined the Urban Environmental Forum (UEF

mentioned earlier) set up as the primary partner. Some cities have received UN-Habitat best

practice Awards and three belong to the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA). All

these efforts, according to [38] Mahadevia (2004) are initiatives of city governments as there

is no national program in terms of written policy.

The first city in India to join the UN habitat/UNEP SCP was Madras (now Chennai) in 1995.

The program aims to promote local initiatives for environmental management, and to improve

the ability of individuals and organizations to identify, understand and analyze environmental

issues, and integrate them into sectoral programs. This effort resulted in the preparation of

the 1997 Environmental Profile (of Chennai) based on city level consultation, and the framing

of Madras Vision 2000. The resulting consensus for improving the infrastructural situation

was produced in collaboration with the World Bank. In Hyderabad City, while the Master Plan

2011 was being designed, an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) exercise was

carried out to identify urban environmental issues for incorporation into the Plan. The Plan

proposed the spread of urbanization throughout the state by decentralizing economic

development of small ports and improvement in the financial position of local bodies was

proposed, to be funded via an Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation.

Two SCP's in India have concluded that more funds should be sought for city-level

infrastructure, but of the 23 metropolises, only Chennai and Hyderabad have carried out

EPM exercises.

According to the [31] ICLEI (1997) Local Agenda 21Survey and Spiros (2006) there are 20

Indian Cities that are actively engaged in some form for Agenda 21Implementation.

According to back issues of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Monitor India - initial cities to

join ICLEI's Cites for Climate Protection Program (CCP) include Calcutta, Ludhiana, Sangli,

Baroda, Jabalpur and Hyderabad ([32] ICLEI, 2001). Indian Cities joining phase II of the

Climate Protection Campaign include Agra, Gwalior, Shimla, Dehradun, Bhubaneswar,

Udaipur, Madural, Coimbatore and Guwahati ([70] ICLEI, 2004)

Infrastructure projects in Indian cities

Infrastructure development is considered to be crucial to improving urban environmental

conditions ([26] Gupta, 2006; [50] Shah, 2003; [53] Singh, 2006). For example the

construction of flyovers and widening of roads are expected to ease congestion and reduce

air pollution. Water supply and sanitation infrastructure are designed to reduce air pollution.

These projects are usually funded by international loans; however, only large cities have

been able to prove that they are credit worthy, and so they have been made recipients of

these loans.

The internationally-funded Healthy Cities Program (HCP) supported by World Health

Organization (WHO) was initiated in the 1990s to build the local capacity required for

integrating environmental health concerns into all major urban policies and programs. There

are five HCP pilot projects in the mega cities of Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad

and Chennai. The estimated cost of the entire project is $125 million and its benefits will

accrue only to these cities ([38] Mahadevia, 2004).

There are a number of cities active with ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Program (see

section above [32], [70] and ICLEI, 2001, 2004). Most of these projects include documenting

current levels of green house gas production and energy consumption from buildings,

transportation, waste treatment and other municipal services. Utilizing these base data for

specific measures to reduce green house gas and energy consumption are anticipated next

steps.

Environmental management

Solid Waste Management (SWM) projects dominate among environmental management

efforts dominate among environmental management efforts in India. Some local

governments have tried to elicit the support of communities, NGOs and private agencies in

this regard. In both Ahmedabad and Mumbai a private company is contracted to compost

part of the city waste. In Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai NGOs are involved in the

collection and disposal of waste on behalf of the city government. In Pune the local

government has encouraged housing colonies to decompose their organic waste and in

Rajkat the city government is efficiently collecting solid waste ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996). All

these projects began in the early 1990s

In Ahmedabad, the World Bank donated Rs. 38 million to modernize SWM, and collection

consequently increased three or four times, documented by case studies where the NGO's

and community groups participate in composting garbage over only a few hundred

households ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996).

In Andhra Pradesh, the municipal administration has contracted out solid waste collection to

women's groups formed under the government of India's Golden Jubilee Urban Employment

Program (SJSRY) ([45] Rao, 2000). This is a holistic approach whereby local communities

and government are participating to address environment and poverty issues together.

