sustainable urbanization in asia and latin america · pdf filesustainable urbanization in asia...

SuStainable urbanizationin aSia andlatin america

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

© 2014 Asian Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank

All rights reserved. Published in 2014.Printed in the Philippines.

ISBN 978-92-9254-588-8 (Print), 978-92-9254-589-5 (PDF)Publication Stock No. BKK146703-2

Cataloging-In-Publication Data

Asian Development Bank. Inter-American Development Bank Sustainable Urbanization in Asia and Latin AmericaMandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2014.

1. Urban planning. 2. Sustainable development. 3. Asia. 4. Latin America. I. Asian Development Bank.

This is a copublication of Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) or their respective Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

ADB and IDB do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.

By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB and IDB do not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

ADB and IDB encourage printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgment of ADB and IDB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB and IDB.

Note:In this publication, “$” refers to US dollars.

Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro Manila, PhilippinesTel +63 2 632 4444Fax +63 2 636 2444www.adb.org

Inter-American Development Bank1300 New York Avenue,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20577, USATel: +202 623-1000Fax: +202 623-3096www.iadb.org

iii

Preface

This report on sustainable development of cities in Asia and Latin America is part of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) joint project on Enhancing Knowledge Sharing and South–South Cooperation between Asia and Latin America. Among other topics where cooperation is explored, urbanization was seen as a key issue because the process is expected to continue for both regions as incomes and economies grow.

Urbanization is a result as well as a driver of growth. Opportunities for bettering one’s income and stature tend to be more plentiful in cities, while the concentration of resources and talents in a geographical area allows for higher productivity in the employment of resources. The rush of people and economic activities into cities, combined with the limited capacities and experience of developing country governments, has often been accompanied by negative externalities such as pollution, congestion, slums, and damage to the environment and ecosystems. As the two regions still struggle to deal with the consequences of past and continued urbanization, the question arises: Are there ways of optimizing the benefits of cities, while minimizing or altogether avoiding their negative externalities? In other words: How can sustainable urban development be achieved?

Realizing the goal of sustainable living in cities involves understanding and tracing the pathways of resource consumption and waste generation in cities or what is generally termed urban metabolism. The concept of urban metabolism informs how economic activities, urban form, and infrastructure influence the metabolic process of a city. This information will be of immense value to urban planners and policy makers for taking advantage of industrial synergies, planning new infrastructure investments or reconfiguring existing ones, prioritizing institutional investments, etc. Having well-planned and managed cities directly improves the well-being of urban denizens and the environment. But it is also a wise investment from a fiscal point of view in terms of savings on costs related to accidents, health hazards, time resources, and longevity of physical capital investments. This comparative report is but a first step in placing Asian and Latin American cities into such a framework. It is in this context that ADB and IDB are collaborating, to respond to and anticipate their developing member countries’ needs for meeting the challenges of urbanization in a sustainable way.

iv

That the process of massive urban expansion started and occurred during different periods in Asia and Latin America offers opportunities for each region to learn from the other’s experiences. Latin America is the most urbanized developing region in the world and experienced the fastest expansion from the 1950s to early 2000. Governments in the region have long experience with assisting the urban poor, including through provision of housing and the now widely adopted conditional cash transfer programs. Asia, however, is a late comer—its urbanization started accelerating in the 1980s, and is expected to continue the fast paced expansion well into the next 3 decades. Because Asia is highly populous and has experienced sustained growth for the last 3 decades, its urbanization gave birth to some of the largest and densest cities in the world, supported by massive investments in infrastructure.

Historically, urbanization is generally far from being a consciously planned, deliberate, and anticipated process. Rather, governments tend to react and discover accompanying problems when coming face to face with them. But the bright side of the story is that the two regions are home to the most dynamic countries in the world and that will dominate the narrative of growth and development of the recent past and the foreseeable future. This dynamism offers hope for designing solutions because information is now far more readily available than when the high-income countries of today underwent their urbanization processes.

The first part of this report introduces motivation for the comparative report. The second part describes the processes of urbanization in Asia and Latin America and the resultant urban forms. Section three analyzes the urban metabolism of cities in the two regions and broadly classifies them based on resource consumption. Section four discusses how infrastructure can influence the metabolic process in cities. Section five discusses the role of governance, and the last section summarizes and concludes with the lessons learned from the two regions.

Juzhong ZhuangDeputy Chief EconomistEconomics and Research DepartmentAsian Development Bank

Jose Juan RuizChief EconomistInter-American Development Bank

Preface

v

Acknowledgments

The completion of this report was made possible with the help and collaboration of many individuals from various institutions.

The direction and guidance provided by the former Chief Economist Changyong Rhee of Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Chief Economist Jose Juan Ruiz of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) was instrumental in ensuring that the direction of the report is geared toward operational relevance in serving the knowledge interest of ADB’s client countries and of IDB’s member countries.

Representatives from ADB member countries participated in the inception workshop in Manila to share their perspectives and ensure that topics covered in the report reflect their most immediate needs and concerns: B. Mahendra from the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Maria Josefina Faulan and Shiela Gail Satura from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Qiu Aijun from the China Center for Urban Development, Sang-Il Kim from the Urban Information Center of Seoul Institute, Saranat Kanjanavanit of the Green World Foundation based in Bangkok, and Nguyen Trong Hoa and Du Phuoc Tan from the Ho Chi Minh Institute for Development Studies. Toby Melissa Monsod and Rachel Racelis from the University of the Philippines brought the perspectives of an urban economist and an urban planner.

This report was prepared by a team comprising Cesar Bouillon and Mariana Racimo from IDB and Douglas Brooks and Eugenia Go from ADB. It benefitted substantially from inputs from a background paper prepared by Paulo Ferrao, André Pina, and Samuel Niza on the urban material flows of six Asian cities and from five background papers for Latin American cities: The report for Caracas was prepared by Roger Martinez (research leader), Marina Fernández, Federico Ortega, and Angélica Schaper from Universidad Simón Bolívar and Universidad Central de Venezuela; the report for Mexico City, Cuernavaca, Toluca, and Pachuca was prepared by Marisol Ugalde Monzalvo (research leader), Miguel Ángel Gómez Albores, and Víctor Katsumi Yamaguchi Llanes in Tecnologico de Monterrey; the report for Medellin was prepared by Francesco M. Orsini (research leader), Monica Ospina, Santiago Leyva, Nora Cadavid, and Juan P. Ospina from Centro de Estudios Urbanos

vi Acknowledgments

y Ambientales Escuela de Administración, Finanzas y Tecnología at the Escuela de Administración, Finanzas, y Tecnología (URBAM–EAFIT); the report for Rio de Janeiro was prepared by Jose A Gemal (research leader), Rogerio Valle, Ricardo Pontual, Marcello Guerreiro, and Eduardo Infante from the Laboratório de Sistemas Avançados de Gestão da Produção, Coppe, (COPPE–SAGE), Universidad Federal de Rio Janiero; the report for Santiago de Chile and Valparaiso was prepared by Roberto Moris (research leader), Arturo Orellana, Marcelo Miranda, Luis Fuentes, Horacio Gilabert, Carmen G. Troncoso, Karen Pape, Ana Rickmers, Claudio Tapia, Constanza Abusleme, Nelson Carroza, Oscar Figueroa, Francisca Zegers, and Jordan Harris from the Catholic University in Chile.

This report also benefited from the insights and comments of Paavo Monkkonen of the University of California, Los Angeles. Brian Roberts of Land Equity International also generously provided his comments.

Jill Gale de Villa was the manuscript editor, and Rhommell Rico designed the report cover and typeset the publication.

We thank April-Marie Gallega, Matthew Howells and Maricris Jan Tobias of the Department of External Relations and the Office of Administrative Services of ADB for ensuring the timely and smooth production of this report.

Finally, the production of this report would not have been possible without the financial support of ADB’s Strategy and Policy Department of ADB and IDB’s Institutional Capacity Strengthening Thematic Fund.

vii

Contents

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

2. Characterizing Urban Form ...................................................................................8

3. Material Flows in Selected Urban Areas ...........................................................28

4. Urban Infrastructure and Services .....................................................................36 4.1 Transport ........................................................................................................37 4.2 Energy ............................................................................................................47 4.3 Basic Services: Housing, Sanitation, and Water .....................................50

5. Governance and Urban Sustainability ...............................................................63 5.1 Information and Coordination ...................................................................63 5.2 Provision of Public Goods ...........................................................................66 5.3 Policy Formulation and Implementation ..................................................67

6. Moving toward Sustainable Cities ......................................................................70

References ..................................................................................................................75

Box

Technological Transformation of Bogota’s Integrated Public Transportation System ................................................................................................41

Figures

1 Level of Urbanization, 1950–2050 ......................................................................12 Megacities, 2010 and 2025 ...................................................................................33 Annual Mean PM10 in Selected Cities ................................................................64 Years to Progress from about 10% to 50% Urbanization ...................................85 City Population Densities .....................................................................................10

viii Contents

6 Spatial Analysis of Selected Asian Cities ..........................................................127 Evolution of Built-up Area in Seoul ....................................................................138 Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janeiro ..............................................................159 Irregular Low-Income Group Settlement Patterns .........................................1610 Growth of Mexico City’s Urban Area, 1910 to 1970 ......................................1711 Growth of Mexico City .........................................................................................17 12 Mexico City’s Urban System ................................................................................1813 Urban Growth in Medellin, Aburra Valley .........................................................1914 Population Density in the Aburra Valley ...........................................................2015 Energy Consumption for Transport versus Urban Density in Cities ............2216 Measuring Fragmentation of Cities ....................................................................2417 Green Space per Capita in Selected Cities .......................................................2618 Green Space in Metropolitan Santiago de Chile ..............................................2719 Urban Metabolism Framework ............................................................................2920 Direct Material Input per Capita, Selected Cities, 2000................................3021 Direct Material Input per Capita Consumption, by Region, 2000 ...............3022 Urban Metabolism of the Metropolitan Bangkok Area ..................................3123 Resource Productivity in Asian Cities, 2000 ....................................................3324 City Typology Based on Direct Material Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions ..............................................................................3425 Energy Required by Types of Transport .............................................................3826 Modal Share of Transport in Selected Cities, 2008–2011 ............................3827 Transport Systems in Metropolitan Rio .............................................................4228 Metropolitan Santiago: Coverage of Public Transport and Subway, 2012 ..................................................................................................................4329 Tendency Graph of Motorization Rate and Population Density, Metropolitan Santiago ......................................................................................4330 Proportion of Trips by Clean Modes in the Medellin Aburra Valley Metropolitan Area .............................................................................................4531 Bicycle-Sharing Programs, by Region ................................................................4632 Share of Bicycles in Total Transport ...................................................................4633 Sources of Electrical Power, Brazil ....................................................................4834 Electricity Demand in Asia and the Pacific, 2008 ...........................................4835 The Ratios of House Prices and of Rent to Income, Selected Asian Cities ........................................................................................5336 Housing Affordability in Latin America .............................................................53

ixContents

37 Waste per Capita in Selected Cities ...................................................................5738 Composition of Municipal Wastes of Selected Asian and Latin American Cities .......................................................................................5839 Environmental Kuznet’s Curve in Asia...............................................................69

Tables

1 Average Fragmentation Indicators for 120 Cities, 2000 ................................232 Direct Material Input, Metropolitan Rio, 2008 ................................................303 Life Cycle of GHG Emissions by Electricity Source .........................................484 Indicators of Water Management in Selected Asian Cities ..........................605 General Characteristics of Asian and Latin American Cities ........................71

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank AMVA Area Metropolitana del Valle de Aburra AUSIS American University School of International Service BRT bus rapid transit CO2 carbon dioxide DMI direct material input DOE Department of Energy ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean EDGAR Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research EDSA Epifanio delos Santos Avenue EEA European Environment Agency EIU Economist Intelligence Unit EPI Earth Policy Institute GDP gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas GORE Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Chile IFC International Finance Corporation INE Instituto Nacional de Estadistica of Chile

x Contents

INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica IRAP International Road Assessment Program JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KL Sentral Kuala Lumpur Sentral LTA Land Transportation Authority MITL Magsaysay Institute for Transformative Leadership MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority NBS National Bureau of Statistics NGO nongovernment organization OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OLADE Latin American Energy Association (Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia) PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrograms or less PRC People’s Republic of China PRRC Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission SEDESOL Secretariat of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarollo Social) SITP Sistema Integrado de Transport Publico (Integrated System of Public Transport) SMA Seoul Metropolitan Area SMSB Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau UITP International Association of Public Transport (L’Union Internationale des Transports Publics) UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UN–HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme USDA United States Department of Agriculture WDI World Development Indicators WHO World Health Organization WNA World Nuclear Association WRI World Resources Institute

xiContents

Weights and Measures

µg microgram km kilometer km2 square kilometer ktoe kilo-ton of oil equivalent m2 square meter m3 cubic meter

1

1 introductionCities have been at the center of social and economic interaction for as long as human civilizations have existed. The expansion of cities in the 20th century has been phenomenal, and now a majority of the world’s 7 billion people are living in urban areas (UNEP 2013). As centers of growth and activity, cities will continue attracting more people. The urbanization trend continues even as technological developments have made physical distance less constraining for a wide array of economic activities. At the same time, urbanization has been a powerful force for economic growth and poverty reduction. By bringing resources into geographical proximity, urbanization enables agglomeration effects to be realized, making cities extremely productive and a potent source of innovation and creativity.

The end of the 20th century has seen the pace of urbanization accelerate in both Asia and Latin America, outpacing the rate at which the process has been unfolding globally (Figure 1). Urbanization levels are projected to increase continually in both regions. Thus, the world’s urban population will increase substantially, given that Asia and Latin America were already home to more than half the world’s urban residents in 2010.

As of 2010, Asia and Latin America had 16 of the world’s 22 megacities—12 in Asia and 4 in Latin America—(megacities are cities with populations exceeding 10 million). And the number of megacities is expected to rise considerably by 2025, to 20 in Asia and 6 in Latin America (Figure 2). Asia is already home to almost half the world’s urban residents and its urban population is more than three times that of Europe—the region with

Source: ADB (2012).

Figure 1Level of Urbanization, 1950–2050 (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Perc

ent

World Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and the Caribbean

2 Sustainable Urbanization in Asia and Latin America

the second largest urban population. Meanwhile, Latin America is the second most urbanized region after North America and has the highest urbanization rate in the developing world (well ahead of Asia). Nearly 80% of Latin America’s people now live in cities; consequently, city dwellers provide the bulk of the region’s demand for housing and social services. The region’s 198 cities that each have populations of 200,000 or more currently host a total of 260 million people and have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $3.6 trillion (McKinsey 2011). By 2025, Latin American cities are expected to have 315 million inhabitants and to generate 65% of the region’s GDP, which is estimated at $3.8 trillion (McKinsey 2011). Even though the region has already undergone the wave of urbanization that most other developing regions are expected to experience in the next 15 years, Latin America will experience important changes in income, population, and household formation patterns in the coming decades (Bouillon 2012).

Rapid urbanization often means that governments are ill prepared to handle the negative spillovers or to maximize the benefits that usually accompany the process. The combined characteristics of speed and density mean little time for adjustment or learning. The virtual permanence of built-up areas also means that the growing size and number of megacities may continue to be difficult to manage, and high population density leaves urban populations vulnerable to catastrophic events and diseases.

Already, accelerated urban growth in developing countries has worsened cities’ local environmental problems. People experience significant difficulties in their daily lives as a consequence of air quality deterioration, traffic congestion, noise pollution, and the unsustainable use of limited land resources. As a result, the increasing demands and outputs of human activities exceed environmental capacities (Donatiello 2001). The capacity of many urban areas is overstretched by the demands of human activity, increasing the need for and threatening the quality of basic services. These challenges are compounded by higher inequality, congestion, and expansion of slums (lower quality or informal housing). As a result of this lower quality of life, governments must, as a high priority, formulate policies that have environmental protection as an integral part of them.

3Introduction

New York

Los Angeles

Mexico City

Rio de JaneiroSão Paulo

Buenos Aires

Tokyo

Osaka-Kobe

BeijingShanghaiGuangzhou

ShenzhenManila

Dhaka

Kolkata

DelhiKarachi

Mumbai

Istanbul

Cairo

Paris

Lagos

Figure 2 Megacities, 2010 and 20252a 2010

world 12-2551a AV

Note: The circles indicate population sizes ranging from (10 million) to (39 million). The circles do not reflect the physical extents of the cities and any overlap between them merely reflects their relative population sizes and not any o�cial acceptance or endorsement of any geographical sovereignty.Source: ADB (2012).

TokyoOsaka-Kobe

Beijing

ShanghaiGuangzhou

ShenzhenManila

DhakaKolkata

DelhiKarachi

Mumbai

IstanbulParis

Lagos

New York

Los Angeles

Mexico City

Rio de Janeiro

Buenos Aires

Lima

Bogotá

Chicago Tianjin

ChongqingWuhan

HyderabadBangkokBangalore

ChennaiKinshasa

Jakarta

Lahore

LondonMoscow

São Paulo

Cairo

2b 2025

world 12-2551b AV


But just as urbanization poses incredible challenges to economies, it also has the potential of solving many of the environmental and sustainability issues faced by the world because of the sheer influence cities have on resource management and use. UNEP (2013) estimates that, as of 2005, 75% of global energy and material consumption was accounted for by cities—which cover a mere 2% of the world’s land area. Agglomeration makes it possible for cities to be more productive than rural areas: 80% of the world’s output, measured in GDP, is generated in cities (UNEP 2013). Agglomeration also enables synergies in ideas and industries. Bettencourt et al. (2007) show that a 1% increase in population in cities leads to a 1.13%–1.34% increase in GDP and in other indicators of innovation, such as the number of new patents and the number of research establishments. Moreover, urbanization is often associated with the development of the service sector, which generally pollutes less than manufacturing; facilitates innovation (including for green technologies); and, under intelligent regulation, prompts traditional manufacturers to relocate away from major city centers. A high density of people and activities helps economize on the per capita provision of infrastructure and basic services such as health, education, piped water, sanitation, and solid waste disposal. A 1% increase in city population only needs 0.77%–0.83% of infrastructure expansion to service the expanded population (Bettencourt et al. 2007). Finally, rising educational attainment, an increasing middle class, and declining birth rates are typically associated with urbanization and can have broadly beneficial implications for resource use and the environment.

Cities in developing countries are currently subject to a variety of problems associated with the provision of basic needs, increasing rates of car and land use, and rising consumption of energy and water. Cities face challenges from both over- and under-consumption, which differ by socioeconomic group and across geographical boundaries within cities. Growing urban areas require better regulation, investment, and spatial and sector planning in the medium and long term, based on the main principles and criteria of sustainable urban development. Planning, regulation, and investments for the cities of the future should incorporate and foster innovations in technology, materials, and processes, as well as “best practices” and the empowerment of groups within urban society.

5Introduction

There is a growing recognition that sustainable conditions of urban development are an input as well as a result of economic development (Monkkonen and Ronconi 2013). Therefore, this report focuses on the physical aspects of the environmental sustainability of urbanization more than on the social or economic aspects. Urban sustainability is the capacity of a territory to sustain a development model that balances economic growth, environmental protection, and social integration, while upholding endogenous capacities, territorial autonomy, and resource availability. By attaining such balance, cities can fulfill their potential roles as mechanisms for addressing growing environmental challenges faced by local as well as global communities (Kennedy et al. 2012).