According to [38] Mahadevia (2004) such initiatives are rare.

In Kolkatta, created wetland lagoons are used to treat east Calcutta's sewage and

pisciculture is used to raise fish at one end of the system. The local association also runs a

composting operation and produces crops adjacent to the wetlands sewage treatment

system (see [22], [23], [24] Ghosh, 1990, 1993a, b).

Legal initiatives

Numerous Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been filed by individual citizens or citizen

groups seeking legal remedies for industrial pollution ([37] Mahadevia, 2003). The relocation

of 9.038 of the 100,000 industries in Delhi, ordered by the Supreme Court, is a landmark

judgment in response to a PIL ([51] Shrivastava, 1995). The Ganga Action Plan to the clean

the River Ganga is the result of a PIL filed in the 1980s.

In Kolkatta, a fishing cooperative, that has managed wetlands that recycle the city's waste

since 1961, filed and won a PIL to halt construction that was diminishing the size of the

wetlands - which also provide fish for the local population ([12] Development Associates,

1996). In addition, individual citizens have filed suits in the State High Courts and Supreme

Court of India against local urban bodies for neglecting mandatory responsibilities - such as

ensuring that industrial land use does not increase the incidence of pollution in city master

plans.

Environmental groups in Mumbai obtained an eviction order against squatters living in the

Borivali National Park, in an effort to protect the ecosystem. Having recourse to the law has

become a way of protecting the urban environment when government systems fail.

Biodiversity conservation in India

Approximately 5.3 percent of the total geographic area of the country has been earmarked

for extensive in situ conservation of habitats and ecosystems through a protection area

network of 89 national parks and 496 wildlife sanctuaries. The Central and State

governments together run and manage 33 botanical gardens. In addition, universities have

their own Botanical gardens. There are 275 centers of ex-situ wildlife preservation in the form

of zoos, deer parks, safari zoos, aquaria, etc. The government has set up a central zoo

authority to oversee, monitor and coordinate these centers. The Ministry of Forestry in

charged with implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

to manage biodiversity in India including the forestlands and biosphere reserves. It is known

that shortage of land and resources have resulted in man-forestland conflicts in some areas

of the country ([60] United Nations, 2002) such as Borivali National park mentioned above. It

is not known whether any biosphere reserves are within or adjacent to any of the five Indian

mega cities.

Community-based efforts

There has been a long history of community-based efforts in India to manage the urban

environment. One successful NGO experiment to manage solid waste disposal is Exnora in

Chennai. This started in 1989 when citizens, concerned with deteriorating environmental

conditions, drew up an action plan to collect garbage. New containers were placed in the

street and an awareness campaign was organized. The rag pickers, renamed city-beautifiers,

were given loans by Exnora to purchase tricycles for door-to-door garbage collection and

street cleaning. They received monthly salaries from the residents, from which they repaid

the loans. Today the city has 1,500 Exnora units, each serving 75,000 families or 450,000

people.

Many Exnoras have now branched into other environmental activities, such as monitoring

waterways, desilting canals, planting trees and harvesting rainwater. They also run

environmental education programs in schools and public information campaigns on the

environmental impacts of industrial development, upgrading slums and converting

degradable waste into compost. Exnora projects are multisectorial and address a wide range

of issues ([3] Anand, 1999).

Other cities have started similar activities. In Vadodara City in Gujarat, Baroda Citizens

Council, a local NGO, started garbage collection in 1992, engaging local unemployed young

people and rag pickers in garbage collection at a monthly salary of Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 ($7-

10) paid by the residents. Recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal, etc) is carried away by rag

pickers and sold. Degradable waste is composted and the rest is dumped as landfill. With the

support of USAID, this project has been extended to cover 20,000 households or 100,000

people ([9] Cherail, 1994). Similar experiments are being carried out in some areas of Delhi

with input from local NGO's such as Aatavarn (Environment) ([39] Malik, 1998)

Public participation process

In almost all successful cases mentioned above - whether that is Biodiversity Action Plans,

Biosphere Reserves, greenways restoration projects - the key in many cases is local activism

or leadership, which causes local NGO's to work with local government units to accomplish

mutual goals. Therefore a key to any process is a mutual visioning, goal setting which

continues through fact finding, action planning, implementation and monitoring. Such a

process can be found in successful Agenda 21plans, the Aalborg Charter Part III and the

greenway and river restoration plans mentioned above. Such a process is outlined in [56]

Smardon et al.(1995) for Protecting riparian resources and is outlined in a recent [64] US

Environmental Protection Agency (2002) compendium of public participation techniques.

Summary and conclusions

From an international perspective, the Convention on Biodiversity and Local Agenda 21have

been the two major driving forces for biodiversity within urban areas. In Europe, the Aalborg

Charter is providing a framework for combing the Convention plus Agenda 21for local

implementation. In many cases NGO's are working with local government in collaboration on

both sustainability and biodiversity planning efforts Such biodiversity reports posted on the

biodiversity web site: http://bch-cbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban.htm

In North America there is not as much activity on biodiversity assessment, but more research

activity in urban ecosystems including the two LTER sites in Baltimore and Phoenix as well

as other university research centers as previously outlined. There is considerable local grass

roots organizing activity by NGO's in Greenway development and river/stream restoration.

There is also activity in private natural area protection via local land trusts but little of this is

within urban areas.

India has a long history of grass roots participatory processes applied to poverty reduction,

water resource management, waste management and now energy/GHG management. There

is much to be learned from Asian cities, which have much denser urban populations and

more growth pressure. Innovative programs to elicit local cooperation have been developed

by Indian community based organizations for waste management ([52], [51] Shrivastava,

1990, 1995), aquaculture/agriculture (Ghate et al., 2001; [65] Verma and Singh, 1990; [66]

Vettivel, 1993), water management ([2] Ahmed, 2005) housing ([4], [5] Banerjee, 2002a, b)

and poverty reduction ([8] Chopra, 2000; [13] Devasia and Devasia, 1994; [33] Jain, 2006;

[67] Vivian, 1992).

In terms of urban ecosystem biodiversity research: protocols are being developed for

regional scale and sit scale assessment in Europe. LTER research in the USA is focused on

gradient and spatial analysis of biodiversity (among other variables) within urban

metropolitan areas (Baltimore, Phoenix, Houston and Seattle). There is assessment of the

role of urban biosphere Reserves at UNESCO and the Urban Working group (New York City

and Capetown, South Africa) There is continuing research on the role of urban vegetation

functions or urban/periurban forestry in the USA and northern Europe. In the USA and UK

current research is focused on ecological restoration techniques concurrent with

environmental cleanup. In India there is valuable research on participation process and

equity issues applied to sustainability implementation. In short, much is still to be done, but

there is some notable progress on the biodiversity action planning and research fronts.

ad hoc

A Symposium on Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment

Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes; Proceedings of the Symposium

Originally prepared as a keynote presentation for "Urban planning and environment:

strategies and challenges", 30-31 January, Elphinestone College, Mumbai, India

References

1. Alfonsen-Norodom, S., Lane, B.D. and Corry, M. (Eds) (2004), "Urban biosphere and

society: partnership for cities", Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1023.

2. Ahmed, S. (Ed.) (2005), Flowing Upstream Empowering Women through Water

Management Initiatives in India, Centre for Environmental Education, Ahmedabad and

Foundation Books, New Delhi.

3. Anand, P.B. (1999), "Waste management and Madras revisited", Environment and

Urbanization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-76.

4. Banerjee, B. (2002a), "Security and tenure in Indian cities", in Durand-Lasserve, A. and

Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in

Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 37-58.

5. Banerjee, B. (2002b), "Security of tenure of irregular settlements in Visakhaptnam", in

Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for

the Urban Poor in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 86-97.

6. Berkowitz, A.R., Hollweg, K.S. and Nilon, C.H. (2001), Understanding Urban Ecosystems:

A New Frontier for Science and Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

7. Bonnes, M. (2000), "The 'ecosystem approach' to urban settlements: 20 Years of the

'MAB-Rome Project'", paper presented at the first meeting of the MAB Working Group to

Explore the Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Urban Areas and their

Hinterlands at the 16th MAB International Coordinating Council, UNESCO, Paris.