Sustainability is a pressing issue for Asia and Latin America, both of which are expected to continue urbanizing. Already, slum dwellers accounted for close to 30% of the urban population in the late 2000s,1 implying that a substantial part of the urban population lacked access to basic sanitary services. In Asia, this translates to close to 500 million slum dwellers, and almost 408 million people without access to improved sanitation facilities. The figures are equally discouraging for Latin America, where almost 24% of the urban population, or 115 million Latin Americans, are slum dwellers (ECLAC 2013).

Pollution and pollution-related health problems are among the most conspicuous aspects of the sustainability issue in the two regions. Figure 3 shows that, of the cities monitored by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2007 to 2010, particulate matter (PM) in the air of 42 Latin American cities had PM10 exceeding the 40 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) threshold prescribed the European Union as safe.2 In Asia, 116 cities exceeded the European PM10 threshold. Almost all cities in both regions exceeded the recommended WHO threshold of 20 μg/m3, and had some of the highest

1 Estimated using data from the UN Millennium Indicators Database Online (UN 2013a), and the World Development Indicators (World Bank, WDI database). Both databases were accessed on 3 September 2013.

2 Data are from the WHO Outdoor Air Pollution in Cities Database (WHO 2011), accessed 3 September 2013. PM10 refers to “the fraction of particulates in air of very small size (<10 micrograms µg). They are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and so potentially pose significant health risks” (European Commission 2013).


concentrations in the world. Asian cities such as Beijing, Delhi, and Mumbai have triple the amount of air pollution considered tolerable by the European Union. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) tend to exacerbate air pollution. More than half the world’s most polluted cities are in Asia, and air pollution contributes to half a million deaths a year in the region. Addressing these issues and anticipating them should be a priority. With populations living in urban areas continuing to expand in the two regions, the negative effects of challenges to sustainability will become even more dire if they are not addressed and managed.

In this context, both the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Inter-American Development Bank are supporting research needed to develop a rigorous and quantitative characterization of urbanization patterns. The aim

DF = federal district, EU = European Union, PM10 = Particulate matter with diameter of 10 micrograms or less, WHO = World Health Organization.Note: Annual mean PM10 (Particulate matter with diameter of 10 μm or less). Source: WHO (2011).

Figure 3 Annual Mean PM10 for Selected Cities

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Delhi

Islamabad

DakarCairo

Dhaka

Mumbai

Beijing

Tehran

Santa Cruz de la Sierra

ShanghaiLim

a

Bogota

Santiago

Seoul

Rio de Janeiro

Istanbul

Mexico DF

Hong Kong, China

Guatemala City

Kingston

Jakarta

Sao Paulo

Buenos Aire

s

CaracasQuito

LondonTokyo

Zürich

New York

Sydney

Ann

ual m

ean

PM10

EU

AsiaLatin America and the CaribbeanMiddle East and Northern Africa Subsaharan Africa

EuropeNorth AmericaOceania

WHO

7Introduction

is to use the results to identify the mechanisms that link urban patterns to the character and intensity of urban resource consumption and waste generation. This in turn can inform policy makers of bottlenecks that result in inefficient resource consumption and waste generation.

Glaeser (2013) points out that the massive expansion of urbanization in the high-income countries and that of the developing world started in very different contexts. Whereas the West started the process in relatively closed economies with wealth preceding urbanization, the process in the developing world commenced and is continually occurring in the context of more open economies, and is usually unfolding faster than income and governance institutions can support. The different periods and contexts in the last half of the 20th century, when the rapid expansion of urban areas took place in Asia and Latin America, therefore offers a unique opportunity for the two regions to learn from each other.

8

2 characterizing urban Form This section describes the dynamics of urban form in Asian and Latin American cities, focusing on the key attributes of urbanization, decongestion and suburbanization, fragmentation, and dispersion.

Urbanization refers to the increase in the shares of urban populations over time. Figure 4 shows that the process is an older phenomenon in Latin America, which also displays a higher level of urbanization. While Latin America took 2 centuries to achieve a 50% level of urbanization, the region took only 55 years more to have 80% of its population living in cities, a much faster urbanization rate than that of North America or Europe. Asia started urbanizing much later, but the speed and intensity of the process in Asia has also been remarkable. From 1980 to 2010, Asia added over a billion people to its cities—more than all other regions combined—with a further billion set to be city dwellers by 2030. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) transitioned from 10% of its population in urban areas to 50% in just 60 years—a process that took 210 years in Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, Asia’s urban population is projected to continue growing faster than that of other regions.

Note: Extrapolation and interpolation were used to estimate urbanization level and corresponding starting years for Latin America and the Caribbean and Northern America.

Sources: Estimates based on Bairoch (1988) and UN (2013b).

Figure 4 Years to Progress from about 10% to 50% Urbanization

1725 1750 1775 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050

China, People's Rep. of

Bhutan

Lao People's Democratic Republic

Indonesia

Viet Nam

Asia

Europe

Northern America

Latin America and the Caribbean 10%

9%

12%

11%

12%

12%

10%

10%

11%

51%

50%

54%

52%

51%

80%

81%

80%

51%

49%

51%

51%

210 years

105 years

150 years

95 years

90 years

65 years

60 years

55 years

61 years

55 years

75 years

90years

2010

9Characterizing Urban Form

As of 2010, Asia and Latin America were home to the densest cities in the world, with average city populations of 9.4 million in Asia and 4.6 million in Latin America (EIU 2012). The density of Asian cities, in particular, stands out, as is evident by the number of blue columns in Figure 5a. Nonetheless, Figures 5b and 5c show that urban density has declined and is projected to continue doing so in cities throughout the region, though this is primarily due to expansion of physical urban areas rather than a decline in the urban populations. The reduction in densities has been particularly striking in Ho Chi Minh City, Kolkata, and Manila. Decreasing population densities in Asian and Latin American cities calls for careful management to optimize infrastructure investment.

Countries in Asia and Latin America have experienced an increasing “metropolitanization”—the physical expansion of urban areas. Angel et al. (2005) observed that all Asian and Latin American cities in their study increased their built-up area during 1990–2000. This massive expansion has resulted in new mega urban forms, with new externalities that arise from the networks of centers and urban systems that operate on different scales (Dematteis 1998). The expanded metropolitanization reflects two separate processes: the expansion of big cities into adjacent areas and the interconnection of preexisting towns (De Mattos and Fuentes 2012b). This implies that some of the biggest urban areas “are evolving from monocentric agglomerations to more complex systems made of integrated urban centers (cores) and subcenters. In other territories, a considerable number of cities and towns are increasingly linking up, forming polycentric integrated areas” (OECD 2012b: 20).

Indeed, most cities have expanded horizontally faster than vertically, as technological capacities have reduced the barriers to interaction determined by distance. Glaeser and Kohlase (2003), for example, estimate that intercity transport costs in the United States declined by 90% during the 20th century. Other factors fueling urban expansion in recent years include re-invigorated road-building activities, low-density suburban development, distant public housing projects, and squatter settlements at the urban fringe. An increasing number of industries, and hence settlements, also sprang up on the outskirts of cities as land prices in urban centers tend to be exponentially higher and


Figure 5 City Population Densities

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Mumbai

Kolkata

Karachi

Shanghai

Shenzhen

Kinshasa

Chennai

TianjinDelhi

Beijing

BogotaLim

aLagos

Bangalore

Ho Chi Minh City

HyderabadLahore

Shenyang

Tehran

Sao PauloRecife

Singapore

Baghdad

Mexico City

Seoul/Incheon

Den

sity (

peop

le/k

m2 )

Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and Northern Africa

5a Selected Cities Ranked by Population Density

Subsaharan Africa

Built

-up

area

den

sity (

peop

le/k

m2 )

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Mumbai

Ho Chi Minh City

KolkataManila

Hyderabad

Seoul–IncheonCairo

Istanbul

Mexico City

Singapore

Shanghai

Tehran

Bangkok

Santiago

Tokyo

Tel Aviv

Caracas

Sao Paulo

Guadalajara

Buenos Aire

sBeijin

g

London

Los Angeles

1990 2000

5b Evolution of Built-Up Area Densities of Selected Cities, 1990–2000

Note: km2 = square kilometer; PRC = People’s Republic of ChinaSources: Angel et al. (2010c) and UNDESA (2013).

Urb

an d

ensit

y (pe

ople

/km

2 )

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Viet Nam

Singapore

Honduras

Republic of Korea

PRC

ColombiaJapan

Malaysia

Philippines

IndonesiaChile

ThailandBrazil

Ecuador

Bolivia

Argentina

Urban density projections for 2020

0% annual density decline 1% annual density decline 2% annual density decline

5c Urban Density Projections for 2020


the assembly of small parcels more difficult than in peri-urban areas. Thus, developers may consider locating outside a city if adequate transport facilities and infrastructure are available.

In the broadest sense, the configuration of cities is largely determined by geography and history. Cities traditionally emerged in areas that were easily accessible through waterways and had reliable supplies of basic needs such as water or fertile land. Hence, the cities tended to be located in the plains or near waterways, and from there, grew to their current size and form. But, since the industrial revolution, technology has played an increasing role in influencing urban form. An empirical investigation of 120 cities by Angel et al. (2005) identifies urban population, income, and linkages via air transport as primary drivers of urban land area expansion—a 100% increase in each of these factors can expand urban area by 66%, 50%, and 12%, respectively. As a result of increased access to information, policy tools (such as land and building taxes, zoning, and regulations; reconfiguration of infrastructure; and governance) also influence urban form, and therefore the efficiency of cities. Hong Kong, China; Singapore; and Tokyo all demonstrate how using these policies to engender an environment where human capital is harnessed to work collaboratively can make for successful as well as sustainable cities (Glaeser 2011).

Urban form and the spatial pattern of land use influence the way cities use and generate resources and waste, and ultimately the quality of life of city dwellers (Dempsey and Jenks 2010). Forman (2008) established that two general patterns of urban growth yield particularly favorable results—“satellite cities” and “compact concentric zones.” These patterns help preserve large patches and corridors of green space for ecosystems while at the same time providing for human development. Other patterns of urban growth, such as urban sprawl, produce less optimal results. This pattern, “which jumbles together fine-scale patches of people and nature on the land is one of the least attractive designs. In addition to conserving fewer large patches of land for ecosystems, sprawl tends to increase vehicle miles driven by commuters, resulting GHG emissions, and infrastructure costs” (UN–HABITAT 2011c: 2). The greater dispersion of population makes it difficult to concentrate enough demand to efficiently deliver public services (OECD 2012a). In Asia’s dense cities, with critical masses of people in relatively small areas, supplying essential services such as piped water and sanitation is less complex and more


cost effective than in dispersed settlements. Asia’s late-comer advantage, plus developments in transport and communications technology, facilitate linkage and distribution of economic activities in new spatial patterns, mixing city center density with new frontiers in an innovative pattern of city systems.

Figure 6 shows the built-up areas of six Asian cities. The boundaries between the amber and gray areas distinguish the metropolitan areas, and the red areas represent the built-up or impervious portions of the metropolis. Based on these snapshots and analysis of spatial metrics by Ferrao et al. (2013) and an analysis of population density, Bangalore, Manila, and (to lesser extents) Bangkok and Shanghai exhibit concentric patterns of formation while Ho Chi Minh City and Seoul tend to exhibit satellite patterns. In Manila, the pattern evolved with 98% of its population growth from 2000 to 2010 taking place outside of the core city, so that the urban built-up area now exceeds the jurisdictional boundary of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The same phenomena have been observed in cities in the PRC and Mexico, where administrative boundaries adjusted as a response to the

Note: Scales are not standardized.Source: Ferrao et al (2013).

Figure 6 Spatial Analysis of Selected Asian Cities

Pervious surface WaterImpervious surface

6a. Manila Metropolitan Region 6b. Ho Chi Minh Metropolitan Region 6c. Bangkok Metropolitan Region

6d. Seoul Metropolitan Region 6e. Bangalore Metropolitan Region 6f. Shanghai Metropolitan Region


expansion of contiguous built-up areas stemming outward from the core. Still, general patterns of concentricity or satellite form alone do not give conclusive information on the actual sustainability of a city’s urban form. For example, the supposedly “optimal” concentric patterns observed in Bangkok and Manila belie the fact that intense human activities are taking place in purportedly ecologically sensitive areas and along limited access thoroughfares, contributing to environmental degradation and to the over 1.3 million traffic accident cases globally per year (UN–HABITAT 2011c).

In the Seoul Metropolitan area (SMA), population density at 10,400 people per square kilometer (km2) is among the highest of the world’s affluent urban areas, exceeded only by Hong Kong, China. From 1950 to 2010, the SMA added over 20 million people (Cox 2011). The speed of its population expansion has been unprecedented except in Tokyo–Yokohama. Figure 7 shows how the urban areas have evolved in a span of 18 years. The satellite pattern is easily discernable, and is part of a conscious government effort to decongest the core city. The area now accounts for 40% of the SMA’s population, down from a peak of 62% in 1970. A significant portion of heavy manufacturing industry in the SMA is in the northwest (Incheon), for easy access to deepwater ports (Ferrao et al. 2013), supported by accompanying investments in well-connected transport systems. This has allowed for a satellite pattern of development. Statistics Korea (2010) predicts that the SMA population will continue to expand, from 24 million people in 2010 to more than 31 million by 2030, although most of the increase will occur in Incheon and Gyeonggi.

Source: Kim (2012).

7a Republic of Korea 7b Built Up Area 1985 7c Built Up Area 2003

Figure 7 Evolution of Built-up Area in Seoul

Incheon

Seoul

Gyeonggi


In Latin America, the development of urban land uses in the Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janiero (“metropolitan Rio”) has taken place with decreasing density, following the transformation of rural and undeveloped areas into urban land. In 1975, metropolitan Rio covered about 434 km2 of land and the urban resident population was about 8 million people, for a density of over 18,000/km2. But, between 2001 and 2010, the total urbanized area jumped from about 1,200 km2 to 1,700 km2, an incorporation of about 55 km2 per year into urban uses in a nonplanned process. The annual growth rate was almost 5 times the population growth rate, so that metropolitan Rio’s density in 1975 was three times that in 2010. This rapid expansion is shown as a pink shade in Figure 8a. The expansion from 1975 to 2001, while also substantial, occurred over a longer period of time and is represented by the pastel yellow shade.

The effect of both irregular and lower density development in metropolitan Rio is illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 8b maps the densities of different metropolitan areas. The irregular occupation of often unsuitable or environmentally sensitive areas and low-density uncontrolled plot schemes in the periphery, and densification of neighborhoods with better services and amenities can be explained in part by market forces operating in the context of insufficient land-use planning, regulation, and control, and the absence of intelligent public housing programs. Figure 9 illustrates the patterns of low-income settlements in metropolitan Rio. The image on the left shows informal settlements that arose in fringe areas in low densities, but without access to major infrastructure. The picture shows irregular plots of 300 meters or more in the periphery of metropolitan Rio—550 km2 were developed in the city’s periphery in this manner during the previous decade (Gemal et al. 2014). The image on the right shows a dense slum (favela) in a sensitive and high-risk area subject to flooding, and such slums were often built in land reserved for preservation.

The middle and upper classes, both in the metropolitan core, i.e. Rio’s central districts, and in the conurbation that represents the actual megalopolis of metropolitan Rio, are presently the target of high-rise private redevelopment in the traditional neighborhoods, with the best services and amenities, as well as new private resort-type condominiums, i.e. closed, isolated, low- and average-density development patterns.


Haguaí

Rio de Janeiro

Guapimirim

Tanguá

ParacambiJaperi

Seropédica

Haguaí

Belford Roxo

Nova IguaçuDuque de Caxias

MagéGuapimirim

ItaboraíTanguá

Niteról

Sao Gonçalo

Sao João de Meriti

Maricá

Nilópolis

Rio de Janeiro

Queimados

Municipalities

Urban density contours

0–2521–50

51–100101–200

201–400401–750

751–15001501–18275

Urban surface area 1975

8b Classes of Urban Densities per Census Tract (as contours)

Figure 8 Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janeiro8a Municipalities and Urban Expansion

Municipalities-Metropolitan RegionUrban surface area 1975

Urban expansion 1975–2001Urban expansion 2001–2010

Source: Gemal et al. (2014).


Mexico City, one of the heavily populated cities in Latin America, has likewise experienced de-densification of 60% during a span of 3 decades. The city’s population increased 40% between 1980 and 2010, while the metropolitan area expanded by 250% (SEDESOL 2011). Figures 10 and 11 demonstrate the physical evolution of Mexico City during 4 centuries, following a concentric pattern. The enlargement of the metropolitan area imposed major transformations in the surrounding rural and urban centers, generating growth and development in the region. The use of land surrounding small towns changed when it was acquired by industries established outside the city. The natural environment of the formerly sparsely populated areas became housing land and recreational space for increasing numbers of city dwellers and traditional land use changed with little deliberate or adequate planning. In effect, Mexico City’s growth promoted the urbanization of the municipalities of Cuernavaca, Pachuca, and Toluca, which are beyond Mexico City’s metropolitan area (Figure 10) and have traditionally provided environmental services to the city. These municipalities now have a predominantly urban character and a high urban density. They retain a strong level of functional relationships with Mexico City, such as having a significant number of residents commuting to work within the central municipalities of the metropolitan area and providing work to residents of the central municipalities. A high percentage of the three municipalities’ populations now work in industrial, commercial, and service activities.

Figures 11 and 12 show a predominant growth of Mexico City along a northeast–southwest axis, with Pachuca to the northeast and Cuernavaca and Toluca to the southwest.


Figure 9 Irregular Low-Income Group Settlement Patterns


Source: Ugalde et al. 2014, based on Mejia (n.d.).

Figure 10 Growth of Mexico City’s Urban Area, 1910 to 1970

Source: INEGI (2000).

Figure 11 Growth of Mexico City

1519152415551628175317931853186718801910194219711993

Year

In Medellin, Colombia, the industrial development of the Medellin area combined with violence that forced large numbers of people out of rural areas triggered an urban growth rate that reached 6% per annum between 1940 and 1970. The evolution of Medellin’s size is clear from Figure 13. The Medellin Aburra Valley’s permanent urbanization process has decreased in intensity in recent decades, and currently shows much more moderate growth rates.


In physical terms, the last 60 years of urban growth in Medellin has resulted in the pattern of a dense central urban core with several minor centers north and south of Medellin, in the Aburra Valley. This urban form has been described as concentric and therefore of low spatial footprint (UN–HABITAT 2011c). Connectivity in Medellin metropolis is achieved by a high capacity road system that also functions as a national road. Topographic conditions preclude building ring roads. Most urban facilities, services, and functions are located along the road system, as are the industry and the main mass transport system—an elevated metro system built in the 1990s that guarantees good accessibility to urban centers within the valley. Residential areas, both formal and informal, tend to occupy steeper zones.

Nonetheless, the dynamics of city expansion implied the development of informal settlements in the city because the growing demand for housing generated by the exodus from rural areas was unmet. At first, the informal settlement process in Medellin focused on the steepest areas on the city’s northern, central-east, and western hillsides, which had adverse conditions for human occupation and provision of public services. Conventional real estate and urbanization processes focused on the flattest areas of the valley, with better accessibility, topography, and location conditions. The highest population densities are on the northeastern and northwestern hill slopes,

Sources: Ugalde et al. 2014, modified from Rhoda and Burton (2010).