8. Chopra, G. (2000), India: Policies to Reduce Poverty and Accelerate Sustainable

Development: Executive Summary, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC.

9. Cherail, K. (1994), "Haul your own garbage", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 8, p. 10.

10. Deason, J.P. (2001), "Passaic River restoration initiative: a new model for cleaning up

our nations contaminated urban rivers", in EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated

Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites, Alexandria, Virginia, May 30, 2001, Environmental and

Energy Management program, George Washington University.

11. Decker, E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R. and Rowland, F.S. (2000), "Energy and

material flow through the urban ecosystem", Annual Review Energy and Environment, Vol.

25, pp. 685-740.

12. Development Associates (1996), "NGOs/civic societies and urban environmental

advocacy", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental

Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi

and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam.

13. Devasia, L. and Devasia, V.V. (1994), Empowering Women for Sustainable

Development, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

14. Di Castro, F. (1984), MAB, Rome, F. MABn. 11 Projects.

15. Douglas, I. (1983), The Urban Environment, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London.

16. European Commission (1990), "Windows on Europe. The spatial dimension", Green

Book on the Urban Environment, European Commission, Brussels, Chapter 12.

17. Fabos, J.G. and Ahern, J. (1996), Greenways: The Beginning of an International

Movement, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam.

18. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (2001), Stream

Corridor Restoration; Principles. Processes and Practices, GPO Item No, 120-A, Sup Docs

No. A57.6/2 EN 3 PT.653 ISBN-0-934213-09-3.

19. Firth, P. (2002), Urban Ecosystem 1: Cities are Urban Ecosystems available at:

www.sciencellinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=273.

20. Ghate, U., Nalawade, S. and Bhatt, S. (2001), "Urban havens: Nero's fiddle",

Earthscapes; The Hindu Folio, 20 May, 7 pp.

21. Gobster, P.H. (2003), "Human dimensions of urban ecosystems", USDA Forest Service

Research Station, Chicago available at: www.ecostudies.org/cary8/gobster/gobster/html.

22. Ghosh, A.K. (1990), "Biological resources of wetlands of East Calcutta, India", Journal of

Landscape and Ecological Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 10-23.

23. Ghosh, D. (1993a), "Uncertainty over Mudialy Nature Park in CPT wetlands near Brace

Bridge Railway Station", Environment, Vol. 1, p. 45.

24. Ghosh, D. (1993b), "Towards sustainable development of Calcutta wetlands, India", in

Davis, T.J. (Ed.), Towards Wise Use of Wetlands, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, pp.

107-12.

25. Gosiun, D.3. (2001), 3. The Brussels Capitol Region First National Report of Belgium to

the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brussels Institute of the Environment, Brussels,

available at: www.bcdcbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/contribution/natiorep1/brussels.htm.

26. Gupta, R.C. (2006), "Environmental and infrastructural sustainability: major challenges

facing Indian metropolitan cities", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.), Sustainable Urban Development,

Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 3-11.

27. Hopkins, G. (1980), Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, 13-16

November, 1978, Washington DC, USDA Forest Service, Forestry Research, State and

Private Forestry, plus SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

ESF Publication 80-003,Vols I and II.

28. Hough, M. (1984), City Form and Natural Processes; Towards a New Urban Vernacular,

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.

29. Housing Settlement Management Institute (HSMI)/Waste Management Collection (WMC)

(1996), "City-wide best practices in solid waste management in collection, transportation and

disposal", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental

Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi

and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam.

30. ICLEI (1994), Charter of European Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability (The Aalborg

Charter) as approved by the participants of the European Conference on Sustainable Cities

and Towns (Aalborg, Denmark, May 27, 1994), available at:

www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER.htm.

31. ICLEI (1997), Local Agenda 21Survey; A Study of Response by Local Authorities and

Their National and International Associations with Agenda 21, ICLEI World Secretariat,

Toronto, available at: www.iclei.org.

32. ICLEI (2001), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 1 No. 1, p.

1.

33. Jain, A.K. (2006), "Urban issues and an agendafor the next century", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.),

Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 12-18.

35. Little, S. and Noyes, J.H. (1970), Trees and Forestry on Urbanizing Environment (August

18-21, 1970 University of Massachusetts), Planning and Resource Development Series No.

17, Holdsworth Natural Resource Center, Massachusetts Cooperative Extension.

36. Lyle, J.T. (1993), "Urban ecosystems; cities of the future", Designing a Sustainable

Future, available at: www.context.org/ICLIB/K35/Lyle.htm.

37. Mahadevia, D. (2003), Globalization, Urban Reforms and Metropolitan Response: India,

School of Planning, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad with

Manak Publications Ltd, New Delhi.

38. Mahadevia, D. (2004), "Sustainable urban development in India: an inclusive

perspective", in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), Unsustainable to Inclusive Cities, United Nations

Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, pp. 57-85.

39. Malik, I. (1998), "Waste management in Delhi", Shelter, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 59-60.

40. Meier, B. (2002), City Streams: Trout Unlimited Urban Rivers Success Stories, Trout

Unlimited, Arlington, VA.

41. Miller, H.C. (Ed.) (1973), Proceedings Urban Forestry Conference, (March 12-15, 1973

SUNY/ESF), SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

42. Nilsson, K. and Randrop, T.R. (1997), "Urban and periurban forestry", in World Forestry

Congress, Antalya, Turkey 13-22 October 1997, Orman Bakanligi, pp. 97-113, available at:

www.fao.org/monyes/foda/wforcong/PUBLI/VI/T3E/1.htm.

43. Noyes, J.H. and Progulske, D.R. (1973), (27-29 November, 1973, Springfield, MA)

Planning and Resource Development Series No, 28, Holdsworth Natural Resources Center,

Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service.

44. Platt, R. (Ed.) (1994), The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Diversity,

University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

45. Rao, K.R. (2000), "Clean and green cities: participation of communities/neighborhood

committees", Shelter, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 50-3.

46. Riley, A.L. (1998), Restoring Streams in Cities; A Guide to Planners, Policy Makers and

Citizens, Island Press, Washington, DC.

47. Ryan, K.L. (1993), Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design and Management

Manual for Multiple Use Trails, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Island Press, Washington, DC.

48. Santamour, F.S. Jr, Gerhold, H.D. and Little, S. (1976), , held on 4-6 November at the US

National Arboretum, Washington DC. Northeast Fr. Exp. Stn, Upper Darby PA. USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-22.

49. Serageldin, I. (1995), "The human face of the urban environment", in Serageldin, I.,

Cohen, M.A. and Sivaramkrishnan, K.C. (Eds), The Human Face of the Urban Environment,

Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable

Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 16-20.

50. Shah, K. (2003), "Agenda 21for sustainable construction in developing countries: The

Indian case", in Girard, L.F., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., de Torro, P. and Forte, F. (Eds), The

Human Sustainable City: Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate,

Hants UK and Burlington, VT, pp. 261-95.

51. Shrivastava, R. (1995), "A question of industry", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 23, pp. 18-19.

52. Shrivastava, R.C. (1990), "Wasteland development and people's participation: a case

study of the Patha area of Bundelkhand, U.P.", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and

Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept

Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 441-56.

53. Singh, R.B. (Ed.) (2006), Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing

Company, New Delhi.

54. Spiros, Z.A. (2006), Local to Global Links to Implement Agenda 21- the Local Agenda 21

Process, Sustainable Developments International, Division for Sustainable development

(DSD), UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, New York, NY, pp. 9-12.

55. Smardon, R.C. (1988), "Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: the role of

vegetation", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 16 No. 1988, pp. 85-106.

56. Smardon, R.C., Felleman, J. and Senecah, S. (1995), Protecting Floodplain Resources:

A Guidebook for Communities, The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task

Force, US Gov. Print. Office FEMA 68.

57. Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (2004), "Towards sustainable cities", in

Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (Eds), Towards Sustainable Cities East Asian,

North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, Ashgate

Publishers, Burlington VT and Hampshire, pp. 3-23.