Figure 12 Mexico City’s Urban System

Metropolitan areas of Queretaro,Mexico City, and Puebla-Tlaxcala

Metropolitan area of Pachuca

Metropolitan area of Toluca

Metropolitan area of Morelos


which support 20,000–52,000 inhabitants/km2 (AMVA 2012). The lowest densities occur on the southwestern hill slope, at 4,000–20,000 inhabitants/km2, and along the river, where some city areas have no housing.

Figure 14 illustrates the issue, with most services and urban infrastructure concentrated along the river, where the settlement density is relatively low compared to that of the hillsides. Such a settlement pattern implies that managing the area will be complex; due to geotechnical factors, the pattern will result in environmental impacts associated with the alteration of hydrological dynamics, and will involve high costs for mobilizing and operating public utilities.

In Latin America, the decline in most cities’ population densities has been accompanied by diseconomies and inequities in urban growth due to the lack of integrated public investment planning and land-use planning or control. The historical problem of income concentration has thus been aggravated by urban sprawl and the illegal occupation/densification of unsuitable land (such as by the favelas), where provision of public services has not kept pace with needs for them.

Sources: Orsini et al. (2014), from AMVA (2012).

Figure 13 Urban Growth in Medellin, Aburra Valley

1826–1915

1915–1948

1948–1970

1970–1985

1985–1996

1996–2011


Broadly speaking, the rapid drop in urban density signals a problematic global phenomenon. Angel et al. (2005: 1) notes: “If average densities continue to decline at the annual rate of 1.7% as they have during the past decade, the built-up area of developing-country cities will increase from 200,000 km2 in 2000 to more than 600,000 km2 by 2030, while their population doubles.” The looming outcome is fragmentation—scattered development where

Source: AMVA (2012).

Figure 14 Population Density in the Aburra Valley

PopulationDensity 2005≤ 10,00010,001–25,00025,001–35,00035,001–55,00055,001 ≤


spatial structures are fragmented by noncontiguous expansion to adjacent countryside (Angel et al. 2010b). The implied results are wasteful and high levels of land consumption, higher environmental impacts of urbanization, and reduced modal share of public relative to private transport (Camagni et al. 2002) In addition, because cities historically formed in highly fertile areas, their expansion can have negative consequences for food security. Angel et al. (2005) argue that the large majority of urban authorities in developing countries should prepare realistically for growth, such as by securing the necessary public lands and public rights-of-way needed to serve future urban growth, by protecting sensitive lands from building activities, or by efficiently investing in the infrastructure needed to accommodate growth.

High density tends to make cities more efficient. It allows quantitatively fewer linkages and lower investment in transport and other infrastructure to bring things into physical proximity with each other. Figure 15 is one illustration of this point. Population density and energy consumption are clearly correlated with transport, explained by distances travelled and by the tendency to have more competitive public transport in denser cities (Camagni et al. 2002). Economies of scale strongly associated with high density also allow for lower costs of managing wastes and providing basic services. In addition, the proximity and diversity of other industries holds the promise of industrial symbiosis, where the waste of one sector in the economy can be used as an input by another.

Nonetheless, density alone is not a desirable characteristic. Densities must be sustainable. A low density may mean fewer benefits from agglomeration, but a high density without institutional capacity and infrastructure for delivering basic services and managing the volume of people, activities, and wastes also means congestion, pollution, and a poor quality of life. The result is ultimately a drag on productivity and well-being. For example, the Japan International Cooperation Agency estimates that the Philippines forgoes 5% of its annual output due to productivity losses from traffic congestion in Metro Manila (JICA 2013). In a survey by Burton et al. (2004), aspects of urban living that were observed to have worsened with densification include noise, road safety, amount of open space, crime, and privacy.


Nevertheless, compact and contiguous cities are generally preferred given the efficiency they provide in terms of transport, infrastructure, and waste management. This implies that a reduction in the fragmentation of cities is viewed as a step forward in urban development. As open spaces are transformed into built-up area, urban development becomes less scattered and more contiguous over time.

To aid the analysis of fragmentation, Angel et al. (2010b) developed indicators such as the edge index, the openness index, and the core open space ratio, the regional averages of which are presented in Table 1. Angel et al. (2010b) estimate that, in the 2000s, a typical urban neighborhood contained almost as much open space as built-up area.

Sources: Orisini et al. (2014), based on UITP (2001).

Figure 15Energy Consumption for Transport versus Urban Density in Cities

Ener

gy c

onsu

med

by t

he tr

ansp

ort s

ecto

r (gi

gajo

ules

per

cap

ita p

er ye

ar)

Houston

Denver San Francisco

PhoenixLos Angeles

Washington ChicagoNew York

Toronto Perth Melbourne

SydneyBrisbane

HamburgStockholm

Frankfurt

BrusselsZurich Copenhagen

ParisLondon

Amsterdam Munich

ViennaBerlin

Mexico City

CurritibaSao Paulo

TokyoBogota

Singapore

JakartaHong Kong, China

Mumbai

Medellín 1996

Medellín 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Urban density (inhabitant per hectare)

Asia Latin America and the CaribbeanEurope North America Australia

Trend line of urban population density and energy consumption for transport


The edge index measures the frequency with which a small built-up area is surrounded by open spaces or water. The results suggest that in Latin America, built-up areas were usually surrounded by other built-up areas, whereas in Asia, built-up areas tended to be evenly bordered by built-up areas and open spaces or water. One reason is that Asian cities are more likely to be on a coast or an island than are Latin American cities (Monkkonen and Ronconi 2013).

The openness index measures the share of open space in a 1 km2 circle around each built-up square of 30-by-30 meters. Of the 120 cities Angel et al. (2010b) sampled, the openness index indicates that Rajshahi and Saidpur, both in Bangladesh, had the largest share of open space per neighborhood (scoring 95.3% and 75.4%, respectively). As in the edge index, Latin America had the lowest openness score, while South and Central Asia had the most fragmented cities.

Fragmentation declined between 1990 and 2000, in both the edge and the openness indexes (Figures 16a and 16b). The reduction in fragmentation was significant in Asian cities such as Akashi and Bacolod, where the edge index dropped 47% and 56%, respectively. Smaller reductions took place in Latin American cities such as Guatemala City (20%), Sao Paulo (19%), and San Salvador (15%), although the indicator was already very low for these Latin American cities in 1990.

Table 1 Average Fragmentation Indicators for 120 Cities, 2000Region Edge Index Openness Index Core Open Space RatioEastern Asia 0.462 0.481 0.223Southeast Asia 0.449 0.412 0.293South and Central Asia 0.533 0.525 0.238Western Asia 0.507 0.507 0.268Northern Africa 0.394 0.443 0.187Sub-Saharan Africa 0.468 0.388 0.296Latin America and the Caribbean 0.351 0.335 0.194Land-Rich Developed Countries 0.474 0.410 0.304Other Developed Countries 0.385 0.363 0.259

Source: Angel et al. (2010b).


The core open space ratio takes into account the open areas in the core regions of the city. Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Northern Africa have the lowest scores—i.e. they have the world’s least fragmented cities.

The growth of urban public space, especially in less developed countries, has been disorganized and unregulated. Consequently, most cities are fragmented, chaotic, dispersed, crowded, and environmentally unsustainable. This favors segregation, anonymity, and individuality, which have both advantages and disadvantages.

Physical fragmentation is, however, just one aspect of sustainability of urban developments. While cities in general thrive better with high density, they need public spaces such as parks, town halls, and plazas for social interaction and to achieve ecological balance. Public space should be understood as a city’s main organizing element, which stimulates social cohesion and, as a formally planned element, regulates environmental and landscape conditions. Hence, public space becomes one of the main foci organizing the growth of a city. Public space has been assessed in terms of square meters per inhabitant, and in terms of distribution (or concentration) throughout a city.

In Latin America, public spaces tend to be insufficient due to the unregulated development of many of the cities, such as for informal housing.

Edge

inde

x, 20

00

Ope

nnes

s Ind

ex, 2

000

Sanaa

JequieAkashi

PunaBacolod

Developed countries

16a Decline in the Edge Index, 1990–2000 16b Decline in the Openness Index, 1990–2000

Edge index, 1990 Openness index, 1990

Other developed countries Land rich Regression line

Chinju Yiyang

Tacoma

BacolodPuna

Akashi

St. Catharines

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.00.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.90.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.90.8 1.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.0

Source: Angel et al. (2010b).

Figure 16 Measuring Fragmentation of Cities


Some cities have improved the provision of public urban spaces in recent years. In metropolitan Medellin, Colombia, during 2005–2012 the average public space increased from 1.95 square meters (m2) per inhabitant to 2.33 m2, but remains well below the international standard of 15 m2, recommended by WHO. Although metropolitan Medellin’s public space has increased overall, it has done so unevenly. Caldas, Girardota, La Estrella, and Medellin municipalities have more than 3.5 m2 per inhabitant; in contrast, Copacabana and Envigado have the least public space, at less than 1 m2 per inhabitant.

The Gini index for public space in metropolitan Medellin, at 0.64, shows a great imbalance in its supply of public space, especially in areas dominated by informal settlers. In Medellin, the least such space—at 1.43 m2 per inhabitant—is in informally developed areas with high population densities and poor socioeconomic conditions. The highest indicator—at 6.28 m2 per inhabitant—is in zones with a high percentage of green areas, near creeks, hills, or road edges, that are in many cases inaccessible for most citizens. The highest indicators are in the districts inhabited by people who have the city’s highest socioeconomic levels. Notwithstanding the great difference between the best and the worst zones measured in availability of public space, the 0.40 Gini index for Medellin municipality is slightly better than for the metropolitan area. In this context, Janches (2011) argues that public spaces can be used to catalyze transformation in fragmented cities by resolving environmental and infrastructural conflicts in communities.

As part of public spaces, urban green areas enhance the environment by contributing to social, economic, recreational, cultural, and visual aspects and helping to foster commercial development. Green spaces play a key role in adaptation to climate change by cooling the environment during heat waves, reducing flood risk by storing and soaking away excess water, and providing habitat for wildlife. They are also vital for people’s physical and mental wellbeing (Ross and Underwood 2010), improving the sense of wellbeing in urban environments.

Figure 17 shows green space available in selected cities. Awareness of the value of urban green spaces is increasing among households and policy makers alike. In Asia, city governments have been gradually promoting such spaces or even explicitly requiring them as part of urban renewal programs. For example, Bangkok has one of the least green space levels even by Asian standards, at


3.3 m2 per person (only Kolkata and Jakarta have lower measures, at 1.8 m2 and 2.3 m2, respectively) and the city government has made an explicit goal to add 8 m2 more for each Bangkok resident (The Economist 2013). Singapore, on the other hand, has one of the largest public space in the region, at 66 m2 (Sreshthaputra 2013). Shanghai has steadily increased its coverage of urban green areas, from 22% in 2000 to 38% by 2010—from 4.6 m2 per person to 13.0 m2 (SMSB 2011). Other major PRC cities are also doing well in this regard: Guangzhou has 166.3 m2; Hong Kong, China has 105.3 m2; and Beijing has 88.4 m2 (The Economist 2013). The distribution of access to green spaces must be carefully planned so that it does not impinge on a city’s efficiency. Some wealthier city residents have moved from city cores to suburbs with access to green space. This has meant longer commuting times and distances, especially in developing Asia where transport infrastructure tends to lag behind the urban sprawl (except perhaps in the PRC).

In Santiago de Chile, green space per capita has doubled during the last 20 years, from 2 m2 per capita to 4 m2 per capita (Moris et al. 2014). This is still less than the WHO-recommended minimum of 9 m2 per capita as a general indicator of a high quality of life (OECD 2013). In addition, there is a clear pattern of inequality within the districts of the city, as most of the available green spaces are in the upper-income municipalities, while many lower-income housing areas have severe deficits of such space (Packe and Aldunce 2010). Figure 18 shows this disparity. With few exceptions, the poorer municipalities have lower levels of municipal spending per capita, lower levels of education, lower income levels, lower levels of human development, lower percentages of the population with private health care coverage, less access to banking services, and fewer companies operating within their territories. Metropolitan Santiago clearly has a severe lack of green spaces for its population, and this is highly correlated with other socioeconomic deficiencies.

m2 = square meter.Sources: The Economist (2013); Por la Reserva

(accessed 30 January 2014); Sreshthaputra (2013); SMSB (2011).

Figure 17Green Space per Capita in Selected Cities (m2)

Per c

apita

m2

166

10588

6652

3828 2314 13 12 6 6 4 3 3 2 2.3 1.9

020406080

100120140160180

Guangzhou

Hong Kong, China

Beijing

Singapore

Curitiba

Shanghai

Rotterdam

New York

Madrid

TorontoParis

Colima

Barcelona

Mexico

BangkokTokyo

Jakarata

Buenos Aire

s

Kolkata


In Chile, green areas have received much attention in policy making. This is reflected in the Green Spaces Policy and Plan published by the Regional Government of Santiago, which seeks an ambitious increase in the creation and maintenance of such urban spaces, with a special emphasis on bridging the gap between different areas within the city (Fuentes 2012; GORE 2013). Although the success of this policy over time remains to be seen, and there are many obstacles to overcome regarding its effective and equitable implementation (such as local institutional capacity, funding availability, and issues of water scarcity), there is clearly political will to move forward on the vital issue of urban sustainability and quality of life.

Contrary to the case of Santiago, in Valparaiso, Chile, the green space per inhabitant decreased from 2002 to 2012 in most municipalities. Although Valparaiso’s total green surface areas have remained primarily unchanged, the city’s population has increased.

Source: Moris et al. 2014.

Figure 18 Green Space in Metropolitan Santiago de Chile

Municipality divisionUrban surface 2012Green areasNot applicable

28

3 material Flows in Selected urban areas

“Urban metabolism” is a useful, holistic framework for discussing the different consumption and release flows related to activities of urban spheres. It identifies links between resource transformation, consumption, and waste generation (Broto et al. 2012). It also captures the pathways of the biophysical exchange process (Barles 2010). In the same way that food, nutrients, air, and other chemicals flow in and out of a living organism, cities constantly have materials flowing through them, with infrastructure such as waterways, roads, and railways simulating the role of veins and arteries, and urban form simulating the physical form of a living organism.

Material consumption is highly uneven across world regions. The globe’s wealthiest quintile disproportionately consumes 80% of all biomass, minerals, fossil energy carriers, and metals produced worldwide, while the poorest quintile consumes only 20% of such basic materials (UNEP 2013). As people in developing regions become wealthier, their material consumption has increased, but unevenly. During 1980–2009, absolute consumption increased in all regions except Central Asia (where the collapse of the former Soviet Union resulted in a decrease in aggregate material consumption). The increased consumption occurred most rapidly in East Asia (particularly in the PRC and India, and less dramatically in Indonesia and Thailand) but also in South America. Conversely, per capita consumption was almost stagnant or even declined in some regions, such as Africa, Central America, and North America (Dittrich et al. 2011).

Urban ecology literature argues that metabolism analysis can help identify how to make urban development more sustainable. Mapping material input and output flows is a diagnostic tool that policy makers use to identify and target inefficiencies in the urban system. Figure 19 illustrates how this can be done by mapping material input to certain economic activities and their consequent outputs through material flow analysis. This method is commonly applied in studying city metabolism.

29Material Flows in Selected Urban Areas

An ideal urban metabolism framework would take a holistic approach to include everything that affects the exchange process of a city. Ramaswami et al. (2012: 801) explained that the efficiency and sustainability of cities depend on “complex, cross-scale interactions between the natural system, the transboundary engineered infrastructures, and the multiple social actors and institutions that govern these infrastructures.” But data constraints prevent estimation of all interactions from being fully realized in the immediate future. Ferrao et al. (2013) developed a modified and simpler approach to estimating these flows from a combination of city-level and national-level data and applied the technique to analyze several cities.

The resulting estimations are summarized in Figure 20, which shows the per capita direct material input (DMI) of broad groups of materials in selected cities. From the limited sample of cities shown, it appears that the share of

GDP = gross domestic product, GVA = gross value added, IO = input-output.Source: Ferrao et al. (2013).

Figure 19 Urban Metabolism Framework

Material selfsu�ciency

DomesticExtraction

Materials

Imports

MaterialsandProducts

Economicactivity 1

Exports

Materialsandproducts

Wastesandemissions

Addition tostock

Economicactivity 3

Economicactivity 2

Economicactivity n

Economicactivity 1

Economicactivity n

Economicactivity 3

Economicactivity 2

Benchmarking

Ecologicalfootprint Yield factors

City typologies

+ Climate+ Demographics+ Governance+ City morphology+ Economic structure

CO2 emission factors

GHG

+ waste IO+ Products lifetime

Circular economy/waste infrastructure

+ GDP+ GVA

economic activities

Resource e�ciency Material use per activity


a city’s biomass inputs tend to be associated with its income per capita. Bangalore, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, and Manila all have at least 30% shares of biomass, but higher income cities such as Lisbon, Paris, Seoul, and Shanghai have lower shares and tend to have nonmetallic minerals as their dominant material input.

Following generally the same framework as Ferrao et al. (2013), Gemal et al. (2014) estimate the DMI of the municipalities in metropolitan Rio using five broad categories: biomass, minerals, fossil fuels, metals, and others. The results are in Table 2. As in the middle-income Asian cities, biomass dominates the materials used in metropolitan Rio, followed by minerals.

Compared with Figure 21, the DMI in metropolitan Rio is relatively low vis-à-vis the Latin American average, while all but one (Ho Chi Minh City) of the Asian cities in the graph exceed the Asian average.

Ferrao et al. (2013) provide a more detailed representation of material flows through a diagram (Figure 22). The diagram relates 64 types of material input and output to economic sectors that use and produce the inputs and outputs,

DMI = direct material input, t = ton.Source: Ferrao et al. (2013).

Figure 20 Direct Material Input per Capita, Selected Cities, 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bangalore

Bangkok

Ho Chi Minh City

ManilaSeoul

Shanghai

Lisbon

Paris

DM

I per

cap

ita (t

/cap

)

Others

Chemicals and fertilizersBiomassNonmetallic mineralsMetallic minerals

Fossil fuels

Table 2 Direct Material Input, Metropolitan Rio, 2008

Materials Total (billion tons)

Per Capita (million tons)

Biomass 118.2 6.8Minerals 33.6 2.0Fossil Fuels 11.8 0.7Metals 9.5 0.5Others 9.5 0.5Total 184.3 10.6


Source: Derived from UNEP (2013).

Figure 21 Direct Material Input per Capita Consumption, by Region, 2000

Tons

58

25

15 13

5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Oceania

North Americ

a

Latin Americ

a

EuropeAfric

aAsia

Worldaverage


DM

I = d

irect

mat

eria

l inpu

t, n.

e.s.

= no

t else

whe

re st

ated

, t =

ton.

Sour

ce:

Ferra

o et

al. (

2013

).

Figu

re 2

2 U

rban

Met

abol

ism o

f the

Met

ropo

litan

Ban

gkok

Are

a

S01–

Agr

icul

ture

, hun

ting,

fore

stry

, and

fish

ing

S02–

Min

ing a

nd q

uarry

ing

S03–

Food

pro

duct

s, be

vera

ges,

and

toba

cco

S04–

Text

iles,

text

ile p

rodu

cts,

leat

her,

and

foot

wea

rS0

5–W

ood

and

prod

ucts

of w

ood

and

cork

S06–

Pulp

, pap

er, p

aper

pro

duct

s, pr

intin

g and

pub

lishi

ngS0

7–Co

ke, r

efin

ed p

etro

leum

pro

duct

s and

nuc

lear

fuel

S08–

Chem

ical

s and

che

mic

al p

rodu

cts

S09–

Rubb

er a

nd p

last

ics p

rodu

cts

S10–

Oth

er n

onm

etal

lic m

iner

al p

rodu

cts

S11–

Basic

met

als

S12–

Fabr

icat

ed m

etal

pro

duct

s exc

ept m

achi

nery

and

eq

uipm

ent

S13–

Mac

hine

ry a

nd e

quip

men

t n.e

.s.S1

4–O

ffice

, acc

ount

ing,

and

com

putin

g mac

hine

ryS1

5–El

ectri

cal m

achi

nery

, and

app

arat

us n

.e.s.

S16–

Radi

o, te

levi

sion,

and

com

mun

icat

ion

equi

pmen

tS1

7–M

edic

al, p

reci

sion,

and

opt

ical

inst

rum

ents

S18–

Mot

or ve

hicl

es, t

raile

rs, a

nd se

mi-t

raile

rsS1

9–O

ther

tran

spor

t equ

ipm

ent

S20–

Man

ufac

turin

g n.e

.s; re

cycl

ing

S21–

Elec

trici

ty, g

as, a

nd w

ater

supp

lyS2

2–Co

nstru

ctio

nS2

3–W

hole

sale

and

reta

il tra

de; r

epai

rsS2

4–H

otel

s and

rest

aura

nts

S25–

Tran

spor

t and

stor

age

S26–

Post

and

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

S27–

Fina

nce

and

insu

ranc

eS2

8–Re

al e

stat

e ac

tiviti

esS2

9–Re

ntin

g of m

achi

nery

and

equ

ipm

ent

S30–

Com

pute

r and

rela

ted

activ

ities

S31–

Rese

arch

and

dev

elop

men

tS3

2–O

ther

bus

ines

s act

iviti

esS3

3–Pu

blic

adm

inist

ratio

n an

d de

fenc

e; c

ompu

lsary

soci

al

secu

rity

S34–

Educ

atio

nS3

5–H

ealth

and

soci

al w

ork

S36–

Oth

er c

omm

unity

, soc

ial, a

nd p

erso

nal s

ervi

ces

SEX

P–Ex

ports

SFC–

Fina

l con

sum

ptio

nSG

FCF–

Gro

ss fi

xed

capi

tal f

orm

atio

n

Ban

gko

kD

MI 2

19.5

tBM

1SG

FCF

SFC

SEXP

FF1FF2 FF3 FF4

S36

S35

S34

S32

S31

S28

S27

S26

S25

S24

S23

S22

S21S20

S19

S18

S17S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11S10

S09

S08

S07S06S05S04

S03

S02

02S01

01NM5

NM4

CF3CF2

CF1BM

8BM7

BM6

BM5

BM4

BM3

BM2

NM

3

NM

2

NM

1M

M6

MM

5

MM

4

MM

3

MM

2

MM

1

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100% 0% 20% 40%

10%

60% 80% 100% 0%

50%

100%

10%

40%

20% 30%

60% 70

% 80%

90%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

10000 0

10000 2000

0 3000

0

4000

0

5000

0

6000

0

7000

0

0

00

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

0000

0

1000000

000

0

10000

8000070000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

0

00000000000

10000

20000 0

00

00

00

00

00

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

500000

10000

20000

30000

40000

5000060000

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%100%

10%

0%20%

40%60%

80%100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BM1–

Agr

icul

tura

l bio

mas

sBM

2–A

nim

al b

iom

ass

BM3–

Text

ile b

iom

ass

BM4–

Oils

and

fats

BM5–

Suga

rsBM

6–W

oods

BM7–

Pape

r and

boa

rdBM

8–U

nspe

cifie

d bi

omas

sCF

1–A

lcoh

ols

CF2–

Chem

ical

s and

pha

rmac

eutic

als

CF3–

Ferti

lizer

s and

pes

ticid

esFF

1–Lo

w a

sh fu

els

FF2–

Hig

h as

h fu

els

FF3–

Lubr

ican

ts a

nd o

ils a

nd so

lven

tsFF

4–Pl

astic

s and

rubb

ers

MM

1–Iro

n, st

eel a

lloyi

ng, a

nd fe

rrous

m

etal

sM

M2–

Ligh

t met

als

MM

3–N

onfe

rrous

hea

vy m

etal

sM

M4–

Spec

ial m

etal

sM

M5–

Nuc

lear

fuel

sM

M6–

Prec

ious

met

als

NM

1–Sa

ndN

M2–

Cem

ent

NM

3–Cl

ayN

M4–

Ston

eN

M5–

Oth

ers

O1–

Non

spec

ified

O2–

Liqu

ids


representing the metabolism of the Bangkok metropolitan area in the year 2000.3 The outermost labels indicate the materials and the sectors. The second level label refers to the percentage of broad material categories, while the inner most labels refer to the weight of the materials. Stone, coded as NM4 and classified as a nonmetallic mineral, forms a substantial part of Bangkok’s material input. Stone is an input and output of fixed capital formation, export activities, and construction, and is shown by the green ribbons connecting NM4 to SGFCF, SEXP, and S22. The other major input is agricultural biomass, coded as BM1, about 50% of which is exported (SEXP), and 15% is used for final consumption (SFC).

Naturally, resource endowments, geographic location, economic activities, income levels, and urban form affect a city’s metabolic process and outcome. An assessment of material inputs alone will not reveal how efficient cities are. For example, Figure 23 does not necessarily mean that Ho Chi Minh is the most efficient city because it has the lowest DMI. To gauge the efficiency, the authors use the concept of resource productivity, which is a ratio of city-level GDP and DMI or domestic material consumption. The domestic material consumption is the DMI less materials exported from the city. Figure 23 shows results of the calculations. In general, the cities of Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh, Manila, and Shanghai are more resource-efficient than the rest of their countries. However, care is needed in drawing general conclusions, as the results do not control for industrial structures and geographical constraints.

Moreover, the information provided only gives the amount of output that can be generated per unit of input. It does not take into account the lifecycle of materials consumed, and as such does not yet give direct information about the impact of material consumption on the environment. For example, a city that consumes more biomass, such as Bangalore, would have a different waste generation mix and waste lifespan than other Asian cities that have nonmetallic materials, such as cement and clay, as main components. The types of industries in the cities will also influence material consumption and waste, because some types of activities clearly have more ecological impact than others. Thus, data limitations so far prevent the establishment of robust correlations on how factors such as urban form, infrastructure network,

3 The same diagram is available in Ferrao et al. (2013) for five other Asian cities.


and material consumption broadly influence the metabolic processes of cities. Such an exercise would require establishing a large panel of city data with observations on the attributes of interest measured and derived according to an agreed methodology or at least standards for purposes of comparability. In the future, it would also be instructive to examine how this productivity has evolved over time, which is not yet possible due to the limited availability of DMI and domestic material consumption data. Examining the evolution of productivity would also help verify whether the year 2000 (the exercise’s current base year) is a “normal year” in terms of material consumption.

Nonetheless, UNEP (2013) attempted to create city typologies using the broad types and volumes of materials consumed. The typology is reproduced with slight modifications as Figure 24 to give a sense of where the Asian and Latin American cities are relative to cities in the rest of the world. Most developing Asian and Latin American cities are in the first eight clusters of cities, implying that, in terms of total direct material consumption, these cities tend to consume fewer resources than do other cities in the world. UNEP’s (2013) broad-stroked analysis generally correlates types I and II cities with lower income countries; types III–VI correspond with cities in countries where industrialization is under way; type VII corresponds with cities that are dominant consumers of minerals, and ores; and type VIII would be industrializing cities with a significant amount of light manufacturing activities, and significant construction and infrastructure. The city types in the 2nd half of the typology (IX–XV) refer to primarily higher-income countries that are more resource hungry and and have higher standards of living.

With increasing incomes, cities in Asia and Latin America will likely shift to higher consumption typologies if present trends continue. Indeed, in a study of over 100 countries, Steinberger et al. (2010) confirmed that metabolic rates

DMI = direct material input, t = ton.Source: Derived from Ferrao et al. (2013).

Figure 23Resource Productivity in Asian Cities, 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bangalore

Bangkok

Ho Chi Minh

ManilaSeoul

Shanghai

Lisbon

Paris

OthersChemicals and fertilizersBiomass

Nonmetallic mineralsMetallic mineralsFossil fuels


increase together with income. Following the consumption growth pattern of the currently rich countries is obviously unsustainable for the developing economies of today.

Notes: The vertical axis corresponds to scores of direct material consumption, with low = 1, low-medium = 1.5, medium = 2, medium-high = 2.5, and high = 3. Green font indicates Asian cities; red font indicates Latin American cities.

Source: UNEP (2013).

Figure 24 City Typology Based on Direct Material Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

1

2

3

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

0

1

2

3

IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV

DhakaColomboSurabayaKolkotaJakartaPhnom PenhTbilisi

Bogota AsuncionMontevideoUlaanbatarSao Paulo

BishkekSto DomingoTunis Lima

KathmanduP. AlegreCebuSan SalvadorManilaPanama

YangonMumbaiKarachiGuatemalaQuito

BrasiliaBeijingShenzhenAnkaraIstanbulBangkokGuadalajaraMexico

NagoyaOsakaYokohamaTokyo

BangaloreHyderabadChennaiHo Chi MinhNew DelhiCairo

TripoliTehranLisbonBudapestBuenos Aires

BostonMontrealTorontoMelbourneSydneyChicago

RiyadhManamaAbu DhabiDoha

JerusalemMoscowSeattlePort of SpainNew YorkHelsinki

JohannesburgGuangzhou ShanghaiTashkent Tel AvivSt. Petersburg

GenevaBernParisSeoulDubaiBrusselsOttawa

London MilanBarcelonaKuala LumpurKingstonSantiagoWarsawSofiaDublinBerlin


The causal relationship between increased income and rising consumption of finite resources needs to be “decoupled” or broken (UNEP 2013). According to UNEP (2011), decoupling can take two forms—resource decoupling and impact decoupling. The former involves reducing primary inputs per unit of output, while the latter implies economic growth with less negative spillovers on the environment. One mitigating factor is that most of the cities in the second typology tend to be older and therefore were developed in response to a different concept of urban development and with different technological capacity. UNEP (2011) in fact observes that global material intensities started declining since the 1970s, suggesting that global resource decoupling has been occurring at a rate of 1%–2% per annum since then. The Japanese cities in Figure 24 also demonstrate this possibility. The cities in Japan, despite being high income are classified as type VII, in contrast to other wealthier cities in the world. They have high material consumption in terms of electricity, industrial materials, construction materials, and water, and yet the resultant carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are relatively low. Recent advances in renewable resources and infrastructure design can be applied for optimal use and management of resources in cities.

36

4 urban infrastructure and Services This section discusses the role of urban infrastructure and services in shaping a sustainable urban development.

The increasing expansion of city limits and the conurbation of more populated areas mean it is increasingly challenging to ensure the provision of basic infrastructure and services, and to maintain social cohesion and coherence in the territorial organization. In most urban settings, it is important for the main urban amenities and centers of economic activity to be located in the center of the city because the nucleus is the center of urban life and the engine of the city’s economy (Ayala and Sanchez 2006). The growth of the city, either by extension or densification, should be accompanied by a well-defined allocation of and access to infrastructure and services, in response to the emerging requirements and socio-spatial dynamics that will be established in the area.

Infrastructure services function sustainably when long-term environmental, demographic, financial, and managerial considerations receive up-front assessment and incorporation into the services’ design and implementation. Major infrastructure networks—water, sanitation, transport, and energy—can be used successfully for as long as 50 years, or more in some cases, before major capital upgrading is required (Ausgrid 2012). Lack of access to modern services contributes to poverty and deprivation and limits economic development. That adequate, affordable, and reliable energy services are key to ensuring sustained material and social development is easy to appreciate.

Infrastructure is a sociotechnical system that can be designed to decouple economic expansion from ecological effects (Hodson et al. 2012; UNEP 2013). Infrastructure networks heavily influence the metabolic process of a city as they shape its geography for resource extraction and waste disposal. They create the sociotechnical environment of city dwellers’ daily lives. Thus, this report identifies urban transport, energy efficiency, housing, and water and wastewater management as key infrastructure areas for building sustainable city systems.

37Urban Infrastructure and Services

4.1 transport

Transport infrastructure is at the heart of urban sustainability. Clean technology (such as consolidated use of sugarcane-based ethanol in light engines and vehicles, and improved fuel efficiency of vehicles) has mitigated the impact of transport on the environment. Nevertheless, fossil fuels, the burning of which is a primary source of GHG emissions, remain the main energy used by the transport sector. The Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research reports that air, sea, road, and other transport collectively account for 14% of global GHG emissions, and 23% of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (ADB and World Bank 2012; EDGAR 2011). In Brazil, with the exception of deforestation, the majority of the GHG emission is generated by the transport sector as a whole, and most of it comes from the cities. Even in the European Economic Area, where transport facilities are advanced and well-planned compared with those in Asia and Latin America, in 2009, transport accounted for 58% of nitrous oxide emissions and 380 tons of oil equivalent of energy, with road transport accounting for close to 80% of this figure (EEA 2014).

Having said this, a well-designed transport system

• consists of connectivity of different areas within and beyond a city; • takes advantage of the optimal mode (in time and energy consumed) of

transport from different points; • encourages the public to take advantage of cleaner energy; and • maximizes the network and connectivity effects of different modes of

transport.

Figure 25 provides estimates of energy requirements by mode of transport, under different occupancy scenarios. The significant superiority in energy efficiency of mass transport modes such as coaches and trains is clearly demonstrated, with a fully occupied coach being 13 times more efficient than a single occupancy car.

Figure 26 shows the share of transport modes in selected cities in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Except in Dhaka, most people in Asian and Latin American cities travel in public transport. In Bogota and Buenos Aires, over 60% of all trips are by bus. But the dominance of public transport, while desirable,


does not speak of its efficiency in terms of mobility. In some cities, public transport is the only viable option for travelling long distances because of limitations in income. In Dhaka, about 60% of people walk to and from their destinations while in other Bangladeshi cities, such as Bogra and Sylhet, the rickshaw is the most popular means of transport. But there are true success stories of public transport, such as in Hong Kong, China and in Seoul, where public transport, as a combination of well-connected routes of buses, rail, and even ferries, accounts for 70%–80% of trips. The figure for Singapore was 59% for 2008, and the government has set itself a target of 70% by 2020 (EIU 2012).

h = hour, km = kilometer, kWh = Kilowatt-hour, p-km = passenger-kilometer (passengers per kilometer), p-mpg = passenger miles per imperial gallon.Notes: (1) Blue point legends refer to best practice

performance, assuming all seats of a vehicle are occupied, whereas filled points refer to actual performance of a vehicle in typical use.

(2) In this report, “Taipei City” refers to the urban area centered on the city of Taipei,China.

Source: MacKay (2009).

Figure 25Energy Required by Types of Transport

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 50 100 150 200 250En

ergy

Con

sum

ptio

n (k

Wh/

100

p-km

)

Speed (km/h)Full capacityBelow capacity

Car

Hydrogen fuel-cell car (Honda)

Bus

Diesel highspeed train

Electric highspeed train

Undergroundsystem

Car

Electric train Coach

Electric car

CycleUnderground train

Source: LTA (2011).

Figure 26 Modal Share of Transport in Selected Cities, 2008–2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Monterrey

Bogota

Curitiba

Buenos Aire

sDhaka

BangaloreDelhi

Mumbai

Beijing

Hong Kong, China

Shanghai

OsakaTokyo

Seoul

Singapore

Taipei City

Copenhagen

Amsterdam

Perc

enta

ge

OtherPrivate transport (car, motorized transport)Public transport (bus, rail, rickshaw, taxi, paratransit)

Cycle (bicycle and e-bike)Walk


As Seoul and Hong Kong, China illustrate, the key to an efficient transport system is a well-connected multimodal system where different means of transport are connected so they maximize the network linkages covering the major thoroughfares within the city and its vicinity. Seoul has one of the densest public transport systems in Asia, estimated to cover 6.6 kilometers (km) per km2, compared with the regional average of 1.7 km (EIU 2012). Such systems are environmentally advantageous in that they help to reduce dependence on the private automobile while supporting compact development (UN–HABITAT 2011c). They also effectively combine the optimal means of transport for the varying topography and geography of cities and their neighboring areas, thereby maximizing the network effect from the interaction of different modes of transport. This development is slowly taking place across Asia and Latin America, although it is occurring in densely built-up areas and increasing motorization in both regions as incomes continue to increase (Dargay et al. 2007).

Average motorization rates in Asia increased by 230%, from 19 per 1,000 persons in 2003 to 64 in 2010. The increase is substantially lower for Latin America, at 24% during roughly the same period, but it started at a higher base of 148 per 1,000 persons (World Bank, WDI database). That the biggest increase in vehicle ownership is accounted for by the cities is to be expected. Without intelligent investments in mass transport systems, private ownership of vehicles may be the most practical option for citizens’ optimal mobility. Without clear and enforced vehicle use policies (such as smoke emissions tests and retirement of old vehicles), increased private vehicular traffic is far from optimal from the point of view of road congestion, air pollution, and resource (energy) consumption. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that many people in Asia and Latin America can only own a vehicle by purchasing second hand ones. Motorcycles have a limited passenger capacity and thus are not a very efficient means of transport, but are another popular means of achieving mobility (especially in Asia) because they cost less than larger vehicles and are easier to manage in heavy traffic. In Ho Chi Minh City, about 90% of trips are by motorcycle (Morichi and Acharya 2012).

In these contexts, it is increasingly important for cities to invest in well-functioning and well-connected public mass transport systems. Mass transit railways only started service in Bangkok in 1999, and gradually extended to include the Airport link in 2010 (UNEP 2013). The mass transit system in


Metropolitan Manila was only expanded in the late 1990s, while that of Delhi was only built in the last decade. But the late development does not preclude their success. One successful case is the Stesen Sentral of Malaysia, a hub system that is being constructed with direct links to six rail systems, all major highways in Kuala Lumpur, the airport, and mass-scale parking facilities (KL Sentral 2013).

Another recent introduction in the two regions is the bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which includes dedicated lanes, strictly predetermined station stops, and advance ticket purchase similar to metro or light rail systems. BRT is also slowly being introduced throughout the two regions (WRI 2010). So far, the BRT in Asia and Latin America has had mixed reviews, although it has generally been judged better than traditional bus systems operating in mixed traffic. The best performers in terms of peak usage on a single BRT corridor are Bogota’s TransMilenio’s Avenida Caracas, Santiago’s Alameda, and Sao Paulo’s Passa Rapido (WRI 2010). Operational productivity, defined as passenger boarding per day per bus-kilometer is highest in Guayaquil and lowest in Beijing, Bogota, and Jakarta.

Tapping into modes of transport that are not based on land can be an ecologically sound alternative for decongesting city roads. The Cheonggyecheon River in Seoul and the Pasig River in Manila are being rehabilitated to reverse accumulated damage and pollution, and as alternatives and complements to existing road transport (ADB 2009; UNEP 2013). The Pasig River Ferry operations in Manila ceased in 2011 after incurring substantial losses but there is talk of reviving it with smaller and more cost-effective water vehicles (PRRC 2013). Finally, Medellin, Colombia’s second largest city, successfully operates the Metrocables—an aerial cable car public transport system that now services the urban areas as well as a nature reserve on the city’s edge (UNEP 2013). The box describes the technological transformation of Bogota’s transport system.

Despite recent efforts to accelerate investments, most cities in Latin America still have considerable gaps in their public transit infrastructure. Figure 27 shows the structure of the transport system of metropolitan Rio in 2010, using the urbanized land surface area as the underlying layer, the map


Technological Transformation of Bogota’s Integrated Public Transportation System

In an attempt to reduce the carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter emissions produced by urban transport, Bogota decided to modernize its transport system through an initiative called Sistema Integrado de Transporte Publico (SITP), or Integrated Public Transportation System. The project involves integrating the operational, fare, fare collection, and information system of all public transport modes in the city, which include large, medium, and small buses; bus rapid transit; and future rail modes.

With a funding program formulated by the Inter-American Development Bank, a credit line of $80 million has been established to facilitate the introduction of hybrid and/or electric buses by private operators. Taking into account the transport currently in place, Universidad de los Andes has performed a cost–benefit analysis of the funding program for the SITP. The analysis indicates that completing the third phase of TransMilenio (the bus rapid transit line) and reconfiguring the bus routes would reduce CO2 emissions from 12.4 million tons to 10.9 million tons in the next 20 years. Introducing hybrid or electric buses in this time frame would yield further reduction. If the total amount of the credit were used to purchase hybrid buses, CO2 emissions would be reduced by 30,104 tons; spending the money on electric buses would result in a reduction of 159,969 tons of CO2 emissions; and the total emissions would be reduced by 94,993 if a combination of electric and hybrid buses were used. Furthermore, using hybrid buses would reduce particulate matter emissions by approximately 0.010 tons per year, and using electric buses would reduce particulate matter generated by 0.011 tons per year.

The projections were made under the assumption that the percentage of people using public transport remains constant over time. However, improving the quality of public buses as well as the Transmilenio could induce citizens to stop using their cars. Given that a car produces 4.16 tons of CO2 emissions per year and assuming a 5% reduction in the use of cars, this shift would imply a reduction of 167,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year. Moreover, other mass public transport projects such as the light rail, the heavy rail, and additional phases of the Transmilenio would enhance the reduction in CO2 emissions.

The SITP would be efficient in terms of routes, favorable for the environment, and financially beneficial. Regardless of the type of buses purchased (electric and/or hybrid), the SITP project has a positive net present value and a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1. Indeed, the costs of infrastructure, personnel training, technology, new buses, and travel time in public transport would be outweighed by gains due to decreased travel time in private transport, particulate matter and CO2 emissions, operating costs, and fuel and electricity consumption costs.

Source: Universidad de los Andes (2013).

indicates an extraordinary lack of intermodal integration and peripheral interconnections, as all modes seek to connect to the historical central business district of the city’s nucleus.


In metropolitan Santiago de Chile, the integrated system of transport (buses and underground metro as seen in Figure 28) allows for an appropriate level of infrastructure coverage in many of the city municipalities (Moris et al. 2014). However, as the planning process for this system considers only municipalities that belong to the portions of Metropolitan Santiago that have been officially incorporated into the metropolis and two from the hinterland, there are clear territorial inequities within the whole metropolitan area. Municipalities that are not included must generate alternative forms of transport, which are generally private transport. This is unsustainable on a macro scale, as the system encourages the use of motorized vehicles where public transport is not available. A shift to private cars increases traffic congestion, harms the environment, and can reduce the quality of life by increasing the average duration of trips.


Figure 27 Transport Systems in Metropolitan Rio

ParacambiJaperi

Seropédica

Haguaí

Belford Roxo

Nova Iguaçu

Duque de CaxiasMagé

Guapimirim

Tanguá

Niteról

Sao Gonçalo

Sao João de Meriti

Maricá

Nilópolis

Rio de Janeiro

Queimados


Figure 29 illustrates the increasing reliance on private automobiles for transport in metropolitan Santiago. This scenario is widely representative of most Asian and Latin American cities as a result of increased household income, low density urbanization, and lack of efficient public transport. The motorization rate in metropolitan Santiago has risen consistently during the last 20 years, from roughly 130 vehicles per 1,000 people in 1992 to about 280 in 2012. This rise is commensurate with general GDP growth in Latin America, with an increasing segment of the population able to purchase a vehicle. However, the motorization trend is also related to the morphological growth of the city as

Source: Moris et al. 2014, based on Chile’s Secretaria de Planificacion de Transport’s urban transport database.

Figure 28 Metropolitan Santiago: Coverage of Public Transport and Subway, 2012

Urban surface 2012Not applicableMetro of SantiagoTransantiago

GDP = gross domestic product, km2 = square kilometer.Notes: (1) Motorization rate refers to the number of

motorized vehicles per 10,000 population. (2) Population density is inhabitant per km2.Source: INE (2013).

Figure 29 Tendency Graph of Motorization Rate and Population Density, Metropolitan Santiago

Mot

orize

d ve

hicl

es p

er 10

,000

and

inha

bita

nt p

er km

2

05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1992 2002 2012

$ m

illion

Motorization ratePopulation densityGDP (chained billion $)


well as subsequent modifications to the Santiago Metropolitan Regional Plan, which have continued to expand the urban periphery, opening up vast areas to urban development, primarily for residential purposes (Beyer 1997). The expansion of Metropolitan Santiago is reflected in the declining population density between 1992 and 2002. The decreasing density was accompanied by a sustained loss of population from the central municipalities of the metropolitan area and increases in and expansion of the urban periphery (Ducci et al. 2002). New urbanized areas were built on the periphery, and primarily were new public housing projects subsidized by the government. This territorial expansion and suburbanization continued during 2002–2012, but at a far slower pace. Simultaneously, new urban policies emerged providing incentives for people to return to the urban center (De Mattos and Fuentes 2012a). These policies are reflected in an increased population in some central municipalities during this period, and in the slight rise in population density, although to a level that is still below that in 1992. In this context, as the city continues to expand territorially and urban populations are increasingly externalized to emergent residential areas in the urban periphery, automobile use becomes increasingly necessary for easier access to the economic poles in the urban center.

Medellin is an important example of the role that massive public infrastructure and the renewal of the car fleet has in urban sustainability. Comparing the energy used by transport in the city in 1996 and in 2010 shows a 14.6–10.0 gigajoule reduction per inhabitant per annum (Orsini et al. 2014). This phenomenon is explained mostly in terms of investment in public transit systems, which include a cable car system, integration of bus routes with the Medellin metro system, and modernization of the automotive fleet. The start-up of a BRT system is expected to help increase the efficiency of energy consumption in the transport system. These investments and adoption of technologies are occurring in a city that tends to maximize population concentration in the periphery, and to expand suburbs.

Unfortunately, the progress in Medellin reversed in recent years, and the clean mobility index declined during 2005–2012. This index focuses on the modes of transport that use resources (energy) efficiently, aiming at decreasing gas emissions and particle concentration. The only trips to be


considered clean are by Metro, Metroplus, walking, and cycling in the case of the Aburra Valley (Figure 30). Although buses are more energy-efficient than private automobiles, they are not included in the “clean” category because they operate with diesel or gasoline fuel. Additionally, the country lacks an effective policy to scrap older vehicles to promote the use of low-emission engines. The proportion of trips made by clean modes has decreased and particle emissions (derived from the emission factors associated with the automotive fleet and traveling surveys) have increased considerably. Reflecting this trend, air quality deteriorated to some extent. Despite the increased number of trips by metro or on foot, and opening of the Metroplus System (BRT) in 2011, the proportional use of clean transport modes was lower in 2012 than in 2005, and the motorization rate within the Medellin Aburra Valley increased. For example, the share of trips by car rose from 13% to 15%, and by motorcycle, from 5% to 11%.

Despite the emphasis on mass transit mechanisms, the contributions of urban transport based on green mobility, such as biking, to citizens’ quality of life and to economic development should not be discounted. The reliance on the internal combustion engine is a major source of air and noise pollution and negative impacts on health and the environment (European Union 2010). This is sufficiently well-recognized that more than 500 cities in 49 countries have installed bike-sharing programs. The number of countries with bike-sharing programs increased sharply in just 5 years, from a mere 15 in 2008 to 49 in 2013 (Larsen 2013). Figure 31 shows that the number of bike-sharing programs is picking up quickly in Asia, and in Latin America, albeit at a slower pace. The large number in Asia is probably accounted for by the PRC, which has 20 of the world’s 25 largest bike-sharing programs (EPI 2013). Other cities in Asia that have such programs in place include Singapore; Changwon and Goyang in

BRT = bus rapid transit.Note: The inner circle corresponds to 2005 data,

the to 2012 outer circle.Sources: Orsini et al. 2014, based on origin and

destination survey data, 2005 and 2012 (AMVA 2012).

Figure 30 Proportion of Trips by Clean Modes in the Medellin Aburra Valley Metropolitan Area

7%

30%

62%

1%

9%

26%

64%

1%

Metro Walking Cycling BRT Others

2005

2012


the Republic of Korea; Tokyo, Japan; and cities in Taipei,China (Shaheen and Guzman 2011). The programs are variously run by governments or private enterprises, such as the one in Singapore. The Asian Development Bank has launched tests of bike-sharing programs in Davao, Philippines; Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; and Indonesia. An alternative is scooter-style electric bikes, which are faster than pedaled bicycles and have significantly lower environmental impact per passenger-kilometer than do other modes of transport (ADB 2009). However, the scooter vehicles are only used widely in the PRC (which accounted for 96% of world market for them in 2007) and in Japan.

Municipal governments are also taking considerable steps to expand the use of bicycles in Latin American cities. “Stated program goals have primarily focused on bike-sharing programs and include promoting increased use of existing cycling infrastructure, complementing existing public transportation systems, providing an alternative to motor vehicles for short trips, and making bicycles more widely available to the public. Examples include EcoBici in Mexico City, Mejor en Bici in Buenos Aires, and B’easy in Santiago; Montevideo and Cuenca have announced plans to install sharing programs by the end of 2013, while Goiânia’s plan is still being hashed out” (AUSIS 2013: 37). Figure 32 shows that despite recent efforts in bike-sharing programs, Latin America is still behind other parts of the world, including a number of Asian cities, in bicycle usage.

Source: EPI (2013).

Figure 31 Bicycle-Sharing Programs, by Region

No.

of p

rogr

ams

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Europe Asia North America

Latin America Middle East

Note: In this report, “Taipei City” refers to the urban area centered on the city of Taipei,China.

Sources: Advis Jiménez (2011); AUSIS (2013); Clean Air Institute (2008); Department of Transportation City of Buenos Aires (2011); Fietsberaad (2010); LTA Academy (2011); Stokenberga (2012).

Figure 32 Share of Bicycles in Total Transport

Perc

enta

ge

05

1015

202530354045

Beijing

Copenhagen

Amsterdam

Shanghai

HyderabadBogra

Curitiba

Delhi

Taipei City

Mexico City

Santiago

Bogota

Buenos Aire

s

Asia Latin AmericaEurope


Proper infrastructure is critical in the introduction and adoption of alternative forms of mobility, for health and safety. Road traffic death rates are highest in middle-income countries, at 201 per 100,000 people—equivalent to 80% of total deaths from road accidents in the world. Accidents impose tragic losses on the productivity of individuals involved, and the greater portion of road accident victims are aged 15–59, which are considered to be the most productive years. Accidents also shorten the longevity of capital equipment (WHO 2013). In Asia, the number of people injured in road accidents increased by 14% between 2000 and 2010, and in some countries (such as Armenia and Georgia) they increased by more than 100% (ADB 2013). Deaths were estimated at 185 per 100,000 people in Southeast Asia, and 161 in Latin America (WHO 2013). Each year, about $500 billion is spent on constructing new roads, but IRAP (2014) argues that investments in simple safety measures (such as rumble strips, pedestrian fences, and dedicated lanes for bicycles and motorbikes) amounting to 1%–3% of investments on new roads, would go a long way toward making existing roads a lot safer. Traffic flow schemes, infrastructure design, and conscientious and consistent implementation of traffic rules, such as use of seat belts and proper helmets by bicycle and motor cycle users, are simple measures that can minimize the effect of accidents in a short span of time. Rules on road safety that are in place can be ignored if not enforced. In cities where resources are available, investment in closed-circuit television cameras can be a cost-effective means of enforcing adherence to traffic rules, thus improving road safety.

4.2 energy

Cities account for three quarters of the world’s energy consumption and 80% of CO2 emissions (UNEP 2013). MacKay (2009) estimates that energy accounted for 74% of the world’s GHG emissions as of 2000. Energy efficiency is thus part and parcel of a strategy to create cities that are sustainable, but is highly influenced by the main activities taking place in a city. The sources of energy also matter greatly, as can be deduced from the life cycle of GHG emissions by electricity source (Table 3). The majority of Asian countries rely primarily for their energy needs on coal, natural gas, and oil—the three top emitters of GHG per gigawatt generated, after lignite (ADB 2013; WNA 2011). Latin America, on the other hand has significant portions of energy sourced from renewable sources. More than 90% of Brazil’s electrical power is derived from hydraulic


and renewable sources of primary energy (Figure 33), as opposed to the European Union and the United States, where fossil fuels provide most of the electrical power.

Households in developing countries still consume much less electricity than those in developed countries. The latest data available indicate that household electrification rates remain below 50% in Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea (ADB 2013). Even so, the household or residential sector is the second largest consumer of electricity, after industry, as shown in the structure of electricity demand in Figure 34. As income increases, electricity consumption will rise as more households connect to the grid and accumulate more appliances powered by electricity.

Energy efficiency in most Asian and Latin American countries has improved substantially during the last 3 decades. Data from the World Development Indicators (World Bank, WDI database) suggest an improvement

Source: ADB (2011).

Figure 34Electricity Demand in Asia and the Pacific, 2008

Industry58%

Transport1%

Residential19%

Commercial and public

services12%

Agriculture, forestry, and

fishing 5%

Others 5%

Figure 33Sources of Electrical Power, Brazil

Nuclear3% Coal

1%

Hydro 74%

Oil products4%

Natural gas 7%

Wind 0.4%

Biomass5%

Imports6%


Table 3 Life Cycle of GHG Emissions by Electricity

SourceElectricity

Source/Technology50th Percentile (g CO2/kWh)

Hydroelectric 4Wind 12Nuclear 16Biomass 18Solar Thermal 22Geothermal 45Solar Photovoltaic 46Natural Gas 469Coal 1,001

CO2 = carbon dioxide, g = gram, GHG = greenhouse gas, kWh = kilowatt hour.Source: Moomaw et al. (2011).


by 40% in Asia and 18% in Latin America during 1990–2011. This means that economies are able to produce more output per unit of energy input. The wealthy, hyper-dense, and service-dominated economy of Hong Kong, China is the most energy-efficient economy in the region, producing $22.0 worth of national output in purchasing power parity terms per kilo-ton of oil equivalent (ktoe)—100% more efficient that the next most energy productive economy: Taipei,China (ADB 2013). In Latin America, Colombia is the most energy-efficient economy, at $13.0 per ktoe, followed closely by Peru at $12.9 and Panama at $12.0 (World Bank, WDI database), which also are the countries that exhibited the most improvements in the region during the period. These numbers are unmatched in Asia despite its denser cities, and suggest that important lessons may be learned from Latin America. Regional averages from the same dataset suggest that Latin America produces $8.2 per ktoe, while Asia produces less, at $6.0.

The improvements in efficiency were achieved by various means. General improvements in clean technology (such as smart buildings, improved fuel efficiency, and increased investments in mass transport systems) are behind the general drive toward efficiency. In Hong Kong, China, the rapid shift of economic activities from manufacturing to services—now accounting for over 93% of valued added (ADB 2013)—explains a great deal of the extraordinary improvements in efficiency. Reconfiguration of infrastructure, allowing for modal share of mass transport systems, also contributed.

An important driver of the differences in energy efficiency improvements is the use of renewable resources for energy. Only 12% of Asia’s electricity is derived from renewable resources, whereas the figure for Latin America is an impressive 64% (EIU 2012). Brazil is well known for pioneering development of biofuels into an economically viable and environmentally benign source of energy. As of 2012, sugarcane derivatives accounted for 15.4% of the country’s total energy supply (USDA 2013). For the rest of Latin America, hydropower is the most prominent renewable energy source and OLADE (2011) estimates that Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru still have a large amount of hydropower potential left untapped.

But hydropower is less feasible as an option for Asia’s water-resource-poor regions, where other sources of renewable energy (such as geothermal,


solar, and wind) are more viable options. The Philippines, for example, is the world’s second largest producer of geothermal energy (next to the United States), accounting for 14% of the country’s generated energy (DOE 2013). Wind and solar photovoltaic systems are also producing electricity at all-time low prices—wind turbine prices are down by 20%–35% from their peak in 2008, and the price of solar power has dropped nearly 58% from 2000 (Feldman et al. 2013; Bolinger 2013). This promises an era of extensive investment in renewable energy sources from the private sector. But proper infrastructure to connect users to power sources (which may be far from a city in the particular case of wind), for storage, and for monitoring supply and use need to be in place to meet the expected increase in demand. Solar panels are still far from widespread—except perhaps in high-income Asian countries such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, and increasingly the PRC—where households and firms can effectively be mini generating plants, fully or partly powering their own needs, and selling excess generated electricity to the main grid.

Infrastructure and systems for renewable energy will no doubt take time to institute and put in place. Meanwhile, increasing the efficiency of energy provision may help foster sustainability in cities in the shorter horizon. This means investing in repairs and maintenance of existing lines to cut transmission losses and being able to capture payment for informal connections, which in cities with huge numbers of informal settlers can be a difficult challenge.

4.3 basic Services: Housing, Sanitation, and Water

4.3.1 Housing

Housing space occupies over 50% of all urban surface areas. Housing issues have land-use, social, economic, health, environmental, transport, security, political, and other important effects on individual, community, regional, and national life (as do all urban issues). Among the most important outcomes of housing and land markets are the shape, size, and urban structure of cities. Together, these elements make up a dwelling’s surroundings and largely influence the way cities consume resources and generate waste. The housing sector is therefore an important driver of urban sustainability. Poorly functioning housing and land markets frequently create edgeless cities, with urban densities very unevenly distributed; fuzzy boundaries between a city and its countryside; single-use (commercial, industrial, recreational,


or residential) rather than mixed-use neighborhoods; scattered and poorly connected urban developments; and fragmented open spaces (Angel et al. 2011). The housing issue will become even more pertinent as urban populations continue to increase while household sizes decrease due to demographic changes, increasing demand for dwelling units (McKinsey 2011).

As discussed in the previous section, in the Asian and Latin American experience, housing informality has often gone hand-in-hand with urban sprawl, because irregular land development and construction usually result in the widespread occupation of public spaces such as streets, pavements, and viaducts, or the occupation of protected forest or coastal land, riverbanks, water reservoirs, mountainsides, and other environmentally sensitive or disaster-prone areas. Many of the activities in the housing sector, especially when they are associated with decreasing city density and urban sprawl (as in Asia and Latin America), may cause urban diseconomies of scale and severe environmental impacts. The understanding of this is impeded because most indicators used to assess the performance of the housing sector neglect environmental impacts and sustainability considerations. Moreover, housing sprawl contributes to worsening inequalities in real income distribution. Wheeler (2008) finds that urban decentralization is associated with rising inequality between household block groups as cities expand from the core.

Cities in the two regions are already struggling to meet current housing demand, which is expected to expand in the foreseeable future. For this decade alone, Asian cities must prepare to accommodate 120,000 new residents each day (UN–HABITAT 2011a). And while UN–HABITAT (2011b) cites Latin America as the region with the highest homeownership in the world, the majority of the region’s housing needs are being addressed outside formal markets. Unfortunately, if current economic and demographic trends are not accompanied by an expanded supply of adequate housing units and access to mortgage finance, especially for lower-middle-income and low-income households, many families may remain or end up in substandard housing. Even in the largest, more mature cities, demand is likely to rise substantially, from the need to close existing gaps and accommodate new households as demographic patterns evolve. For example, housing demand for a city like Bogota is expected to increase by 95% between 2007 and 2025, even though its population is only expected to increase about 15% during the same period (Bouillon 2012).


Strategically located and planned affordable housing is a possible solution to the current housing issues in the cities and an anticipatory response to higher demand in the near future. Such housing is, however, extremely deficient in both regions, as is easily appreciated from the large number of urban informal settlers. Based on UN (2013a) data, Asia and Latin America collectively host over half a billion slum dwellers. In some countries, such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Jamaica, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Nepal, slums house the majority of the urban population.

Cities are expected to attract talent as people search for better opportunities to improve their lot. The rural poor, and their descendants who tend to dominate the slums, are far from immune to this, and may in fact have been pushed into the city by desperate conditions in the rural areas. But distorted and poorly functioning housing and land markets tend to relegate affordable housing to the informal market. Paradoxically, however, lower-income groups often end up paying a greater share of their income for shelter (often poor and unsafe) than do higher-income groups (UN HABITAT 2011c).

Figure 35 shows that price-to-income ratios for housing and rent in developing cities in Asia are actually higher than in cities in high-income countries.4 Owning a median house in Singapore would take 3.5 annual median salaries, but in Jakarta the value is close to 15 annual median salaries. Rent-to-income ratios similarly exhibit wide divergence: the cost to rent in Bangkok is 22.5 median salaries, but only 3.8 in Tokyo. This signals unmet demand for housing in the poorer cities. According to UN–HABITAT (2011c), rent-to-income ratios tend to be lowest in countries with strong public housing programs and highest where demand pressure is strong because of high household formation rates. On the supply side, the shortfall is caused by limited availability of land, construction materials, and finance; by poor infrastructure, limiting the connectivity of the central city to its suburbs; and by deficiencies in institutional regulations and instruments for guiding the relationship between owners and tenants.

4 The house-price-to-income ratio and rent-to-income ratio are typical ways of measuring housing affordability. The former is the “ratio of the median free-market price of a dwelling unit and the median annual household income”; and the latter is the “ratio of the median annual rent of a dwelling unit and the median annual household income of renters” UN–HABITAT website, Housing Prices and Rent-to-Income Ratios (http://ww2.unhabitat.org/campaigns/tenure/indicators/indicator3.htm).


Bouillon (2012) estimates that about 43% of Latin American households in the region’s largest 41 cities experience affordability problems that may prevent them from accessing adequate housing in the formal sector, which generally involves buying a house outright or qualifying for a mortgage to buy a house built using legal building codes on legally subdivided and serviced land. The most important impediment to housing affordability across cities in Latin America remains low household income. However in some cities, the lack

of capacity to document income (due to labor informality) and the prices of private sector dwellings are more important. Figure 36 shows that large portions of households in Latin American cities are unable to access formal housing. The highest rates are in Caracas, La Paz, Machala, and Santa Cruz, where they exceed 70%.

Notes: Missing values do not imply the ratio is equivalent to zero. The graph merely presents information for which data are available.

Source: UN–HABITAT (2011c).

Figure 35 The Ratios of House Prices and of Rent to Income, Selected Asian Cities

0

5

10

15

20

25

BangkokDhaka

Jakarta

Phnom PenhSeoul

SingaporeTokyo

Ulaanbaatar

Vientienne

House price to income ratioHouse rent to income ratio

Source: Bouillon (2012).

Figure 36 Housing A�ordability in Latin America

Perc

ent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

29%San Jose

40%Medellin

38%Panama

36%Concepcion

Valpaiso35%

Bogota

50%Belo Horizonte

49%Salvador

48%MendozaRosario

47%Guadalajara

Tucuman46%

SantiagoCordoba

44%Cali

59%Cuenca

58%Quito56%

Rio de JaneiroRecife Belem

55%Fortaleza

Mexico CityTegucigalpa

54%San Salvador

53%Montevideo

52%CuritibaBrasilia

Porto AlegreGuatemala

69%Lima

Sto. Domingo67%

AsuncionManaguaSan Pedro

Sula66%

Guayaquil62%

Sao Paolo

80%Caracas

75%Machala

72%Santa Cruz

71%La Paz

(Percentage of households that cannot a�ord a formal private sector built dwelling)


In both Asia and Latin America, the high price of owning or renting housing exacerbates the problem of slums. The absence of accessible and sufficiently flexible financing leaves the informal sector as the only viable option for poorer segments of the population. That slum dwellers play an important role in the economies of developing country cities is well recognized. People who live in slums and informal housing supply cheap labor and services. They play a major role in the recycling efforts of most developing country cities—reusing, collecting, selling, and retrofitting items that would otherwise have been discarded. This role is important in cities where weak governments are unable to implement rational and efficient waste management systems. But informal settlements often lack access to basic facilities such as sewage systems and occupy undesirable or ecologically fragile areas. This can contribute to disease outbreaks, flooding, and destruction of natural resources such as rivers and waterways. Therefore, it is imperative that solutions be found to address housing needs and there are many examples of national governments strategically using housing policies to foster economic development and promote social justice. For example, investments in housing can generate large-scale use of low-skilled labor, thereby promoting employment.

Several policies can ease the housing problem. The first involves government investing massively in affordable housing, which worked well in Hong Kong, China and in Singapore. Their governments provided financial resources, land ownership, and development rights, enabling the provision of large-scale subsidized public housing (UN–HABITAT 2011a). In cities where this is not feasible due to financial constraints, private–public partnerships can be employed. In Bangkok, the Government Housing Bank of Thailand, which provides 38% of lending for housing finance in Thailand, achieved its dominant position by encouraging private sector participation in housing finance while at the same time mobilizing domestic savings (UN–HABITAT 2011a). To involve the private sector usually requires clarifying and simplifying rules in order to address information asymmetries and “missing markets” in housing and land. A study by Monkkonen and Ronconi (2013) suggests where improvements can be made. For example, more procedures are needed to obtain construction permits in Asian than in Latin American countries, construction is more than twice as costly, and Asian firms are more likely to cite zoning regulations as an impediment to business expansion than are firms in Latin America. Conversely, property registration is more time-consuming and expensive in Latin America than in Asia.


Another way to look at the problem of slums is from development sequencing. As UN–HABITAT (2011a) explained, whereas formal housing is planned and serviced before occupation, the reverse happens in informal housing, where occupation comes first on often vacant and unserviced lands. One possible response would be early prevention through prior investments in planned and strategically located massive low-cost housing even before slums form (UN–HABITAT 2006). The importance of political will in slum prevention is also critical. In some cities, city governments actively coddle and attract slum populations in anticipation of electoral rewards in these hyper dense, vote-rich communities. But slums, once entrenched, are politically difficult to dismantle and expensive to upgrade. Bouillon (2012) highlights that, in Latin America, servicing regular land with basic infrastructure would cost $1,667 per household but the amount rises exponentially to $4,413–$12,757 for normal and complex slum upgrading programs. Finally, city governments forego large amounts of revenue by having large tracts of prime land occupied by slums, and by the presence of slums preventing increases in the market value of land near them. In Kolkata alone, the land occupied by informal settlers is estimated to exceed 4,000 hectares (UN–HABITAT 2011a).

However, both regions have had successful slum upgrading initiatives. In Bangkok, the Community Organization Development Institute, attached to the Ministry of Housing, is dedicated to slum upgrading by providing savings, credit, and microfinance; facilitating tenure; making infrastructure grants; and financing pilot projects. The Institute’s success has been largely attributed to involving local governments, landowners, and slum communities in setting up the savings schemes and mapping their own settlements and self-enumeration, and involving communities in crafting their own development plans (Nadkarny and Anderson 2013).

In Manila, the participation of slum dwellers, together with the salutary reputation of a nongovernment organization (NGO)—Gawad Kalinga (translated as “to give care”)—are key to the organization’s successful approach to homelessness in the city. Slum communities and other volunteers are enjoined to participate in projects for planning and building homes, which are tied to other community development programs on education, health, livelihood, and environment (Habaradas and Aquino 2011). The result is sustained improvements in participating neighborhoods, which, in 2006, numbered over 850 all over the Philippines. These communities,


backed by Gawad Kalinga’s credibility, are partnered with and “adopted” by other organizations, such as corporations, and communities, such as Filipino communities abroad (MITL 2006).

In Mumbai, market forces were tapped for urban upgrading. The 1995 Slum Rehabilitation Scheme granted communities legal claims to titles on land they occupied prior to 1995. This legalization resulted in the private sector being willing to relocate settlers in half of the slum areas to other areas so that the private enterprises could develop and resell the vacated areas as high-priced real estate (Johnson and Nadkarny 2013).

In Latin America, community participation and political commitment for infrastructure provision is a key to the success of slum renewal or upgrading programs. The Favela Bairro in Brazil, a project to integrate informal settlers into the formal city, is an example (using initial funding from the Inter-American Development Bank). Overall, slum communities involved in the Favela Bairro project ended up with substantially improved access to sewage, garbage collection services, public lighting, drainage, and connection to street networks (Tulier and Grossman 2013).

In Mexico, the government started a large-scale initiative of replacing dirt floors with cement in 2000. The program is called piso firme (solid or cement floor). Piso firme is a nationwide program that can also be viewed as an urban upgrading program. Cattaneo et al. (2009) note that the program has significantly reduced incidences of parasite infestations in children and improved the cognitive development of children in recipient households. The benefits of the program are, however, limited to households with dirt floors and that can prove ownership of their homes.

4.3.2 Sanitation

Closely related to housing and industrial activities is the management of urban waste. Cities, as centers for myriad activities, are also principal generators of waste. Proper waste management, sanitation, and access to clean water are therefore essential to cities’ functioning for the survival and well-being of their residents and industries.


Waste production tends to increase as economic activities expand and incomes of urban dwellers increase, bringing higher standards of living and greater consumption. Figure 37 shows the daily per capita waste generated in selected cities. It is not surprising that cities in richer countries tend to generate more waste than those in the developing countries of Asia and Latin America. As cities and incomes in developing countries are growing faster than in the rich ones, waste generation can be expected to converge with levels of the richer cities in the absence of deliberate intervention.

Proper waste management is important for minimizing the resources needed to take waste out of a city, and a key to doing this lies in knowing the components of the waste and how they can be used in a city or an economy. Figure 38 shows that most of the waste generated in the sample Asian and Latin American cities is organic. Plastic and paper rank as a distant second. This appears to be a general characteristic of cities in developing countries, while cities in richer countries tend to exhibit a more even distribution among the three major waste components, with organics slightly dominating the others. The data indicate the types of waste management needed to support an urban system more efficiently as it develops. The composition in Figure 38 suggests that composting may be an ideal response. In fact, numerous cities in Asia and Latin America invested in mechanical composting plants in the last 20 years, but many of the plants have closed or are operating well below capacity. The failure is traced to high operating expenses and the absence of proper waste segregation (UNEP 1996).

Waste management can be approached on several integrated levels. The first is to directly reduce waste by reducing consumption. This is usually

PRC = People’s Republic of China, US = United States.*Quezon City is the largest of the 17 cities comprising Metropolitan Manila.Source: UNHABITAT (2010).

Figure 37 Waste per Capita in Selected Cities (kilograms per day)

kg p

er d

ay

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

San Francisco, U

S

Tompkins Country

, US

Belo Horiz

onte, Brazil

Rotterdam, N

etherlands

Adelaide, Austr

alia

Managua, Nicaragua

Kunming, PRC

Bangalore, India

Canete, Peru

Quezon City*, P

hilippines

New Delhi, India

Dhaka, Bangladesh

Ghorahi, Nepal


done by information campaigns and by regulations discouraging or banning the use of materials that are thought to be more environmentally detrimental than others. Implementation of such regulations has had mixed results. For example, banning plastic bags in Delhi and selected cities in Metro Manila decreased the circulation of plastic bags substantially, although it has yet to be clearly demonstrated that the shift to other containers (such as paper bags, which can be less durable) has led to overall improved waste disposal.

The second level is to recover materials already discarded as waste—recycling. The lack of a waste collection and segregation system in most Asian and Latin American cities means heavy involvement of the informal sector. In fact, in many cities, such as Delhi and Dhaka, the amount of waste recovered by the informal sector exceeds that recovered by the formal sector (UN–HABITAT 2010). Clearly, there is profit in segregating reusable waste, and the successful experiences of Curitiba and Ho Chi Minh City in exploiting the profit motive provide a valuable lesson. The governments led the efforts to organize the collection of solid waste, and let the communities and private collectors profit from the recycling activities. The systems are not without challenges, but by harnessing the incentives and organizing the collection and segregation system, the results are that the cities are substantially covered by garbage collection and more secure jobs have been created for the informal

PRC = People’s Republic of China.*Quezon City is the largest of the 17 cities comprising Metropolitan Manila.Source: UN–HABITAT (2010).

Figure 38Composition of Municipal Wastes of Selected Asian and Latin American Cities (%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Belo Horizante, Brazil

Bangalore, India

Delhi, India

Dhaka, Bangladesh

Ghorahi, Nepal

Kunming, PRC

Lima, Peru

Managua, Nicaragua

Pune, India

Quezon City*, Philippines

Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organic Other


sector in the communities involved (UNEP 2013). Recovery activities range from simple rag picking to extracting residue materials from electronic leftovers such as computers, televisions, and other equipment, and biomedical refuse such as used syringes (UN–HABITAT 2010; Glaeser 2011). However, because many of these materials pose health hazards, the fact that these activities go unmonitored is worrisome.

The third level pertains to how unrecovered wastes are disposed of, and whether this is done the best way, taking into account the location of other industries. Knowing the types of waste generated and the location of industry clusters that might use the waste of other sectors presents an opportunity for industrial symbioses. Organic wastes generated in cities, if properly segregated, can be composted for use in farms near a city. The success of vermiculture (worm culture for the production of humus) in cities in Colombia, Cuba, and Peru are an example (UNEP 1996). The same projects, however failed in Indonesia, when toxics in improperly sorted wastes killed the worms. Also, opportunities to use waste materials within cities are limited. Compost in Ha Noi and New Delhi, while too contaminated with plastics for farm use, have been applied in city parks instead.

4.3.3 Water

Urbanization has, in most cases, placed a lot of pressure on the demand for clean water, and cities constantly struggle to keep up with the demand. Table 4 shows that selected Asian cities have nearly universal piped water coverage, but the picture is less salutary for unaccounted-for-water—transmission losses and leakage. Leakage rates in water-resource-rich Latin America are among the highest in the world, estimated as averaging 35% (EIU 2012). Such losses are indicative of the large numbers of people in the cities who are not formally connected to the water system, or deficiencies in infrastructure repair and maintenance. High leakage rates are even more worrisome in the context of groundwater use. Use of groundwater can lead to improper resource accounting and to land subsidence, increasing the probability of flooding. This is especially an issue in the cyclone-prone countries of Asia, where 303 million Asian urban residents were already vulnerable to coastal flooding and 245 million are vulnerable to inland flooding (ADB 2012).


Provision of basic sanitation or access to improved sanitation facilities is one of the Millennium Development Goals toward which progress has been slowest in many Asian and Latin American countries (ADB 2013; World Bank, WDI database). The sewerage coverage shown in Table 4 supports this story. Limited coverage portends dire consequences for freshwater sources in or near a city, which often become dump sites for human waste. This is especially likely in the very dense cities of Bangkok and Manila, each of which was built around a central river (the Chao Praya and the Pasig, respectively) and its tributaries. Poor maintenance of infrastructure also contributes to the problem. The over 1 million septic tanks in Jakarta are so poorly maintained that the groundwater has periodically been contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria (UNEP 2010). Waste dumped into rivers and waterways blocks water flow, causes irreversible damage to freshwater ecosystems, and can increase flooding problems in flood-prone areas. The situation can be exacerbated if water installations are not sufficiently safeguarded from contaminants.

Table 4 Indicators of Water Management in Selected Asian Cities

Unit Bangkok Colombo Jamshed pur

Kuala Lumpur

Manila Phnom Penh

Shen Zhen

SingaporeMWCI MWSI

Year 2008 2008 2009 2008 2008/2011 2008 2008 2008Water Supply Piped Coverage

% of population 99 92 81 100 92 62 91 100 100

UFW/NRW % total supply 30.2 35.7 9.9 33.9 21.0 63.8 6.2 13.5 4.4

Wastewater Sewerage Coverage

% of population 54 14 67 90 26 63 … 100

Financial and Human Resources Operating Ratio

Operating expenses/Operating revenues

0.69 0.62 0.82 0.86 0.49 0.55 0.39 0.77 0.86

Revenue Collection Efficiency

Collections/billed (%) 97 98 99 91 99 89 100 99 100

Staff Members per ‘000 connections 2.2 3.9 4.0 1.9 2.27 2.42 3.3 … 2.5

… = data not available, MWCI = Manila Water Company Inc., MWSI = Maynilad Water Services Inc., NRW = nonrevenue water, UFW = unaccounted-for-water.Notes: (1) Two main water utilities service Metro Manila: MWCI in the East Concession Zone and MWSI in the West

Concession zone. (2) Data for Phnom Penh and Singapore are for UFW, which comprises physical water losses due to leakages and apparent water losses due to illegal connections and meter inaccuracies. NRW comprises UFW and legitimate water consumption that is unbilled, such as free supplies to tenement gardens and fire hydrants.

Source: Chiplunkar et al. (2012).


Urban centers face the challenge of bringing access to water to increasing populations and maintaining the systems that deal with resulting wastewater. One of the most obvious means of minimizing damage and waste is through waste water systems that facilitate extended use of treated water for nonpotable needs such as flushing toilets and gardening. This avenue appears to be relatively unexplored by some cities. For example, less than 3% of Jakarta’s 1.3 million cubic meters of wastewater pass through a treatment plant (UNEP 2010). Of the 17 large Latin American cities covered in the EIU (2012) study, close to half treat 50% or less of their wastewater before it is discharged. In Asia, however, the greater scarcity of water has resulted in several highly successful recycling schemes. Reclaimed water that has gone through microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet technology comprises 20% of Singapore’s water supply (EIU 2012). Beijing has had some success in requiring city-wide wastewater treatment, but this is limited to institutional establishments such as hotels and factories, with poorer performance in the residential sector (UNEP 2013).

UNEP (2010) argues that the key to increasing the coverage of waste water treatment is learning to treat wastewater as a precious resource. The economic valuation of the benefits of waste water treatment and other nonmarket ecosystem services such as gas regulation and waste assimilation is still in its infancy (Hernandez-Sancho et al. 2010). Seeing economic as well as ecological value could convince governments to consider waste water treatment as a worthy investment and encourage them to institute polices that would make investing in wastewater profitable for the private sector, if the governments cannot do so because of financial constraints.

Other ways of addressing wastewater can be strategically planned. Wastewater, even when only partly treated, can be used by other activities in areas near a city. Most of Mexico City’s wastewater is used for irrigation in surrounding districts—notably, the Tula Valley (UNEP 2010). Farmers who use wastewater can also save on fertilizer cost as effluents tend to be rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.


While the amount of water consumed can be reduced, the gains from such a program may be marginal. Except for a limited number of households and establishments, people in the developing world seem to use water resource wisely: UNEP (2008) estimates that domestic water consumption in developing countries is about 60–150 liters a day, versus that in developed countries, at 500–800 liters.

Finally, investments required for building water and sanitation facilities can be very high. Due to the large fixed costs involved, most such facilities are government owned—at least 84% are publicly owned and managed (Marin 2009). The limited experience from privatizing management of such services is that it has not led to the hoped-for increased investment; however, operations and service efficiency have improved when the private sector is responsible for certain segments of the operations (UNEP 2010).

63

5 Governance and urban Sustainability

This section discusses the role of the public sector in achieving sustainable urban development, referred to here as “governance.” Governance is an indispensable part of achieving sustainability in cities. Accordingly, the roles of governance are divided into three categories for the purposes of this section: information and coordination, provision of public goods, and policy formulation and implementation.

5.1 information and coordination

More often than not, only governments have the official means and the authority to form a holistic picture of a city’s sustainability situation. Governments regularly collect information for administrative records and conduct surveys to devise economic and social indicators. City plans and blueprints indicating locations, networks, and capacities of infrastructure tend to be the exclusive purview of government bodies. Governments have information on establishments and the nature of the activities they conduct. Thus, given proper organization and the right technology for analyzing the information they have, governments are best placed to assess and anticipate the needs for achieving sustainability in a city.

Information collection and analysis is, however, one of the less glamorous government functions. Unlike public works investments, which have visible and tangible results that could earn political rents in coming elections, information work is less conspicuous and therefore rarely receives the budget priority it deserves. Recent advances in information and sound techniques have allowed scientists and engineers to assess city-wide sustainability; an example is that employed by Ferrao et al. (2013) to analyze the metabolism of six Asian cities. The accuracy and usefulness of such exercises can be greatly enhanced with verification from information that city governments possess. Processing and organizing information is therefore one aspect of governance that needs to be strengthened. With today’s computerized systems in place, this is relatively easy to do and cost effective, especially for the larger cities, where information collection and organization can benefit from economies of scale.


Up-to-date cadastral surveys can contain information critical to urban planning. The surveys can give information on critical and sensitive areas such as forests or watersheds that must be given high priority for protection against encroachment from built-up areas. But, in Asia and Latin America, historical land-use policies have often been very lenient or loosely enforced so that some critical areas have been occupied and problems of pollution, congestion, ecosystem damage, and floods have been exacerbated. Such cases need to be addressed, and considerable resources—legal battles, relocation compensation, dredging, and demolition—may be required to stop and attempt to reverse the consequences.

As cities have grown and economic activities expanded, the solid waste and wastewater generated have also increased. While UNEP (2013) estimates that resource decoupling (the ability of an economy to grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure) has been increasing during the last 3 decades, waste management remains a big challenge. The information city governments possess can be used to help discover symbiotic relationships between activities within a city and its immediate periphery. Examples are Mexico City’s use of wastewater for irrigation and Ho Chi Minh City’s and Delhi’s use of compost from waste as fertilizer (cited in the infrastructure section).

Another important public sector role that tends to be underappreciated is coordination. Good coordination is indispensable for effective and integrated action to address environmental issues, which often involves multiple jurisdictions (at both local and national government levels), and stakeholders from many sectors. The views and priorities are likely to differ at the international, national, and local levels. While cities are generally the heart of economic and social activity in a country, they do not exist independent of the broader environment.

The coordination role has become even more important given the decentralization that took place in the 1980s and 1990s in Asia and Latin America, when many previously centralized government functions were transferred to local governments. The driving motivation was that local governments’ physical proximity to constituents enables them to respond better to local needs. Decentralization was also thought to encourage competition

65Governance and Urban Sustainability

among governments, thereby improving overall governance. However, the benefits sought will only be achieved if there is sufficient institutional capacity at the local government level to handle the devolved functions adequately and a strong central coordinating mechanism. Moreover, despite decentralization, not all city governments have the mandate to manage the devolved functions. The support of and coordination with the national government agencies are therefore critical.

In the Philippines, the Local Government Code of 1991 devolved functions—including transport and traffic management, provision of water, and solid and wastewater management services—to local government units. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) was tasked to coordinate delivery of metro-wide services, but Metropolitan Manila comprises 17 heavily populated cities, so the coordination efforts are highly complex. Traffic management offers a case in point. Traffic along Epifanio delos Santos Avenue (usually referred to simply as “EDSA”), Metropolitan Manila’s major thoroughfare, runs through several cities and is managed by the MMDA. But smaller road arteries connecting to EDSA are managed by the city governments. The coordination difficulties are also exacerbated by political differences—the MMDA chair is a presidential appointee and city mayors often belong to different political parties.

In metropolitan Rio, implementing a proper water-use plan and sound sanitation infrastructure illustrates the importance of coordination in achieving an effective plan. Proper planning of water use and the concomitant infrastructure needs must take into account geology, which is tied to issues of land-use policies. A historically lenient official attitude toward land-use control may result from the public sector’s recognition of its failure to provide adequate housing for low-income groups. Unfortunately, the capacity of municipal governments to actively plan and implement measures to prevent irregular and illegal occupations is often quite limited. In Brazil, the responsibilities for adequate provision of large-scale drainage in urban areas fall mainly on local governments, although, historically, state agencies regulate rivers and lakes and, recently, water agencies have also been created at the state level. In recent years, a significant increase in and concentration of rainwater in parts of metropolitan Rio caused great distress and losses. But the problem could not be solved easily, despite the fact that many of metropolitan


Rio’s municipalities are in the same hydrographic basin and face common urban problems, because none of their sanitation plans are being prepared jointly by the municipalities within a hydrological basin.

Metropolitan Rio also provides an example where the state government attempted to make a more effective coordination strategy. Metropolitan Rio’s government shut down the Metropolitan Agency after the 1988 Constitution came into force and began working on the issues of coordinating activities across the metropolis through an executive committee. The state government’s initiative to create a new metropolitan framework for coordinating and promoting common interests, following the examples of Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, and Sao Paulo, is intended to achieve economies of scale and establish coordination of facilities that cannot be subdivided by municipality. The aim is to do so by fostering the integration of conventional administrative sectors’ policies and projects in the spatial context of land-use planning and control, taking into consideration environmental protection, hydrographic basins and basic macrodrainage and sanitation needs, conurbated urban structures, local and regional transport networks, and low-income housing priorities and programs.

5.2 Provision of Public Goods

Public goods ought to be provided by the government precisely because the benefits of their positive externalities are not correctly valued and access to the benefits is difficult to exclude, so that the private sector will find it unprofitable to provide the good or service.

The infrastructure section suggested several key investments for sustainable cities based on experiences in Asia and Latin America: mass public transport systems, infrastructure designs that maximize network connections, renewable energy sources for transport and establishments, public housing and slum upgrading, and solid waste and waste water management systems.

These investments require huge resources that may be beyond the capacities of many cities in the two regions. Where institutional capacities and transparent rules are in place, public–private partnership and other arrangements that involve the private sector can substantially push forward


the agenda for sustainable cities. The success stories of cheap housing in Bangkok, Manila, and Mumbai all involved partnerships with the private sector or NGOs. While many ecological services tend to be government-owned and -managed, multinational companies dominate the world’s private water, energy, and waste management subsectors where these are open for foreign investments (UNEP 2011). However, political sensitivities may be associated with privatizing services that are deemed to be public goods. Moreover, as in the waste water case, private sector management does not necessarily result in increased investment in maintenance and new equipment, and subcontracting parts of the service may be more viable and acceptable to the public.

In Metropolitan Manila, 11 of the 17 cities subcontract garbage collection to private entities. But contracts between the private sector and governments face corruption issues such as rent seeking and favor currying in government procurement. Procurement in such circumstances often results in poor quality services. Local governments thus need to have good institutional capabilities and high levels of integrity to ensure that private entities provide good quality public services.

Involving the private sector in providing public services may lighten a city government’s financial burden but does not absolve it from managing the outsourced services. Such outsourcing needs a rational and transparent regulatory infrastructure that guides and monitors the services being provided to ensure they meet the needs for a sustainable city. Good institutions that have competent, transparent systems (including organized information and coordination systems) are public goods that are worthy of investment.

5.3 Policy Formulation and implementation

With the process of urbanization expected to continue in Asia and Latin America, more environmentally sensitive areas will come within cities’ areas of influence. Angel et al. (2005) argue that policies to curtail the expansion of urban populations are futile. Often, urban master plans that detail the limits of urban expansion (with plans of infrastructure and institutions supporting a planned number of urban residents) are created and then shelved shortly thereafter. The PRC has a strictly regulated urban residential permit (hukou) system, but in 2010 it still had over 170 million city dwellers without the hukou


(NBS 2010). Cities, as centers of economic development, present economic opportunities and people respond to that incentive. Thus, it is wise to clearly identify areas that should be protected in anticipation of urban expansion.

Urbanization has unfolded at a very fast pace in Asia and Latin America. In the world’s largest cities, this process is expected to slow down. Projections from McKinsey (2011) indicate that the growth in urban population will occur mostly in today’s middle-sized cities, which have 200,000 to 10 million people. The growth projections present an opportunity for governments of the middle-size cites to plan ahead and put in place land-use plans and policies based on proper knowledge of topography, geography, and information available from land-use and cadastral surveys. Such information can enable preparation, such as securing rights-of-way in advance for infrastructure to support and guide urban expansion, because doing so when building has already occurred on a massive scale is disruptive and expensive (Angel et al. 2005). Anticipatory investments in low-cost mass housing, as suggested in the infrastructure section, can also prevent or reduce the development of slums.

The challenges are of course more difficult and pressing for cities where built-up areas are well entrenched. For these areas, policies such as emission standards, building standards, and taxes, can be employed to improve the likelihood that outcomes may be sustainable. However, such policies need to be consistently implemented across time and across cities within a metropolitan area.

Well-functioning land markets are also important in addressing the problems of informality and access to basic services. The high prices of homeownership and renting in Asian and Latin American cities left informal settlement as the only viable option for many urban dwellers. Reducing red tape and rationalizing regulations can go a long way in reducing costs of acquiring decent dwellings. Monkkonen and Ronconi (2013) document that it takes over 230 days to obtain construction permits in Latin America, at the average cost of $192; in Asia it takes an average of 186 days and $418. Property registration takes over 77 days in Latin America and over 55 days in Asia. The number of days to complete the procedures and the amount of resources involved raise the cost of securing affordable housing for many people in the informal sector.


In Asia and Latin America, where second-hand vehicles have large markets, gradual retirement policies for older fleets need to be in place. The most frequent criticism of such a policy, however, relates to equity. Resistance to the policy can be reduced by having alternative forms of efficient and safe mobility, such as mass transit systems and infrastructure for the safe use of alternative transport such as bicycles.

Political economy considerations understandably loom large when introducing new policies. As city governments implement rules and alter incentives, they are likely to face opposition from people who stand to lose or incur additional costs. But rising income may, over time, result in increased demand for a sustainable way of living in cities. In Asia, the urbanization–environment Kuznet’s curve5 has shifted favorably over time, due to improved technology, better policy, and increased awareness, as shown in Figure 39. If the same pattern holds true in Latin American cities, lower emissions and pollution at the same level of urbanization will come sooner than would have been the case in the technology and policy environment of the 2000s. The shifts have led to 20% less PM10 (µg/m3) and 27% less CO2 emissions per capita. Holding everything else constant, including technology and policy, by 2050, CO2 emissions per capita will be halved and the PM10 (µg/m3) level will be cut by 37%.

5 The urbanization–environment Kuznets curve is a hypothesized relationship between indicators of environmental degradation (in this case, CO2 emissions or PM10) and the level of urbanization. In the early stages of urbanization, degradation and pollution increase, but beyond some level of urbanization, the trend reverses, so that high levels of urbanization lead to environmental improvement (Stern 2003).

CO2 = carbon dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter with diameter of 10 micrometers or less, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, t = ton.Source: ADB (2012).

Figure 39 Environmental Kuznet’s Curve in Asia

1990s

2000s

0

1

2

3

CO2 e

miss

ions

(t/c

apita

)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Level of urbanization (%)

1990s

2000s

10

20

30

40

50

60

PM10

(µg/

m3 )

0 20 40 60 80 100

Level of urbanization (%)

70

6 moving toward Sustainable citiesUrban growth has largely taken place with little plan and anticipation from governments in Asia and Latin America. The massive expansion of urban populations took place in different periods and contexts in the two regions, and has resulted in different urban forms. As Table 5 shows, the urbanization experiences in Asia and Latin America have been quite different. The urban population in Asia is close to four times that in Latin America; the average Asian city has a much larger population, but the urbanization rate in Latin America is close to twice that in Asia. In part this reflects the earlier urbanization in Latin America, where the process unfolded over a much longer period and average incomes have been higher but average growth rates lower in recent decades.

Despite the differences, cities in both regions face many similar challenges, albeit to varying degrees. One of the most pressing challenges is housing informality, which is both a symptom and a result of cities’ attractiveness for better economic opportunities. Recognizing the role of informal sector dwellers in providing cheap labor and some ecological services (waste segregation and recycling), city governments have to plan for proper housing sites and access to basic sanitation if informal settlers are not to aggravate the environmental problems that cities face. As urbanization is expected to continue in both regions, it is worth thinking about ways of preventing slum formation. A lesson from Latin America and the Caribbean is that, even though informal housing tends to improve over time as households become wealthier and governments implement programs to provide basic infrastructure, improve neighborhoods, and improve housing tenure, amenities may not improve at the same pace across neighborhoods. Poor surroundings and lack of amenities tend to endure, because fixing these problems requires costly public investment and expropriation of land. In some cases, the deficits persist due to lack of planning and funding from local governments, which face increased demand for these services from irregularly spaced land developments that did not include funding for the services (Bouillon 2012).

71Moving toward Sustainable Cities

Asia’s lower average income but more rapid growth has been accompanied by rapid urbanization (and industrialization) with severe environmental (including health) consequences. While the motorization rate in Latin America is roughly three times that in Asia, with Asia’s much larger population this translates into roughly equal numbers of vehicles in the two regions. Yet the recent increase in the motorization rate in Asia is roughly 10 times that in Latin America, signaling alarming increases coming in the demand for transport infrastructure and in transport-related pollution in Asia. Due to increased demand combined with a continued high level of reliance on fuel combustion, Asia is home to the globe’s most polluted cities, measured in PM10. In this situation, negative externalities of urbanization offset many of the lifestyle benefits of agglomeration and higher incomes in urban areas. The same problems are experienced in Latin America, albeit with less severity due to the region’s significantly higher reliance on renewable sources—more than five times that in Asia. That motorization rates in both regions are increasing stresses the importance of investing in transport infrastructure such as roads and complementary facilities, in programs such as bike lanes and bicycle sharing systems, and in public transit systems to ease congestion and provide cleaner forms of transport. Such investment is essential for tackling environmental issues given that the lion’s share of pollution in most cities is from transport emissions.

Table 5 General Characteristics of Asian and Latin American CitiesAttribute Asia Latin AmericaUrban Population (share in parentheses) 1.7 billion (43%) 465 million (79%)Urban Slum Dwellers (million) 500 115Cities with PM10>40µg/m3 116 42Years from about 10% Urban to 50% Urban 95 210Average City Population (million) 9.4 4.6Fragmentation Greater LessAverage (national) Motorization Rate (vehicles per 1,000 persons, 2010) 64 148Increase in Motorization Rate, 2003–2010 230% 24%Bus Rapid Transit Systems (comparing the two regions) Worse BetterNumber of Bicycle-Sharing Programs (comparing the two regions) More FewerEnergy Efficiency (average per kiloton of oil equivalent) $6.0 $8.2 Average Share of Electricity from Renewable Sources 12% 64%

µg = microgram, m3 = cubic meter, PM10 = particulate matter of 10 micrograms or greater.Note: The table collects information from earlier parts of this report. Consequently, sources, definitions, and time

periods vary.The comparison should therefore be considered indicative rather than precise.Source: Authors.


Cities in Asia and Latin America have continued expanding in population and land area. But population increases have generally lagged behind physical expansion, resulting in decreasing densities. While in most city cases (except a few, such as Curitiba and Seoul) the de-densification occurred with little deliberate intention from governments, urban sprawl appears to be more problematic for Latin America than Asia—because of very high densities, de-densification is a welcome means of decongesting in Asia. In fact, some authors in the new economic geography literature (such as Anas 2003) suggest that de-urbanization, wherein the number of cities grows while the densities decrease, is the most efficient path for countries with populations that are expected to continue increasing and trading costs that are expected to decrease between cities.

Nonetheless, the process of de-densification needs to be managed carefully. The density of ideas, resources, and talent has enabled cities to be tremendous engines of growth. Moreover, the shape of the expansion or urban form needs to be monitored. In general, the concentric expansion patterns that Latin American cities followed tend to be more efficient than the fragmented developments in Asia. But, while Latin American cities may have more green space per capita than their Asian counterparts, most residents of the less fragmented cities generally have farther to go to access green space.

In the UNEP (2013) study on resource decoupling, the typologies of most Asian and Latin American cities indicated that their domestic material consumption is lower than that of other cities in the world. The Asian and Latin American cities are, however, expected to move to high domestic material consumption typologies with rising incomes. But incomes and resource consumption can be decoupled with the right investments in urban designs in infrastructure, which influences resource material flows.

Asia has invested heavily in transport and road infrastructure during its years of rapid growth, mainly to service its growing economies, and has started to invest in the connectivity of urban transport modes in the last 2 decades. The high population density in Asia’s urban areas, and its latecomer advantage in adopting already-developed technologies, allow it to develop its infrastructure network for delivering public services (and in many cases, private services as well) more efficiently. At the same time, urban planners in

73Moving toward Sustainable Cities

Asia can learn from the Latin American experience with de-densification in designing the infrastructure investments.

Both regions have started looking into alternative means of mobility with less environmental impacts. The number of bicycle-sharing programs in Asia is increasing rapidly. The Latin American experience suggests that BRT systems can also make a significant difference. In addition, Latin America’s roughly 35% higher energy efficiency and higher share of electricity from renewables also suggest that Asia’s energy may be used more efficiently and with lower average negative consequences for the environment.

Cities in both Asia and Latin America can benefit from improvements in governance that enhance coordination and planning and that allow for reconfiguring and enforcing metropolitan boundaries, functions, and regulations. Improved coordination among municipalities within a metropolitan region, and between the metropolitan and national authorities, is indispensable in designing infrastructure and implementing policies to address the spillovers that inevitably arise from issues of sustainability, such as environment, slums, and congestion. The Doing Business Report 2012 points to areas of urban governance that can also benefit from spillovers from improving the enabling environment for business (IFC and World Bank 2011). Based on this, Monkkonen and Ronconi (2013) encouragingly observe that indicators for urban regulation have taken a general direction toward improvement and cost reduction. However, continued progress is needed. For example, as of 2010, it takes on average about half a year to obtain a construction permit in Asia and the process takes even longer in Latin America.

With the current urbanization rate of about 80%, urban growth in Latin America will be slower in than in Asia. Urban growth in Latin America is likely to transpire largely in new or smaller urban areas; in fact, emerging cities (of 2 million inhabitants or less) will comprise the major share of urban growth in the region. The timing, technological context, and policy developments suggest that these new urban areas may learn from recent experiences elsewhere. At the same time, Asia may continue to learn from Latin America’s more advanced and higher-income urbanization process. In this way, Asia and Latin America can learn from each other’s experience to help foster the sustainability of their continuing urbanization.


The sustainable city of the future will have to develop its own systems to monitor all aspects of urban sustainability. Managing information for the city of the future should transcend traditional statistics at aggregate spatial levels to work with geographic information system data banks and indicators capable of addressing smaller areas. New tools (such as material flow analysis; life cycle analysis, costing, and management; and social multi-criteria evaluation) will also play a relevant role in constructing a sustainable future. As data availability improves, the analysis of urban metabolic flows in Asian and Latin American cities can help identify pathways for improving the allocation of investment in infrastructure, the regulation and use of resources, and the sustainable management of wastes.

75

references

Advis Jiménez, J. 2011. Bicycle Use in Santiago de Chile: On the Way to an Integrated Transport System? The Green Bug Lectures. https://greening.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/greening/Green_Bug_Lectures/2011_05_03_BikeUse_Santiago.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

American University School of International Service (AUSIS). 2013. Bicuidades: Regional Study on the Use of the Bicycle as a Mode of Transportation in Latin America. Washington, DC.

Anas, A. 2003. Vanishing Cities: What Does the New Economic Geography Imply about the Efficiency of Urbanization? Journal of Economic Geography. 4(2): 181–99.

Angel, S., J. Parent, and D. Civco. 2010b. The Fragmentation of Urban Footprints: Global Evidence of Sprawl, 1990–2000. Working paper 10SA2. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Angel, S., J. Parent, D. Civco , and A. Blei. 2010c. The Persistent Decline in Urban Densities: Global and Historical Evidence of Sprawl. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

______. 2011. Making Room for a Planet of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Angel, S., J. Parent, D. Civco, A. Blei., and D. Potere. 2010a. A Planet of Cities: Urban Land Cover Estimates and Projections for All Countries, 2000–2050. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Angel, S., S. Sheppard, and D. Civco. 2005. The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion. Washington D.C.: World Bank. http://citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/CA_Docs/resources/upgrading/urban-expansion/1.pdf

Area Metropolitana del Valle de Aburra (AMVA). 2012. Bio 2030, Master Plan, Medellin, Aburra Valley. Medellin: Alcaldia de Medellin.

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2009. Electric Bikes in the People’s Republic of China. Mandaluyong City.

______. 2011. Evaluation Knowledge Brief: Review of Energy Efficiency Interventions. Mandaluyong City. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/EKB-Energy-Efficiency.pdf

______. 2012. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2012. Mandaluyong City. ______. 2013. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2013. Mandaluyong City.


Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World Bank. 2012. Cities at a Crossroads: Unlocking the Potential for Green Urban Transport. Mandaluyong City: ADB.

Ausgrid. 2012. Supply and Demand 2011–2012 Update. Sydney. Ayala, J., and Y. Sánchez. 2006. Reestructuración espacial urbana y sus

impactos sobre la ciudad de San Cristobal. GeoEnseñanza. 11: 79–96. Bairoch, P. 1988. Cities and Economic Development: From the Dawn of History

to the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barles, S. 2010. Society, Energy and Materials: The Contribution of Urban

Metabolism Studies to Sustainable Urban Development Issues. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 53 (4): 439–55.

Bettencourt, L., J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. Kϋhnert, and G. West. 2007. Growth, Innovation, Scaling, and the Pace of Life in Cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (17): 7301–6.

Beyer, H. 1997. Plan Regulador Metropolitan de Santiago—El peso del subdesarollo. Estudios Publicos. 67: 147-165.

Bolinger, M. 2013. Revisiting the Long-Term Hedge Value of Wind Power in an Era of Low Natural Gas Prices. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Lab.

Bouillon, C. 2012. Room for Development: Housing Markets in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Broto, V., A. Allen, and E. Rapoport. 2012. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Metabolism. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16 (6): 851–61.

Burton, E., M. Jenks, and K. Williams. 2004. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form. United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis.

Camagni, R., M. Gibelli, and P. Rigamontic. 2002. Urban Mobility and Urban Form: The Social and Environmental Costs of Different Patterns of Urban Expansion. Ecological Economics. 40: 199–216.

Cattaneo, M., S. Galiani, P. Gertler, S. Martinez, and R. Titiunik. 2009. Housing, Health and Happiness. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 1(1): 75–105.

Chiplunkar, A., K. Seetharam, and C. Tan. 2012. Good Practices in Urban Water Management: Decoding Good Practices for a Successful Future. Mandaluyong City: ADB and Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy.

Clean Air Institute. 2008. Bicycling in Asia. http://www.cleanairinstitute.org/cops/bd/file/tnm/25-bicycling-in-asia.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Cox, W. 2011. The Evolving Urban Form: Manila. New Geography. http://www.newgeography.com/category/story-topics/evolving-urban-form (accessed 9 September 2013).

77References

Dargay, J., D. Gately, and M. Sommer. 2007. Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth, Worldwide: 1960–2030. The Energy Journal. 28(4):143–70.

Dematteis, G. 1998. Suburbanización y periurbanización. Ciudades Anglosajonas y ciudades Latinas. In F. J. Monclus, ed. La ciudad dispersa. Suburbanización y nuevas periferias. Barcelona: Centre de Cultura Contemporánia de Barcelona.

De Mattos, C., and L. Fuentes. 2012a. Crecimiento de la población de Santiago entre 1992 y 2012: ¿Compactación o expansión? Una falsa disyuntiva. Documento de trabajo fondecyt N° 1110387. Santiago: Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

_____. 2012b. Notas sobre una falsa disyuntiva: Redensificación de las areas centrales v/s dispersión urbana. Tendencias recientes, evidencia empírica. Documento de trabajo fondecyt N° 1110387. Santiago: Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

Dempsey, N., and M. Jenks. 2010. The Future of the Compact City. Built Environment. 36(1): 116–21.

Department of Energy (DOE), Philippines. 2013. Prolonged Geothermal Generation and Opportunity in the Philippines. Presentation at the Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting, Nevada, US. 30 September.

Department of Transportation City of Buenos Aires. 2011. 2011 City of Buenos Aires, Achievements, Sustainable Mobility Plan. http://www.slideshare.net/EMBARQNetwork/2011-city-of-buenos-aires-achievements-sustainable-mobility-plan (accessed 5 December 2013).

Dittrich, M., S. Giljum, S. Lutter, and C. Polzin. 2011. Green Economies around the World? Vienna: Sustainable Europe Research Institute.

Donatiello, G. 2001. Environmental Sustainability Indicators in Urban Areas: An Italian Experience. Working Paper 16. Ottawa: Statistical Commission and Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Joint ECE/Eurostat Work Session on Methodological Issues of Environment Statistics.

Ducci, M., C. de Mattos, and M. González. 2002. Área urbana y expansión de Santiago en la ultima década. Working paper. Santiago: Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Faculdad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Estudios Urbanos Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales.

Earth Policy Institute (EPI). 2013. Largest Bike-Sharing Programs Worldwide. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_center/C23 (accessed 31 January 2014).


Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2013. Urban Population Living in Slums. http://estadisticas.cepal.org/cepalstat/WEB_CEPALSTAT/estadisticasIndicadores.asp?idioma=i (accessed 5 December 2013).

The Economist. 2013. Public Space in Bangkok: Commoners in Search of Commons. 15 June.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2012. Latin American Green City Index. http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/en/pdf/report_latam_en.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR). 2011. Global Emissions EDGAR v4.2. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=42 (accessed 26 September 2013).

European Commission. 2013. Air Quality in Europe. http://www.airqualitynow.eu/pollution_home.php

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2014. Indicators. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps (accessed 7 January 2014).

European Union. 2010. Making our Cities Attractive and Sustainable. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Making-our-cities-attractive-and-sustainable.pdf

Feldman., D., G. Barbose, R. Margolis, N. Darghouth, T. James, S. Weaver, A. Goodrich, and R. Wiser. 2013. Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near-Term Projections. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Ferrao, P., A. Pina, and S. Niza. 2013. Metabolism of Urban Areas. Report prepared for the Asian Development Bank, 25 June.

Fietsberaad. 2010. The Bicycle Capitals of the World: Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Publication N. 7a. http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Fietsberaad_Publicatie7A.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Forman, R. 2008. Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning beyond the City. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fuentes, P. 2012. Proyecto: Plan Metropolitano de Áreas Verdes Santiago 2012–2021. Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Santiago. Santiago: Regional Government of Metropolitan Santiago.

Gemal, J., R. Valle, R. Pontual, M. Guerreiro, and E. Infante. 2014. Urban

79References

Sustainability in the Metropolitan Region of Rio de Janeiro. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and COPPE-SAGE.

Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the City. New York: The Penguin Press. ______. 2013. A World of Cities: The Causes and Consequences of Urbanization

in the Poorer Countries. NBER Working Paper 19745. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Glaeser, E., and J. Kohlase. 2003. Cities, Regions and the Decline of Transport Costs. Economics of Governance. 83(1): 197–228.

Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Chile (GORE). 2013. Nueva política regional propone construir 2 mil hectáreas de areas verdes al 2015. Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Chile. http://www.gobiernosantiago.cl/Paginas/contenido.aspx?p=11167

Habaradas, R., and M. Aquino. 2011. More than Just a Housing Problem. Policy Brief III(4). Manila: Angelo King Institute, De La Salle University.

Hernández-Sancho, F., M. Molinos-Senantea, and R. Sala-Garrido. 2010. Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits from Wastewater Treatment Processes. Science of the Total Environment. 408 (4): 953–7.

Hodson, M., S. Marvin, B. Robinson, and M. Swilling. 2012. Reshaping Urban Infrastructure: Material Flow Analysis and Transitions Analysis in an Urban Context. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16 (6): 789–800.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE) of Chile. 2013. Database. http://www.ine.cl/canales/base_datos/otras_bases_datos_eng.php?lang=eng (accessed 17 December 2013).

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2000. Indicadores de desarollo sustentable en México. Aguascalientes: INEGI.

International Association of Public Transport (UITP). 2001. Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport. UITP. http://www.uitp.org/public-transport-sustainable-mobility (accessed January 2014).

International Finance Corporation (IFC) and World Bank. 2011. Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent World. Washington, DC.

International Road Assessment Program (IRAP). 2014. Vaccines for Roads (Second Edition). London: IRAP.

Janches, F. 2011. Significance of the Public Space in Fragmented Cities. UNU-WIDER Working Paper no. 2011/13. Helsinki: United Nations University, World Institute for Economics Research (UNU–WIDER).

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 2013. JICA Readies Transport Infra Roadmap for Mega Manila. Press Release, 13 August 2013. http://


www.jica.go.jp/philippine/english/office/topics/news/130801.htmlJohnson, K., and S. Nadkarny. 2013. Slum Upgrading in Mumbai. Berkeley:

University of California. http://healthycities.berkeley.edu/Kennedy, C., L. Baker, S. Dhakal, and A. Ramaswami. 2012. Sustainable Urban

Systems: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16: 775–9.Kim, S. 2012. Profile Changes of Seoul. Presentation at the Inception Workshop

on Sustainable Urbanization, Manila, Asian Development Bank, 22 November.

Kuala Lumpur Sentral (KL Sentral). 2013. A World-Class Transportation Hub. http://www.klsentral.com.my/Conn_Main.aspx

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Academy. (2011) Passenger Transport Mode Shares in World Cities. http://ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/J11Nov-p60PassengerTransportModeSHares.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Larsen, J. 2013. Bike Sharing Programs Hit the Streets in Over 500 cities Worldwide. Plan B Updates. Washington, DC: Earth Policy Institute. https://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2013/update112

Latin America Energy Association (Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia—OLADE). 2013. Sistema de informacion economica energetica 2013. Quito: OLADE.

MacKay, D. 2009. Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT. Magsaysay Institute for Transformative Leadership (MITL). 2006. Citation:

Gawad Kalinga Community Development Foundation. http://www.rmaf.org.ph/newrmaf/main/awardees/awardee/profile/317

Marin, P. 2009. Public–Private Partnerships for Urban Water Utilities. Trends and Policy Options No. 8. Washington, DC: World Bank.

McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey). 2011. Urban World: Mapping the Economic Power of Cities. McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/urban_world

Mejia, O. n.d. La zona metropolitana de la Ciudad de Mexico: Una zona habitable, pero sin habitalidad. Un acercamiento desde la subjetividad. http://www.eumed.net/rev/tlatemoani/03/ovm.htm

Monkkonen, P., and L. Ronconi. 2013. Land Use Regulations and Urbanization in the Developing World: Evidence from Over 600 cities. GDN Working Paper No. 75. Washington, DC: Global Development Network .

Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer, A. Verbruggen. 2011. Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge and New York:

81References

Cambridge University Press.Morichi, S., and R. Acharya. 2012. Transport Development in Asian Megacities.

Heidelberg: Springer.Moris, R., A. Orellana, M. Miranda, L. Fuentes, H. Gilabert, C. G. Troncoso, K.

Pape, A. Rickmers, C. Tapia, C. Abusleme, N. Carroza, O. Figueroa, F. Zegers and J. Harris. 2014. Urban Sustainability Analysis through Urbanization Patterns of Two Chilean Cities: Santiago and Valparaiso. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and Estudios Urbanos and X.lab Universidad Catolica de Chile.

Nadkarny, S., and M. Anderson. 2013. Slum Upgrading in Thailand: CODI. Berkeley: University of California. http://healthycities.berkeley.edu

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), People’s Republic of China. 2010. Tabulation on the 2010 Census. Beijing: NBS.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2012a. Mobilizing Investments for Urban Sustainability, Job Creation and. Resilient Growth. Presented at the Roundtable of Mayors and Ministers, Chicago, Illinois, United States, 8–9 March. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/49826482.pdf

______. 2012b. Redefining “Urban”: A New Way to Measure Metropolitan Areas. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264174108-en

______. 2013. Urban Policy Reviews: Chile. Paris: OECD Publishing. Orsini F., M. Ospina, S. Leyva, N. Cadavid, and J. Ospina. 2014. Urbanism

and Sustainability in the Metropolitan Region of Medellín, Colombia. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and the Urban and Environmental Studies Center, EAFIT University.

Packe, S., and I. Aldunce. 2010. Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las areas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE (Santiago) 36(109): 89–110.

Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC). 2013. http://www.prrc.gov.phPor la Reserva. 2014. Espacio verde habitante. http://www.porlareserva.org.

ar/index.html (accessed 30 January 2014).Ramaswami, A., C. Weible, D. Main, T. Heikkila, S. Siddiki, A. Duvall, A.

Pattison, and M. Bernard. 2012. A Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of Sustainable City Systems: An Integrative Curriculum across Seven Major Disciplines. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16 (6): 801–13.

Rhoda, R., and T. Burton. 2010. Geo-Mexico: The Geography and Dynamics of Modern Mexico. Canada: Sombrero Books.


Ross, B., and E. Underwood. 2010. The Sustainable Cities Index 2010: Ranking the 20 Largest British Cities. London: Forum for the Future.

Secretaria de Planificacion de Transporte, Ministerio de Transportes y Telecommunicaciones de Chile. Urban transport database. http://www.mtt.gob.cl/transporteurbano

Secretariat of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarollo Social—SEDESOL). 2011. México: La expansion de las ciudades 1980–2010. Mexico City.

Shaheen, S., and S. Guzman. 2011. Worldwide Bikesharing. Access (39): 22–7. Berkeley: Transport Sustainability Research Center, University of California.

Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau (SMSB). 2011. Shanghai Statistical Yearbook 2011. Shanghai: China Statistical Press.

Sreshthaputra, A. 2013. Status Quo of Energy Efficiency of Buildings in Thailand. German-Thai Chamber of Commerce. http://thailand.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_thailand/projects/ETC/2_Asst._Prof._Dr._Atch_Status_Quo_of_Energy_Efficiency_in_Thailand.pdf?bcsi_scan_dab5294b144736b1=0&bcsi_scan_filename=2_Asst._Prof._Dr._Atch_Status_Quo_of_Energy_Efficiency_in_Thailand.pdf

Statistics Korea. 2010. 2010 Population and Housing Census Report. Daejeon: Statistics Korea.

Steinberger, J., M. Fischer-Kowalski, F. Krausmann, and R. Ayres. 2010. Towards a Low Carbon Society. Social Ecology Paper 115, Klagenfurt: Institute of Social Ecology, Klagenfurt University.

Stern, D. 2003. The Environmental Kuznets Curve. Troy, NY: Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Stokenberga, A. 2012. Explaining and Projecting the Carbon Footprint of Mexico’s Urban Transport. Presented at the Transport Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 22–26 January, Washington, DC. http://cta.ornl.gov/TRBenergy/trb_documents/2012_presentations/187_Stokenberga_Explaining_Projecting.pdf (accessed 5 December 2013).

Tulier, M., and C. Grossman. 2013. Slum Upgrading in Rio de Janeiro: Favela Bairro. Berkeley: University of California. http://healthycities.berkeley.edu

Ugalde, M., M. Gómez, and V. Yamaguchi. 2014. Quality of Urban Growth in Three Mexican Cities. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

83References

United Nations (UN). 2013a. Millennium Development Goals Indicators. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx (accessed 3 September 2013).

______. 2013b. Percentage of Population Residing in Urban Areas by Major Area, Region and Country, 1950–2050. http://esa.un.org/unup/CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm (accessed 5 December 2013). New York.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). 2013 (update). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. http://esa.un.org/unup/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1996. International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) for Municipal Solid Waste Management. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/estdir/pub/msw/index.asp

______. 2008. Vital Water Graphics. http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater______. 2010. Sick Water. http://www.unep.org/pdf/SickWater_screen.

pdf?bcsi_scan_dab5294b144736b1=1______. 2011. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts

from Economic Growth. A report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.

______. 2013. City-Level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and the Governance of Infrastructure Transitions. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/City-LevelDecoupling/tabid/106135/Default.aspx

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN–HABITAT). 2006. State of the World’s cities. Brussels.

______. 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2918

______. 2011a. Urban Patterns for Sustainable Development: Towards a Green Economy. Draft Working Paper. January 2011. http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/9539_39812_3077_alt.pdf?bcsi_scan_e41ddc73166bc1eb=0&bcsi_scan_filename=9539_39812_3077_alt.pdf

______. 2011b. Affordable Land and Housing in Asia. Brussels.______. 2011c. Affordable Land and Housing in Latin America and the

Caribbean. Brussels.______. Housing Price and Rent-to-Income Ratios. http://ww2.unhabitat.org/

campaigns/tenure/indicators/indicator3.htmUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2013. Brazil Biofuels Annual

Report 2013. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) BR 13005. Washington, DC: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.


Universidad de los Andes. 2013. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Funding Program for the Technological Transformation of the Integrated Public Transportation System of Bogota CO-L1096 and Potential Green House Gas Emission Reduction. Bogota.

Wheeler, C. 2008. Urban Decentralization and Income Inequality. Is Sprawl Associated with Rising Income Segregation across Neighborhoods? Regional Economic Development. (4)1: 41–57. St. Louis, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

World Bank. World Development Indicators (WDI). http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed 3 September 2013 and 17 January 2014).

World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Outdoor Air Pollution in Cities Database. http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/en (accessed 3 September 2013).

______. 2013. Global Status Report on Road Safety. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/.

World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2011. Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources. London.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2010. Modernizing Public Transportation: Lessons Learned from Major Bus Improvements in Latin America and Asia. Washington, DC.

sustainable urbanization in asia and latin america · pdf filesustainable urbanization in asia...

Documents