58. Spirn, A.W. (1984), The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design, Basic Books

Inc, New York, NY.

59. UNESCO-MAB (1998), Application of the Biosphere Reserve concept to Urban Areas

and their Hinterlands, UNESCO-MAB, Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves Fifth

Meeting, 7-10 July 1998, UNESCO HQ Room XIV.

60. United Nations (2002), Johannesburg Summit 2002: India Country Profile, United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development.

64. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002), Community Culture and the Environment: A

Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place, US EPA (EPA 842-B-01-003), Office of Water,

Washington DC.

65. Verma, S.S. and Singh, J.B. (1990), "Social forestry: a strategy for wasteland

development: a case study of Gorakhpur District", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and

Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept

Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 431-40.

66. Vettivel, S.K. (1993), "Community involvement in managing natural resources - the case

of Chilika Lagoon", in Vettivel, S.K. (Ed.), Participation in Sustainable Development; Theory

and Practice in Government and NGO's, Vol. Chapter 6, Vetri Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 83-

105.

67. Vivian, J.M. (1992), "Foundations for sustainable development: participation,

empowerment and local resource management", in Ghai, D. and Vivian, J. (Eds), Grassroots

Environmental Action - Peoples Participation in Sustainable Development, Routledge,

London.

70. ICLEI (2004), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 4 No. 1, p.

1.

100. Heisler, G. and Herrington, L. (Eds) (1977), Proceedings of the Conference on

Metropolitan Physical Environment, Northeastern Fr. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech.

Report, Upper Darby, PA.

Further Reading

1. Krishna, S. (1996), "The business of sustainable development", in Kishna, S. (Ed.),

Environmental Politics: Peoples Lives and Development Choices, Chapter 12, Sage

Publications India Printing Ltd, New Delhi, pp. 233-53.

2. UNU-IAS (2004), "Cities as drivers of sustainable development", World Urban Forum 2004

Networking Event Discussion Paper (17 September, 2004, Barcelona, Spain) UNU-IAS, 7pp.

3. UNU/IAS UNESCO/MAB (2002), "Urban ecosystem research and the millennium

ecosystem assessment: exploring the interlinkages", WHO Urban Ecosystems meeting 12-

15 March 2002 Salle XVI Bonum Building UNESCO 1, rue Miolles, Paris.

4. UN World Urban Forum (2002), Sustainable Urbanization: Achieving Agenda 21, United

Nations Habitat, Nairobi.

Appendix

About the author

Richard C. Smardon, PhD, Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, and Director,

Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute, SUNY College of Environmental Science and

Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210 USA. Richard can be contacted at: rsmardon@esf.edu

AuthorAffiliation

Richard C. Smardon, Department of Environmental Studies, SUNY College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, USA

_______________________________________________________________ Indexing (details)

Subject Community support;

Comparative analysis;

Biological diversity;

Sustainable development;

Studies;

Urban areas

Location North America, Europe, India

Classification 9172: Canada, 9190: United States, 9130: Experimental/theoretical,

9179: Asia&the Pacific, 1540: Pollution control, 9175: Western Europe

Title A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American,

European and Indian cities

Author Smardon, Richard C

Publication title Management of Environmental Quality

Volume 19

Issue 1

Pages 118-137

Publication year 2008

Publication date 2008

Year 2008

Publisher Bradford

Publisher Emerald Group Publishing, Limited

Place of publication Bradford

Country of publication United Kingdom

Journal subject Occupational Health And Safety

ISSN 14777835

CODEN EMHEEB

Source type Scholarly Journals

Language of publication English

Document type Literature Review

Document feature References

Subfile Studies, Comparative analysis, Sustainable development, Biological

diversity, Community support, Urban areas

DOI 10.1108/14777830810840408

ProQuest document ID 204609797

Document URL http://210.48.222.80/proxy.pac/docview/204609797?accountid=44024

Copyright Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2008

Last updated 2010-06-07

Database 2 databases

-ProQuest Health&Medical Complete

-ProQuest Social Science Journals

<< Link to document in ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest 2011 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions