7178

UPDATEIHD

P

N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G E

www.ihdp.org ISSN 1727-155X 2.2006

Urbanization and Global Environmental Change – An Exciting Research Challenge

Carbon Management and Clean Air:Opportunities in Urbanization to LinkResearch, Policy and PracticeBY LOUIS LEBEL, ANTONIO CONTRERAS, PO GARDEN, RODEL LASCO, A.P. MITRA,

NGUYEN HOANG TRI, OOI GIOK-LING, AND AGUS SARI.

1.Opportunities Urbanization in developing parts of South- and East-

Asia is frequently portrayed as a process run out of controlthat drives environmental harms and social injustices. Thejuxtaposition of glass-fronted hotels and banks and thedrab apartments and informal settlements in Jakarta, Delhior Manila underline both inequities and opportunities. Astream of suits winding unconcerned through piles of plas-tic bags and scraps, picks at delicacies made on the banksby the unsuited. In the vacant lot behind the shop-front inChiang Mai or Ho Chi Minh City we glimpse a vegetablegarden, a cow grazing, and a flooded paddy with newshoots. Streets clogged with SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles)and motorcycles pass people pushing wheelbarrows, ped-alling bicycles and taxi-tricycles.

These are reminders that cities have sprung out fromrural towns in very short time, often without much plan-ning or restrictions on land-use. Self-organizing processesdriven by land markets, speculation and innovative andadaptive entrepreneurs have shaped urban forms andfunctions. Air and water pollution problems have beenaccidental side-effects of growth. The pursuit of urbanservices has not been strongly pre-determined to particularmeans and ways, the point has been to get there. The con-trasts are also a reminder against simple “urban-rural”dichotomies. Urbanization doesn’t just make urban areas,but through it people re-define what urban is and where itsinterfaces lie with “other”.

Urbanization provides opportunities to explore differ-ent ways of meeting people’s needs and aspirations forcomfortable shelter, mobility, good health and diet, diverseleisure activities, and meaningful work (1, 2). These alter-native ways can have huge implications for emissions criti-cal to health like NOx, SO2, VOC and PM, as well as green-house gases CO2 and CH4. High densities, compact urban

forms and mass transit systems linking nodes, for example,can both reduce fossil-fuel use in daily commutes to andfrom work or school, but also help shape peri-urban resi-dential and commercial development. Energy efficienthousing and workplace designs and urban layouts withgreen spaces that are conducive to non-motorized localtraffic can make life more convenient and comfortable

without wasting energy on re-controlling climate. Indus-tries located in urban and peri-urban areas through regula-tions and public pressure must be low emitters. It is proba-bly in the newly urbanizing regions where efforts to shapeurban form, function and people’s daily behaviourthrough guiding infrastructure and public services canmake the largest contributions to de-coupling growth inemissions from social development.

Growing awareness of the importance of urban activi-ties and environments has led to investments in monitor-ing, making inventories, building models and carrying outimpact studies and assessments. Municipalities, local areagovernment authorities and schools are learning about air

Ph

oto

by

Vin

cen

t K

itio

2 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationC A R B O N M A N A G E M E N T

pollution, making measurements and making demands.Cities are linking with each other, independently of nation-al governments, to share ideas on how to reduce emissions.

It is conventional to assume that in urban environmen-tal management, innovation comes from scientific researchand capacity from training and experience. Scientific find-ings are seen to flow, almost inevitably, from a communityof researchers to those in policy and practice. Models anddecision-support tools are on-hand to help with commu-nication, understanding and exploring options, in short tohelp science link to policy and practice.

Our preliminary studies of how scientific informationabout urbanization and its impacts on air quality and theglobal carbon cycle is being used in several urbanizingregions in Asia raises questions about this conventionalview of science, policy and practice. How are these diverseactivities changing the way knowledge is produced, sharedand used? Are societies getting better at effectively linkingknowledge and actions to improve air quality and reduceemissions growth?

In the rest of this essay we summarize preliminary find-ings of questions posed by the Global Carbon Project (3)and IHDP Urbanization and Global EnvironmentalChange Project (4) to reflect more deeply on how scientificresearch could contribute to sustainability, in particular,with respect to moderating growth in harmful emissions.The ideas presented here are based largely on collaborativework by the U-TURN (Urban transformation and urban-ization research network) in Thailand (Chiang Mai), Viet-nam (Ho Chi Minh), Indonesia (Jakarta), India (Delhi)and the Philippines (Manila) (5).

2.Innovation,Capacity and Will The creation of new knowledge, the capacity to under-

stand and act on existing knowledge, and the willingness tolearn from those efforts can each be made easier (or hard-er) by the way societies organize relationships between sci-ence, policy and practice.

Research and action agendas remain narrowly focusedon “end-of-the-pipe” solutions. They improve techniquesfor capturing emissions, removing pollutants from fuels,and designing more efficient engines to run on betterdesigned roads. But people buy bigger cars and travel fur-ther. Alternative ways of servicing or altering mobilityneeds are not explored. Urban form has not often been anexplicit focus of trying to control vehicle emissions, butcomparative evidence growingly points to the importanceof compact urban forms that help reduce trip lengths andfrequencies.

New knowledge may not be taken up by policy or prac-tice because its relevance is not understood. The capacity ofnational and municipal agencies to assimilate and under-stand technical information about air quality and manage-ment options is often limited. Administrative fragmenta-tion can separate expertise that should be integrated, for

ED

I-

Dear Readers of IHDP UPDATE,

You may havenoticed that thepresent issue of

IHDP’s Newsletter lookssomewhat different fromwhat you’ve known sofar. In fact, the Interna-tional Human Dimen-sions Programme onGlobal EnvironmentalChange is moving ontonew horizons, challengesand accomplishments. At its 13th Annual Session(Norwich, UK, 27-30 March 2006), the ScientificCommittee (SC), IHDP’s governing body, has takenfar reaching decisions for the programme’s nextdecade. Indeed, after a successful period of consolida-tion, network building and production of high-qualityscience since 1996, IHDP is now looking forward to itsphase II, a phase of implementation.

The SC wishes to dedicate this forthcomingdecade in particular to three endeavors: (i) delivery ofhigh-quality science on Human Dimensions of Glob-al Environmental Change to practitioners from inter-national, governmental and non-governmental enti-ties; (ii) strengthening our capacity building andregional activities; and (iii) reaching out to the sus-tainable development community and agenda.

While the vertical and horizontal growth of ournetworks as well as their production and communi-cation of state-of-the-art science will certainly con-tinue, the three named goals will set the path forIHDP’s near future – along with a broadened basis ofpartners, new cooperation models with other organi-zations, and a strengthened IHDP Secretariat. A newStrategic Plan 2007-2015 will be elaborated in theupcoming months to encompass all above men-tioned aspects and goals.

It goes without saying that IHDP’s crown jewelshave been and will be the programme’s core projects.We are therefore proud to present IHDP’s mostrecent “baby”, Urbanization and Global Environmen-tal Change (UGEC), in this UPDATE. I wish all ofyou Happy and informative reading!

Best wishes,

Dr. Andreas RechkemmerExecutive Director

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 3

UrbanizationC A R B O N M A N A G E M E N T

example, with respect to land-use, transport and energyplanning. Usually some intermediate organization is need-ed to help translate research into actionable informationand policy needs into researchable questions.

Even if understood, the results of models, inventoriesand impact studies may not be trusted, especially whenconducted by groups of different interests than thosewhose behaviour is targeted for change. The synergies andtrade-offs in reducing emissions with local, regional andglobal impacts are not sufficiently acknowledged in eitherresearch or policy. Rather, groups with interests and agen-das associated with one class of emissions argue for theimportance of research or initiatives at that scale withoutconsidering interactions with other levels. This makeslegitimacy hard to achieve. Dialogue and communicationare important. In Jakarta, the non-governmental organiza-tion PELANGI and the Swiss Foundation for TechnicalCooperation have played a valuable facilitation role inbringing air quality and transport issues onto public policyagendas. This eventually led to the successful introduction,for example, of dedicated bus lanes.

Public interest litigation through the Supreme Court ofIndia has been crucial for shifts to compressed natural gasas well as unleaded petroleum actions that helped addressair quality problems in New Delhi (6). More recently, thejudiciary has been pro-active in ordering large scale demo-litions of building structures and sealing premises that vio-late provisions of the New Delhi Master Plan.

Technical assistance activities that attempt to bringknowledge into policies and practices are relatively com-monplace in the transport sector but far less obvious whenit comes to other lifestyle and consumption issues. Build-ing designs have major implications for emissions associat-ed with, first, the manufacture of steel and concrete and,second, energy for the buildings’ continued use as comfort-able places to live and work in. Changes in both productionand consumption matter. Rock and Angel (7), for example,describe how a large Thai firm, Siam Cement, has in manyways leapfrogged other similar firms in the industrializedworld through actively pursuing new, cleaner technologiesthat have ultimately strengthened the knowledge and skillsof their workforce.

Urban governments and research groups struggle withmonitoring and evaluation. As a consequence, importantopportunities for social learning by both researchers andpractitioners have been missed. This is not to claim thatinformed and effective policies, regulations and laws havenot been introduced. They have, but rather to underlinethat institutional arrangements which consistently andeffectively link knowledge with action have not yetemerged in these cities. The conventional linear view of sci-ence, policy and practice, in which good research becomespolicy then practice, is no longer tenable. In addressingurban air quality and carbon management problems,improved linkages between science, policy and practice

ED

ITO

RIA

LT

he connections and interactions betweenurbanization and global environmentalchange are increasingly intertwined and com-

plex. Global environmental changes affect and areaffected by most urban processes. Despite their grow-ing importance, urban areas have been understudiedin the analysis of global environmental change. Muchless attention has been devoted to the study of theimpacts of global environmental change on urbanareas and the people who live in them. The newIHDP core project on Urbanization and Global Envi-ronmental Change (UGEC) seeks to fill this gap. Itsgoal is to develop a better understanding of the inter-actions and feedbacks between global environmentalchange and urbanization at local, regional, and glob-al scales. The project is organized under four mainthemes: 1) Urban process that contribute to globalenvironmental change; 2) Pathways through whichglobal environmental change affects the urban sys-tem; 3) Interactions and responses within the urbansystem to global environmental change; and 4) Con-sequences of changes within the urban system onglobal environmental change. Recognizing that solu-tions to urbanization and global environmentalchange problems will require an interdisciplinaryframework that includes a range of perspectives andparticipants, the project emphasizes the interactionand engagement of practitioner and research com-munities at different scales.

This issue of the IHDP UPDATE highlightsresearch from UGEC, and the authors span the rangeof government officials, NGOs, and academia. Thearticles cover a breadth of geographic scales, from theglobal to the local. One theme of the articles under-scores the need to understand urban form, urbangrowth patterns, and urban growth dynamics.Authors also agree on the importance of scientificresearch in contributing to sustainability, and thecritical linkages among research, policy, and practice.

UGEC is seeking to develop regional and thematicnetworks of scholars and practitioners, and encour-ages international participation from researchersfocused across a broad range of spatial scales, fromlocal to the national, regional, and global. We are par-ticularly keen to encourage energetic and innovativescholars from different parts of the world who wouldactively participate in UGEC (e.g., direct involvementin workshops, research projects and publications,establishment of regional and thematic networks,interfacing with the SSC).

Karen Seto ([email protected]) and RobertoSánchez-Rodríguez ([email protected]), Guest Edi-tors and Scientific Co-Chairs of UGEC

4 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationC A R B O N M A N A G E M E N T

CONTENTS

Carbon Management and Clean Air:Opportunities in Urbanization to Link Research, Policy, and Practice 1Louis Lebel et. al.

Urban Landscape Patterns and Global Environmental Change: Complex Dynamics and Emergent Properties 5Marina Alberti et. al.

Urban Modeling, Global Environmental Change, and Policymaking in Developing-World Cities 7Michail Fragkias

Global Cities and Local Vulnerabilities 10Robin Leichenko, William Solecki

Urbanization Research in China:Many Opportunities and Challenges 12Yan Xiaopei, Xue Desheng, Yin Xiaoying

Climatic Deterioration and Urbanization in Senegal 15Cheikh Gueye, Abdou Fall, Serigne Tall

Understanding Urban Growth in the Context of Global Change 17Annemarie Schneider

Visioning Sustainable Urban Transport:Case Studies for Boston and Bangalore 20Philip Vergragt

List of Authors 23

Conferences 24

In Brief 26

Publications 27

Adresses 28

won’t happen on its own, but rather will require institu-tional initiatives. The IHDP Urbanization and GlobalEnvironmental Change project (4) needs to address thelinks between urban science and policy, not only as a com-munication problem, but as interfaces amenable to policy-relevant and action-oriented research.

3.Knowledge and Action Urbanization is a key collection of processes driving

local and regional environmental changes. In the futurethese will intersect with, and be confounded by, globalenvironmental changes (4). Most of the initiatives onurban air quality and greenhouse gas emissions havelooked at ways to take off the shelf knowledge, in particularabout fuels and emission control technologies and getthese to be fitted and used effectively. There are some sim-ple ways to help reduce emissions growth on this route, butthey remain first steps. More radical initiatives are oftenneeded to counter the growth in sheer number of pointsources, for example, from rise in personal vehicle owner-ship and patterns of use.

Our understanding of other key issues in linking knowl-edge with action is modest. For instance, there is a need tointegrate understanding of cultural, behavioural, and insti-tutional issues with the existing emphasis on inventoryinggreenhouse gases and other even more immediatelyimportant atmospheric pollutants. Studies of householdsand communities that voluntarily shift to low-carbonlifestyles are needed. The critical matched comparisonsbetween equivalent groups in urbanized and non-urban-ized settings have not really been made – yet they need tobe made. The issue of re-location and inter-city interac-tions through production-consumption relations must beaddressed otherwise we risk de-carbonizing developmentin i.e. Tokyo at the expense of Jakarta (8).

But what this essay has argued is that this is not enough.We also need to view the interaction of science, policy andpractice as a subject of study in its own right (9). We needto get a much better understanding of: Who and how arepriorities for urban emissions research set? How is infor-mation shared? Are there any key individuals or organiza-tions that “manage” the boundaries between science andpolicy with respect to air pollution? Whose knowledge isused in designing air quality control measures? Are institu-tional and other policy interventions treated as experi-ments and monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness?

Urbanization creates opportunities to simultaneouslyaddress the multi-scale challenges posed by emissionsgrowth. Effective mobilization and action will ultimatelybenefit from a more nuanced perspective of how science,policy and practice interact.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe authors of this article are featured on page 23.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 5

UrbanizationU R B A N L A N D S C A P E P A T T E R N S

Urban Landscape Patterns and GlobalEnvironmental Change: ComplexDynamics and Emergent PropertiesBY MARINA ALBERTI, CHARLES REDMAN, JIANGUO WU, JOHN MARZLUFF, MARK HANDCOCK,

JOHN M. ANDERIES, PAUL WADDELL, DIETER FOX, HENRY KAUTZ, AND JEFF HEPINSTALL

The future of Earth ecosystems is increasingly influ-enced by the pace and patterns of urbanization. Cities aregrowing rapidly worldwide. At an average annual growthrate of 1.8 per cent, by the year 2030, approximately 61% (5billion) of the estimated world population (8.2 billion) willlive in cities: 57.1 percent of the population of developingcountries (4.0 billion) and 81.7 percent of that of the devel-oped countries (1.0 billion) (UN 2003). Already 4 percentof land area is occupied by urban and built-up areas--more than 471 million ha--and this is expected to increaseat even a greater pace due to suburban sprawl particularlyin North America and Europe (WRI 2000). Urbanizationsignificantly influences ecosystem function (Grimm et al.,2000; Alberti et al 2003) through increased fragmentationand degradation of natural habitats (Marzluff, 2001), vastsimplification of species composition (Blair, 1996), largedisruption of hydrological systems (Booth and Jackson,1997), and drastic modifications in energy flow and nutri-ent cycling (Vitousek et al., 1997; Grimm et al., 2000).Changes in ecological conditions that result from theseactions affect the quality of the urban and global environ-ment and, ultimately, people’s health and wellbeing.

Important progress has been made in studying interac-tions between human and ecological systems (Grimm etal., 2000, Pickett et al., 2001, Alberti et al 2003). Yet we arejust beginning to understand the interactions between pat-terns and processes in human dominated landscapes. Inparticular we do not know how local interactions ofhuman and biophysical processes affect the landscape pat-terns of metropolitan regions. While many competingmodels have addressed the relationship between urbaniza-tion and ecosystem function (Grimm et al., 2000; Pickett etal., 2001), few have asked questions to directly address howhuman and ecological patterns emerge from these interac-tions. Nor have they investigated how these patterns con-trol the distribution of energy, materials, and organisms inhuman-dominated ecosystems at the local and global scale.

Urban Landscape Patterns as Emergent Phenomena

A new research project at the University of Washington(UW) and Arizona State University (ASU) funded by NSFas part of the Biocomplexity Program investigates thecomplex coupled human-natural system dynamics of Seat-

tle and Phoenix metropolitan areas. The study aims toempirically test hypotheses about how the interactions ofhuman agents, real estate markets, built infrastructure, andbiophysical factors drive current patterns of developmentand how these patterns affect human and ecological func-tion in these two different bioregions. The study employs apattern-oriented hierarchical approach to model howcomplex agent-based interactions generate landscape pat-terns at multiple temporal and scales. This researchaddresses four questions: 1) How do dynamic landscapesystems evolve to generate emergent patterns that we see inurban landscapes? 2) What nonlinearities, thresholds, dis-continuities, and path dependencies explain divergent tra-jectories of urban landscapes? 3) How do emergent urbanlandscape patterns influence biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning? and 4) How can planning integrate thisknowledge to develop sustainable urban landscape pat-terns? The model implementation will be based on adynamic probabilistic relational model (DPRM) in whichparameters and spatial rules are estimated empiricallyfrom two longitudinal land cover and land use data setsdeveloped for the Seattle and Phoenix Metropolitan Areas.

Modeling Complex Urban LandscapesOngoing research in Seattle and Phoenix has shown

complex dynamics of urban landscapes.An essential aspectof complex systems is nonlinearity, which leads to multiplestates (Levin, 1998). Urbanizing regions have multiplesteady and unstable states. The state of an urban ecosystemis driven between natural and sprawl states by the amountand pattern of urbanization (Figure 1).

Urban sprawl leads to the shift from a natural steadystate of abundant and well-connected natural land cover toa second steady state of greatly reduced and highly frag-mented natural land cover (Alberti and Marzluff 2004).The natural “steady”state of natural land cover depends onnatural disturbance regimes. The sprawl state is a forcedequilibrium that relies on incomplete account of the eco-logical costs of providing human services to suburbandevelopment. The sprawl state is characterized by a lowdensity urban pattern, highly fragmented landscape,increasing substitution of ecological functions with humanfunctions and highly reduced capacity of ecological func-tions to support human functions.

6 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationU R B A N L A N D S C A P E P A T T E R N S

We hypothesize that similarly to other ecosystemsdescribed by Scheffer et al. (2001), in urban ecosystems,changes from one state (characterized by a set of process-es) to another (characterized by a new set of processes)can be triggered either by the action of slowly changingvariables or by relatively discrete shocks. For example, theecological condition of an urban stream can change fromgood to poor as a result of incremental loss or degrada-tion of riparian vegetation, or by substantially paving thedrainage basin as a result of a large development or builtinfrastructure or by the both of these changes actingsimultaneously. On the long term, what controls the abil-ity of an urban ecosystem to support both its ecologicaland human function can be affected by slow changingvariables (i.e. climate change) or discrete shocks (i.e. hur-ricane Katrina) that can force the system over a threshold.

We also hypothesize that urban landscapes are spatial-ly nested hierarchies in which the hierarchical levels cor-respond to structural and functional units (Wu andDavid 2002). Using a hierarchical modeling approach weaim to identify the structural and functional units at dis-tinct spatial and temporal scales of human and biophysi-cal processes and specify the agents and rates of processesthat characterize and distinguish the levels in the hierar-chy. The hierarchical patch dynamics perspective empha-sizes both the vertical structure (linkages between scalesor organizational levels) and horizontal structure (spatialpatterns) of the urban landscapes (Wu and David 2002).This perspective allows for a more realistic representationof the relationships among patterns, processes, and scalesthat lead to emergent properties of heterogeneous urbanlandscapes.

The study proposes to apply a dynamic probabilisticrelational model (DPRM) approach as proposed by Sang-hai et al. (2003) to represent a heterogeneous and hierar-chically structured domain such as the urban landscape.While first order Markov models have been widely used

in data mining, most are limited because they assume sta-tionarity of transitions, do not include spatial and tempo-ral dependencies and cannot represent multiple stateclasses that exist in most real-world domains (Andersonet al. 2002). DPRMs extend Hidden Markov models byimposing a hierarchical, relational structure on the set ofstates.

The overarching goal of this project is to develop a bet-ter understanding of complex human-ecological dynam-ics leading to urban development patterns such as sprawl,one of the most pressing and controversial problem. Thisknowledge is essential to aid planning and managementof urban regions in the two urban metropolitan areas.The findings will also aid by providing simulation tools toassess the ecological impacts and feedback of alternativestrategies for urban development and ecological conser-vation.

FFiigguurree 22.. CCoonncceeppttuuaall MMooddeell ooff UUrrbbaann LLaannddssccaappee DDyynnaammiiccss::ccoonncceeppttuuaalliizzaattiioonn ooff tthhee hhiieerraarrcchhiiccaall rreellaattiioonnsshhiippss bbeettwweeeennbbiioopphhyyssiiccaall aanndd hhuummaann ppaatttteerrnnss,, pprroocceesssseess,, aaggeennttss aatt tthhrreeeelleevveellss ooff ssppaattiiaall hhiieerraarrcchhiieess ((BBaasseedd oonn WWuu aanndd DDaavviidd 22000022))

AcknowledgmentsThis article is based on the biocomplexity project descrip-

tion BE/CNH: Urban Landscape Patterns: ComplexDynamics and Emergent Properties (Alberti PI: BCS0508002). The project is a joint effort by the UW UrbanEcology Research Lab (www.urbaneco.washington.edu)and the ASU Global Institute of Sustainability (http://sus-tainable.asu.edu/gios/). Other research associates and assis-tants at the Urban Ecology Research Lab involved in theproject include: Stefan Coe, Debashis Mondal, David Hsu,Dave Oleyar, Andrew Bjorn, and Karis Puruncajas.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe authors of this article are featured on page 23.

FFiigguurree 11.. MMuullttiippllee EEqquuiilliibbrriiaa iinn UUrrbbaann LLaannddssccaappeess ((FFrroommAAllbbeerrttii aanndd MMaarrzzlluuffff 22000044))

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 7

UrbanizationU R B A N M O D E L I N G

Urban Modeling, Global EnvironmentalChange, and Policymaking in Developing-World CitiesBY MICHAIL FRAGKIAS

1. IntroductionScientists have been trying to understand the evolu-

tion of urban-ecological systems, connecting theprocess of urban land-use change – and its socioeco-nomic and biophysical drivers – to ecological functionsand vice versa. At the same time, calls for sustainabledevelopment have increased the pressure on policy-makers in the developing world to improve decision-making capacities regarding land-use, transportationand environmental policies (Boulanger and Bréchet,2005). In order to sustainably cope with the high urbanpopulation growth projected for at least the next 25years (United Nations, 2004), the assessment of envi-ronmental (and socioeconomic) impacts of urban poli-cies through quantitative (science- and policy-oriented)models is required. Medium-sized cities of developingcountries – expected to attract the majority of the pro-jected growth (IHDP, 2005) – face a scarcity in human,technological and financial resources employed in vari-ous levels of land-use policymaking; the collection ofreliable data and the use of more advanced quantitativemethods in planning practice and policymaking thusbecomes difficult or impossible. Given the number andunderlying motives of different approaches to modelingand their current emphasis on western-world cities, pol-icymakers of developing world cities face hard choicesregarding alternative modeling approaches. This articleis an initial exploration into the mechanics of increasedpolicy relevance of research conducted across the fourThemes of the Urbanization project. The article alsolooks at the criteria that need to be evaluated beforeselecting a modeling approach adequate for multifac-eted policy-making at the urbanization and environ-ment interface.

2. Focus on Developing World CitiesDeveloping nations are faced with projections of

rapid urbanization (United Nations, 2004). Between2000-30, developed countries will contribute onlyapproximately 12% of their current urban population tothe increase of global urban population. Urban areas ofthe less developed countries will absorb nearly all growthof the world’s total population. By 2030, Asia and Africawill each have more urban dwellers than any other majorarea, with Asia alone accounting for over half of theurban population of the world (which now is one of the

least urbanized regions in the world). 20 out of the 25highest estimated average annual urban population ratesof change between 2000-30 are projected for Africannations (UN, 2004). Countries with significantly highexisting urban population in the turn of the century(above 10 million urban residents) and around or higherthan average (2.3%) estimated annual urban populationrate of change for that period include (ranked indescending order) Ethiopia, D. R. of the Congo, Pakistan,Bangladesh, Nigeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia,India, Egypt, Philippines and China (Figure).

While estimates regarding the growth of urban pop-ulation are available, we do not know how they willcompare to the extent, rate of growth and the pattern ofphysical urban growth. Assuming similar urban expan-sion patterns to those experienced to date, the amountof urban land could double or easily more than double(Seto and Fragkias. 2005). The comparative importanceof extent, rate of change or pattern within the urbaniza-tion and global environmental change framework isgreat; distinct spatial manifestations of urban growthhave the capacity to drive the occurrence and intensityof environmental effects. From a population perspec-tive, negative environmental effects of city size couldtheoretically be balanced by increased capacity in theabatement of these negative effects; rates of change ofurban population do not seem solely correlated withenvironmental problems. From an urban developmentperspective, all three are important while pattern – apriority for the Urbanization project – appears to bemore significant and less understood. Unfortunately,documentation of environmental problems in develop-ing world cities is scarce, with less information providedthe smaller the size of the city (United Nations, 2001).

3. Models for Science and PolicymakingQuantitative research at the interface of Themes 1 and

2* of the Urbanization core project is being actively pur-sued within several scientific disciplines: Earth observa-tion/remote sensing science, land-use change science,urban economics/politics/geography and urban ecology.These fields are still disconnected (although the first

* Theme 1: Urban processes that contribute to global environmentalchangeTheme 2: Pathways through which global environmental changeaffects the urban system

8 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationU R B A N M O D E L I N G

informs the others through the identification of evolu-tion of urban morphology and the trajectory of land-usepatterns for the study of urban growth). Considerableprogress in modeling was achieved by the LUCC projectwith the identification of intertwined biophysical,socioeconomic and political processes at different scalesaffecting land-use change. Within urban ecology, urbanland-use change is seen to affect biodiversity, net pri-mary productivity, nutrient and material cycling and dis-turbance regimes; we do not yet have a lot of evidence onthe spatially explicit impact of urban spatial structure –form and density – on the environment and ecosystemfunction (Alberti, 2005). Landscape ecology models andmetrics have been developed and are increasingly beingused for the spatially explicit monitoring of urban andperi-urban ecosystems (Seto and Fragkias, 2005). Under-standing the mechanisms connecting socioeconomicand political environments, urban form and ecology canprovide policy insight for policy makers towards sustain-able – or minimum impact – cities.

Research-oriented models may not necessarily be themost appropriate tools for policymaking which requiresa more integrated approach and leads to a different endproduct. Research-oriented models inform policy mod-els, but the latter are at times simpler implementations

of the former. They also are not designed to providedefinitive quantitative answers while a clear quantitativeoutput is often the desired product of a policy-orientedmodel. Policy-oriented models focus on their predictivefunction (not merely as a test of their validity but astheir capacity to prescribe policy); they do not, as a rule,target a high depth of causation knowledge, althoughsome could compete on the grounding in theory withresearch models. Also, policy-oriented models are typi-cally less innovative and employ well-tested methodolo-gies. They are designed so that the producer of themodel is not necessarily the user of the model.

Plenty state-of-the-art integrated (large-scale) urbanmodels exist that attempt to fill the gap between scienceand policymaking, functioning as planning support sys-tems. It is remarkable that, overwhelmingly, theirregional focus has been western-world cities. Usually theintegration signifies the synthesis of land-use, trans-portation and environmental components into a singledynamic framework. Since several competing subcom-ponents exist or can be developed for integrated models,different choices for integration results in models of dif-ferent flavors, such as UrbanSim (Waddell, 2002),MODULUS (Engelen et al., 2000), CURBA (Landis,2001), and What If? (Klosterman, 2001) among many.

FFiigguurree.. CCoouunnttrriieess iinn AAffrriiccaa aanndd AAssiiaa wwiitthh aabboovvee aavveerraaggee eexxppeecctteedd uurrbbaann ppooppuullaattiioonn rraattee ooff cchhaannggee ((iinn ppeerrcceenntt)) bbeettwweeeenn22000000--3300 –– iinn rreedd aaddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee bboouunnddaarriieess –– aanndd tthheeiirr 22000000 uurrbbaann ppooppuullaattiioonn lleevveellss ((iinn tthhoouussaannddss))

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 9

UrbanizationU R B A N M O D E L I N G

relatively recent incorporation of agent-based methodsin land-use change modeling, for example, allows cap-turing complex and emergent phenomena that othermethods cannot; such methods are also expected toeventually lead to more accurate simultaneous predic-tion of pattern and location of urban growth. Feedbackmechanism modeling is also very important for an inte-grated approach that crosscuts Themes 1 and 2 of theUrbanization project. Feedback mechanisms are charac-teristics of dynamic models that can also address morewidely chaotic behavior, threshold effects and path-dependence. One can easily imagine a continuous loopof feedback from the landscape ecology to the urbaneconomy and land-use system (e.g. the effects of land-use pattern – such as open spaces – on urban spatialstructure that further shapes land-use pattern through aprice mechanism). Additional important criteriainclude the degree of spatial explicitness and the valida-tion of results – especially, validation of urbanform/pattern e.g. through spatial landscape metrics. Anopen-source architecture signifies access, right to alter-ation and free distribution of the source code of a sys-tem’s implementation. It is highly desirable from an aca-demic (due to the unhindered access to scientificprogress) and a resource-strained developing worldstandpoint. A good example of open-source architec-ture is the – data intensive – planned Open Platform forUrban Simulation (Waddell et al, 2005).

The delineation of applied frameworks for policy-making through the IHDP Urbanization and GlobalEnvironmental Change Project could significantlyimpact the evolution of global ecological-urban systemsin developing-world cities. But what should some earlypriorities for the project be? Firstly, ecologically andenvironmentally sensitive hotspots of urbanization indeveloping-world cities should be clearly identified andan emphasis should be placed on the collection of miss-ing data. The project’s research goals could be advancedby the organization of a workshop that assesses avail-ability and gaps and prioritizes needs for data per geo-graphical region. Secondly, the community should eval-uate models targeting policymaking with the under-standing of the varying degree of their applicabilitydepending on the region and size of the city. Developersof policy-relevant models should also be convinced ofthe need to create adequate models for a developingworld city setting and the introduction of downwardscalability in their models. Finally, digesting lessonslearned by other core projects (such as the LUCC proj-ect) and close contact with new projects (such as theGlobal Land project) is also desirable.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe author of this article is featured on page 23.

While almost exclusively applied in developed worldsettings, the tiny minority applied in the developingworld has focused on mega-cities or near future mega-cities. The research community will have to explorewhether available integrated models are feasible and canaddress policymaking issues in developing world cities.Realistically, due to problematic data collection andavailability in developing world nations, the applicationof current models could encounter significant prob-lems. The question should be answered on a case-by-case basis considering the variation of resources avail-able per geographical region.

4. Criteria for Modeling ChoicesA policymaker faces dilemmas and tradeoffs in the

choice of suitable context-specific modeling tools.Efforts to operationalize a new urbanization and globalenvironmental change conceptual framework targetingpolicymaking should follow known criteria establishedin the past for operational sustainable developmentmodels. Assuming that environmental concerns areintegrated in the modeling approach, choice can beassisted by the evaluation of criteria on the multi- andinter-disciplinary potential, a longer-term (intergenera-tional) focus, uncertainty management, capacity to han-dle local vs. global or intra- vs. inter-metropolitan scalesand the centrality or active participation of the policy-maker (Boulanger and Bréchet, 2005).

The research community should consider four addi-tional criteria that can specifically target the applicationin developing world environments: downward scalabili-ty, hybridity, feedback mechanisms and open-sourcearchitecture. Scalability is usually defined as the easewith which a system can be modified to fit the problemarea and is associated with the idea of modularity. Apotentially useful feature of integrated (large-scale)urban models adaptable to developing world settings isdownward scalability. A highly-applicable modelshould be able to work around missing informationthrough a modular structure that would not only allowfor missing peripheral components but also alternativecore and peripheral components (adjusting for the factthat different regions have different environmental pri-orities). This can be achieved by a capacity for inter-changeability of simple (less data intensive) and com-plex components (given that the output can be adaptedaccordingly for use in other components). Due to thevariety and combination of ecosystem types around theworld, non-modular integrated models would sufferlimitations. A way to measure the sensitivity of results tothis process should also be established, since the modelcould lose accuracy in simpler forms.

Hybridity suggests that no single modeling method-ology can capture all aspects of the spatiotemporal datagenerating process. As LUCC research has shown, the

1 0 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationL O C A L V U L N E R A B I L I T I E S

Global Cities and Local VulnerabilitiesBY ROBIN M. LEICHENKO AND WILLIAM D. SOLECKI

The vulnerability of cities and urban systems to globalenvironmental change is a critical area of interest withinthe IHDP’s Urbanization and Global EnvironmentalChange Project. In this essay we explore how anothermajor process of global change, namely globalization, iscontributing to urban vulnerability to global environ-mental change hazards. We argue that globalization-relat-ed changes in urban spatial structure have brought asharpening in the urban riskscape and in the differentiallevel of household exposure to hazards and extremeevents. After briefly describing how globalization ischanging urban form, we identify key linkages betweenglobalization, new urban spatial structures, and patternsof local vulnerability to global environmental change.

Contemporary globalization is causing a fundamentaltransformation of city form, structure, and organization(Solecki and Leichenko 2006). This transformation hasthree main components: 1) a shift to an urban metropoli-tan world (National Research Council, Committee on Pop-ulation 2003; Hall and Pfeiffer 2000), 2) a spatial expansionof cities and urban decentralization (Leichenko and Solec-ki 2005), and 3) a global convergence of urban/metropoli-tan form (Marcotullio 2003). While globalization, particu-larly economic globalization, can be described as the meta-narrative of these changes, this process is expressed at thelocal level by a variety of factors, such as rural-to-urbanmigration, regional infrastructure development, increasedinternational trade and commerce, globalized consumerpreferences, and the growth of transnational populations.The collective impact of these forces has been significant.For example, urban sprawl now observed in most large andmedium-sized cities has been a result of the global diffu-sion and emergence of suburban living as a preferred‘modern’ lifestyle for the middle and upper income classesin cities in both developed and developing countries(Leichenko and Solecki 2005).

Globalization-driven changes in the urban form ofcities have had direct and indirect impacts on the vul-nerability of metropolitan region residents and places.Below we illustrate four critical emerging linkagesbetween globalization, urban form, and local vulnera-bility. In each case, we show that globalization-relatedshifts tend to exacerbate spatial inequalities and sharpenvulnerability differentials.

1. Consumerism and Environmental AmenitiesThe global spread of consumerism and consump-

tion-based measures of success has changed the percep-tion of what cities should be and where their residentsshould choose to live. While economic production-ori-

ented measures traditionally have been used to charac-terize the business climate of a city or region, amenityvalues, especially environmental amenities, are increas-ingly used to describe places and desirable locales with-in them. In the contemporary context, amenities such asa clean environment, bucolic settings, and natural sur-roundings have become highly valued. It is to these loca-tions that the emerging upper middle and upper incomeclasses gravitate. The net result of this action is oftengreater social inequities within a city. The well-to-domove toward high amenity areas from which the poorand working class are shut out. In turn, these lowerincome groups are pushed toward places with compara-tively fewer amenities and/or with greater risks. Thedraw of amenities is compounded by the fact, that highamenities sites often also are hazardous locations, suchas coastal or hill slope properties. The settlement ofthese areas has brought increased potential for extensiveproperty damage during catastrophic events. In devel-oped societies with sophisticated hazards responsecapacity, the cost of disaster response and recovery toevents at these sites typically are borne by the widersociety. This, in itself, is another example of inequity, asthe benefits of living in these high amenity locations areaccrued by the wealthy, while the costs are spread to all.

2. Marketization and Hazard ExposureThe marketization of housing and of urban land, and

the rise of a private real estate economy makes desirablesites in a city increasingly valuable, and hazardous, lowamenity sites relatively less so. As a corollary to quest forenvironmental amenities by the richer members of theurban society, poorer residents might be forced orencouraged to relocate away from expensive, highamenity places to less expensive locations which areoften marginal or otherwise hazard prone, such as onfloodplains, alongside highways, or adjacent to pollutingfacilities. In order to maintain the market value of highprice sites, developers, property owners, and other inter-ested parties through political and economic pressurealso attempt to simultaneously secure additional ameni-ties for the areas and push away any LULUs (i.e. locallyunwanted land uses) which would negatively affectproperty assessments. Especially within large anddecentralized metropolitan regions, the upper classesare now able to spatially distance themselves from thenegative aspects of urban life (e.g. crime, pollution, traf-fic congestion) by living in socially controlled enclavesor even in gated communities, and by displacing envi-ronmental externalities onto poor or otherwise margin-

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 1 1

UrbanizationL O C A L V U L N E R A B I L I T I E S

al populations in distant other parts of the urban region(Leichenko and Solecki 2006).

3. Metropolization and Hazards ResponseNeo-liberal reform policies encourage political and

economic fragmentation and the development ofextended metropolitan regions around core cities andolder satellite cities. These far-flung urbanized zonesoften stretch for a hundred kilometers or more. Withinthis extended patchwork of varying populations, physi-cal conditions, and institutional capacities, one alsofinds a highly varied hazard landscape and widely vary-ing levels of vulnerability. As a result, when an extremeevent occurs some locations within the metropolitanarea are much worse impacted than others. In somecases, the wealthy areas of the metropolitan regionmight be only minimally affected; meanwhile, lowerincome communities in the region could be severelyimpacted. The consequences of disaster can lingerlonger in severely impacted lower income communitiesbecause they lack the independent resources necessaryto recover, and are often ‘invisible’ to larger regionalgovernance authority because they are not critical to theprimary business and government activity of the regionor are remote from high profile locations such as theurban core or central business district. The case of Cara-cas, Venezuela illustrates this suite of phenomena. Neo-liberal, reform driven decentralization in Caracas fos-tered the development of a sprawling metropolitanregion with a haphazard quilt of local governmentalunits each of which constructed their own developmentstrategy and plans (Mitchell 2000). This action discour-aged the emergence of governance strategies that couldpromote regionally-integrated hazard response, as wellas governance strategies that could promote economicintegration and a deconcentration of poverty. InDecember of 1999, torrential rains hit the Caracas met-ropolitan region, relatively remote, highly vulnerable,poor, residential hill slope areas were most adverselyaffected. Conservative estimates had at least 10,000 deadand 150,000 homeless. The government response to thecommunities in the heavily impacted areas was slowbecause of the lack in coordinated response. While lifein the wealthier sections of Caracas continued relativelyunaffected, these poorer sections were devastated bothby the extreme event itself and the ineffective response.

4. Decentralization and Resource Use Efficiency

The proliferation of a decentralized urban form isanother indirect result of an increasingly globalized econ-omy. Many of the emerging metropolitan regionsthroughout the world are spatially patchy as the newurban growth is uneven and discontinuous. These condi-tions hamper the development of new regional infra-

structure and practices associated with more efficientnatural resource use (e.g., region-wide water supply sys-tems, electricity systems, and public transportations sys-tems). This tendency also enhanced the potential forhigher per capita consumption as increasingly wealthyand dispersed urban populations have access to newinfrastructure and acquire more resource intensive tech-nology (e.g., automobiles on new highways) (Dhakal2005; Steemers 2003; Jenks and Burgess 2001). Two spe-cific impacts on urban vulnerability from these changescan be defined. First, as new infrastructure and technolo-gies are put into place in decentralized, sprawling cities,the wealthy are typically the ones that will most benefit.Whereas the poor might be living in shanty towns or sub-standard housing near new highways, it will be thewealthy that will use the highways for their automobiles.

With respect to water supply in developing country cities,it is often the wealthy that have access to clean drinkingwater available from new municipal infrastructure, whilethe poor must pay for higher priced drinking water fromprivate vendors who sell it from a truck. Another aspectof vulnerability emerging from the condition of height-ened resource use is the feedback into global climatechange itself. Although much has been written about the21st century as time of transition to a sustainable urbanfuture, urbanization and consumerism of today to a large

UUrrbbaann sspprraawwll oonn ssllooppee,, CCaarraaccaass,, VVeennzzuueellaa

extent is resulting in increased energy consumption andresource use particularly among the emerging middleand upper classes of the new urban global society.

In summary, we can see that connections betweenglobalization and local urban form are changing thevulnerability of people and places within metropolitanregions. These connections result in an increasinglyuneven and inequitable distribution of hazard exposureand disaster risk. An important area for future IHDP

urbanization and global environmental research will beto examine how the projected tightening of globaliza-tion processes further transforms the spatial form ofcities, and how these changes, in turn, affect vulnerabili-ty to all types of global environmental change hazards.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe authors of this article are featured on page 23.

1 2 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationU R B A N I Z A T I O N I N C H I N A

Urbanization Research in China: ManyOpportunities and ChallengesBY YAN XIAOPEI, XUE DESHENG AND YIN XIAOYING

Urbanization is viewed both as a driver and an out-come of global environmental change. Many humanimpacts on these changes originate in urban areas, andtheir consequences in turn have severe effects on urbanareas. How to adapt to and cope with the impacts ofglobal environmental change is thus one of the big chal-lenges for Chinese cities. And what role can research onurbanization themes play in this regard?

Chinese urbanization has experienced rapid develop-ment since the reform and the opening up of the coun-try. The urbanization level rose from 17.92% in 1978 to40.5% in 2003. Current Chinese urbanization policiesemphasize a characteristic Chinese road towards urban-ization with an insistence on enhancing the urbaniza-tion level and coordinating the development among big,middle and small cities and towns. In Chinese academe,more disciplines have assumed urbanization researchfrom different aspects, e.g., research by sociologists andgeographers on the road to urbanization, research bydemographers on the population aspect of urbaniza-tion, and others.

Globalization, global change and domestic socio-economic development have brought opportunities andchallenges for Chinese cities. International and regionalcooperation, the formation of new international divi-sions, and the global urban network system providegood settings for Chinese cities. But disparities betweencore and fringe in the world cities network will bebroadened, and non-traditional disasters, such as finan-cial crises in Southeast Asia and SARS, will endanger theurban social, economic, ecological and energy securityeven more than before. The Chinese central governmenthas put forward scientific development views and anurbanization strategy. However, there remain strongdisparities and disharmonies between rural and urban,

as well as eastern and western regions, and between theurbanization administration and rapid urbanization.Chinese characteristics of urbanization research havenot yet been systematized, and there is a lack of collabo-ration between the natural and social sciences, andbetween science and policy. Therefore, key scientificissues and priorities for research themes on Chineseurbanization need to be specified.

1. Key Scientific Issues of Research on Chinese Urbanization

Urbanization level measurement. The demographicindices method is always used to measure the urbaniza-tion level. However, in China, the statistic standard ofurban population has changed frequently because of thechanging standard definitions of city and town. Theadministrative areas of cities are often not consistentwith their physical urban areas, which results in two dif-ferent kinds of urban population statistics. Moreover,these statistics, without considering the transitory pop-ulation, make for inaccurate measurements of urbaniza-tion levels. In order to get an accurate level of Chineseurbanization, some scholars have tried to modify theurban population statistics from the vital statistics, andothers have attempted to set up a group of indices tomeasure the urbanization level. These improved meth-ods, however, are not used in practice because of theirsubjectivity and poor generality. Measuring the level ofurbanization is, therefore, a problem that needs to besolved urgently.

Centralization and decentralization. The question,whether China should develop a centralized or a decen-tralized urbanization process, poses a great argumentwhich is observed by both academe and government.The theory of Developing Small Cities and Towns was

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 1 3

UrbanizationU R B A N I Z A T I O N I N C H I N A

resources quickly consumed. Especially in the urbanizedregions, with a high density of industry and population,worsening environmental conditions affect the sur-rounding areas, and drive urbanization towards an eco-logical mess. Which developing model should be used togain a balance between development and protection, is aproblem to be solved in the process of urbanization.

Dynamics and governance. The driving force of Chi-nese urbanization was often explained with a “DualisticTheory Model” – top-down and bottom-up. Govern-ments, enterprises, and individuals are the main actorsjoining in the urbanization process. But now there is anew urbanization trend in China. The traditional dual-istic driving force is being replaced by a multi-drivingforce. At present, non-governmental organizations(NGOs) are rising as a third force besides governmentand citizens, and they play a more active role in thecourse of urbanization and urban governance.

Research on key issues of urbanization-related vul-nerabilities can influence the decision-making processof urban development. The questions are: How can thedivision between research and urban development bebridged? How does urbanization drive environmentalchange at different scales of space? What impacts causedby environmental change might be produced? What dothe responses to these impacts look like?

2. Priority Themes of Research on Chinese Urbanization

Resources and environment. The important ques-tions here are: how to achieve intensive and sustainableutilization of land through transforming modes of eco-nomic development, adjusting urban land-use structureand upgrading spatial structures; and how to solve thereduced supply of water resources in both riverheaddeficiency and water quality, through transformingmodes of production, coordinating regional develop-ment and restructuring regional economies in urban-ization research. It is important to search for new cleanand highly effective energy sources as a motivation forurbanization and urban development. The aims of sus-tainable development, protection of urban ecosystems,and the enhancement of urban environmental qualityare important topics for urbanization studies. This con-tains main aspects such as urban atmospheric environ-mental protection, urban water circulation and waterprotection, pollution of the soil, and noise pollution.

Industrial economies. Through comparable studies,it is necessary to do an all-aspect evaluation of urbaneconomic growth modes and choices of sustainable eco-nomic growth modes in the context of economic trans-formation. The impacts of the adjustment of industrialstructures on the economy and urbanization need to beresearched. It is urgent to analyse the interrelationshipbetween economic globalization, the optimization,

put forward in 1984 by Fei Xiaotong, a famous sociolo-gist in China. Correspondingly, Hu Zhaoliang, a knowneconomic geographer, brought the Strategy of Develop-ing Big Cities in the same year. There are also manyscholars who hold the Theory of Developing MiddleCities or other opinions. Some scholars have begun topay attention to the phenomenon of urban regionaliza-tion since the concept of “megalopolis” was introducedinto China in the 1980s. The theme of “centralization”was presented again, namely how to develop along aspecific direction: centralized, decentralized, or central-ization integrated with decentralization, is still a keyissue for Chinese urbanization.

Efficiency and equity. Efficiency and equity areincompatible twins when it comes to numerous prob-lems of the urbanization process. In general, it can bestated that growing efficiency leads to the loss of equity,and becoming equitable leads to the loss of efficiency.After 50 years of development and practice, we have rec-ognized that “inequitable development” cannot be sus-tainable. And immense social inequity could lead tosocietal destabilization. Inefficiency and inequity posegreat problems to the regional development of Eastern,Central and Western China, in urban and rural develop-ment, and within urban development.

Development and resource protection. Since thelate 1970s, rapidly developing urbanization has driventhe economy in China. But a booming economy hasimposed great stress on the environment and resources,which makes the conflict between development, envi-ronment and resource protection more prominent. Themodel of traditional development, which relied on highconsumption (Figure 1), results in a heavily pollutedenvironment, an ecology greatly spoiled and natural

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

proportion 30% 40% 31% 4%

consumption

of steel

consumption

of cement

consumption

of coalGDP

FFiigguurree 11:: TThhee pprrooppoorrttiioonn bbeettwweeeenn mmaaiinn ccoonnssuummppttiioonn aannddGGDDPP iinn CChhiinnaa,, ccoommppaarreedd ttoo tthhee wwoorrlldd ((iinn 22000033))

SSoouurrccee:: CChhiinneessee PPooppuullaattiioonn NNeett..hhttttpp::////wwwwww..cchhiinnaappoopp..ggoovv..ccnn//,, 22000055

1 4 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationU R B A N I Z A T I O N I N C H I N A

adjustment and upgrading of regional industrial struc-tures, and urbanization. It is also important to discusshow to adjust the supply and demand structure, quickenthe development during the industrialization stage, andpromote rational mobility of production elementsthrough urbanization.

Urban society and culture. With the deepening ofurbanization since the 1980s, population movement,population growth in the urban interior, populationstructure and change, social and spatial segregation, aswell as population policy and system, are the mainresearch contents of urbanization subjects. Urbaniza-tion research should be consistent with the object ofstructuring a harmonious society, paying close attentionto the social concerns of the present, and promoting thesociety to develop in stability and harmony. Employ-ment, poverty, social and spatial segregation and socialintegration are regarded as prior research fields to bestudied. With regard to urbanization and globalization,there should be a focus on how to absorb advanced for-eign cultures into native traditional cultures, and how topass on native traditional cultures, while, at the sametime, integrating the development of different types ofregional cultures.

Facilities. “Facilities” in this context comprises urbanhousing and urban infrastructure. Urban infrastructureincludes transportation facilities, municipal facilities,and public facilities. The prior research field includesallocation of the transitory population’s housing andlow-income class’s housing; it also includes scale andstructure, as well as investment and financing of infra-structure, public policy and governance.

Governance. The setup of a corporate governancesystem (government, public and NGOs) is helpful topromote the urbanization process. At the governmentallevel, there are three main issues. One is the innovationof the household registration system, focusing on thespatial structure of urbanized areas, social equity andresource transformation. Another is the innovation ofland system, focusing on the land requisition system,housing system, as well as planning and managementsystem. The third is the innovation of the social insur-ance system, which is an important precondition of abalanced promotion of urbanization. With regard to thepublic and the NGOs, the corporate governance systemof the government should be set up based on extensiveinvestigation and research.

3. Research Strategy of the CNC* Urbanization Working Group

Since the establishment of the Chinese NationalCommittee of IHDP in August 2004, we have fermented

and established the Urbanization Working Group madeup of about 50 domestic and international scholars andrelevant governmental administrative staff.

It is obvious that governments, public, corporations,NGOs and science play respective roles in the process ofChinese urbanization. In present China, there are closecontacts between science and government, but little con-tact between the public, corporations and government orscience, which not only affects the development of thediscipline, but also goes against the exertion of scientificresults and products. Therefore, it is indispensable torestructure the network consisting of government, pub-lic, corporations, NGOs and science (Figure 2).

FFiigguurree 22:: SSttrruuccttuurriinngg tthhee ““sscciieennccee –– ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt –– ppuubblliicc”” nneettwwoorrkk

As there is no functioning system of urbanizationresearch in China, it is urgent to structure such a system,and to carry on corresponding scientific researchthrough communication between disciplines. At thegovernmental level, those systems that cannot keep upwith the rapid development of urbanization need to bereformed. There should be a concerted effort to imple-ment the national urbanization strategy, to constructthe public education system and to implement publiceducation.

Finally, according to the opportunities and challengesfacing the IHDP Urbanization and Global Environmen-tal Change Project, under the globalization and devel-opment strategy of urbanization, a working platform,an academic communicating platform, and an opera-tional platform should be established in the near future,in order to push the Chinese urbanization project suc-cessfully.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe authors of this article are featured on page 23.

science

policy public

researchers

governments NGOs & the public

Chinese Human Dimensions on Global Environmental ChangeCommittee

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 1 5

UrbanizationD R O U G H T A N D U R B A N I Z A T I O N I N S E N E G A L

The geographic position of Senegal defines it as aSahelian country that benefits from a Sudano-Guineanclimate, thus forms better ecological conditions in thesouthern part of its territory. The country also boasts amaritime fa_ade to the West where a temperate climatehas played an important role in the establishment of thegreater part of its major cities. Senegal is spread out over196,722 km2 for an estimated population of almost 9million inhabitants. The resulting imbalances betweenNorth and South, East and West, both on an eco-geo-graphical level and with respect to economic potential,significantly influence the internal mobility of the Sene-galese.

In this study, we analyse the manner in which thedegradation of climatic conditions has in turn stimulat-ed the mobility of the Senegalese and contributed toreinforcing the role of urbanization. Indeed, like themajority of West African nations, particularly those ofthe Sahelian region, Senegal has experienced a completeupheaval of its climatic norms since the mid-1960swhen a long period (1950-1967) of surplus rainfallcaused the rapid growth of the overall population andan augmentation of rural population density. The cli-matic variable is certainly the most significant catalystfor migration towards urban centers, however thereexist other possible responses that might reduce theinfluence of this factor in the mind of the potentialmigrant. The same is true with respect to the signifi-cance of the return of the heavy rains vis-à-vis the safetyof recent constructions. Factors linked to urban ecologyand to construction techniques are also important buttheir impact on the environment has been increased bythe climatic variable. In one and the other case, the cli-matic variable is the trigger, but there is no mechanicallink between periods of drought and the rhythm ofdepartures, nor of the rhythm of depreciation of theurban environment.

In effect, Jean Leborgne1 points to three distinct peri-ods of pluviometric deficit (1970-73, 1976-77, 1983-84)that punctuate the long period of drought in the Sahe-lian region between 1970 and 1990. The climate in Sene-gal is regulated by a rainy season (3 to 4 months) and adry season (8 to 9 months), and the natural worldproves extremely vulnerable to climatic variations.Because the Senegalese economy was largely based onagriculture (peanuts, millet, sorghum, rice, cotton,manioc, sugar cane, niébé, etc.), the chronic droughtthat began in the 1970s had an extremely traumatic

effect on popular spirit, influenced landscape and over-all activity, and caused a lasting perturbation of ruralsocieties in Senegal, pushing them into exodus. This cri-sis inspired a massive migration towards the cities and,more and more, to foreign countries. In addition toother strategies, both isolated and long-term, the inten-sification of internal and international migration is theprincipal response of populations affected by this eco-logical crisis of the period between 1970 and 1980.There were, of course, other contributing factors asidefrom the drought, but this latter variable was pivotal inthe degradation of the landscape, the upheaval of sys-tems of production and the destabilization of livingconditions in the rural context, causing the migration ofrural populations to the cities.

Our study endeavors to identify the current implica-tions of climatic changes on the transformation ofurban centers. The intensification of migration to thecapital and the corresponding rapid augmentation ofthe urban population, the renewal of relationshipsbetween the rural and urban communities, and theemergence of the notion of urban risk linked to climaticchanges all represent axes of research and analysis to beinvestigated in this study.

The Drought Puts Rural Communities to the Test

Drought is a virtually continuous process of pluvio-metric deficit and of documented precipitational irreg-ularities. The long and intense periods of pluviometricdeficit that marked the Sahelian region between 1970and 1980 also affected Senegal, particularly in its north-ern regions.

And during that period, certain years were particu-larly catastrophic with respect to limited rainfall, such as1970 (653,6 mm) and 1972 (504,9 mm) because theywere preceded by relatively rainy seasons (962,8 mm in1969, 825 mm in 1971, 460 mm in 1977). The year 1983(411 mm) showed even more of a deficit. Dagana in thedelta of the Senegal River (in the North) only saw 68mm of rainfall during the entirety of 1983. The deficitsoften surpassed 50% over the whole period. At the sametime, the length of the rainy season was reduced overall,lasting only about two and a half months throughoutmost of the country. This period of drought was evenmore trying because it followed “a long 18-year period(1950-1967) during which rainfall was often excessive,the augmentation of the rural population was rapid, the

Climatic Deterioration and Urbanization in SenegalBY CHEIKH GUEYE , ABDOU S. FALL, AND SERIGNE M. TALL

1 6 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationD R O U G H T A N D U R B A N I Z A T I O N I N S E N E G A L

density of the rural population increased during thisrelatively wet period.”3

As is evident in the table below, a decrease in the plu-viometric average has been recorded in all regions westof Senegal that have lost, on average, close to 200 mm ofprecipitation over the course of the last thirty years(1960-1990).

As the table indicates, the decrease in precipitationbecame widespread after 1970. More than the total pre-cipitation, it is the distribution of useful rainfall overtime and across the country that significantly affects thedevelopment of pluvial agriculture. Drought, theunequal redistribution of the rural population, the needto leave fallow land used for peanuts crops, and theimpoverishment of land suitable for agriculture leaves agood portion of arable land uncultivated.

The pluviometric decrease is manifested by a slippageof the isohyet 400mm to the south, by a late beginningof the winter season in the northern region of the coun-try and by a corresponding shortening of the rainy sea-son, a noticeable reduction of the number of rainy days.Nonetheless, the rural milieu of Senegal did not onlysuffer from climatic variations during the 1970s. Struc-turally, Senegalese agriculture is also very dependent onthe world market. The elevated price of productiongreatly benefited those farmers who grew peanuts andcotton. However, elevated prices of essential materialsand seed, coupled with decreased fertility of the soil, thelack of a political support network for the peasant class,and the overall discouragement of producers havebrought about a decrease in the return on and produc-tion of peanuts.

The pressure on the soil is also responsible for adecrease in fertility of the earth which is barely allowedtime to lay fallow. The rare regulatory mechanisms towhich the peasants of the central-western region haveaccess to are migration towards the South where a fewlisted forests still exist. This process contributes to anexpansion of the drought outside of the Sahelian region.In Senegal, the peanut basin aged quickly and saw itsvital energy migrate more and more towards Dakar andtowards nearby mid-sized cities as well as to foreigncountries like Italy, Spain, the United States, and others.

Rural Exodus and Urban Mutation: Dakar asHub of Internal and International Mobility

If the drought has put rural milieus to the test, thecapital, Dakar, has been the principal receptacle of therural exodus and the principal site for observing themost pertinent problems caused by this migration andaccelerated urbanization. The development of Dakarhas manifested itself by a rapid spatial expansion result-ing in equal shares from intrinsic demographicdynamism and migratory influx from regions of theinterior. The Dakar conglomerate thus constitutes themost important site of socialization and invention ofthe Senegalese society. Precarious neighbourhoods havemultiplied, spread out, and gotten denser, becomingofficial reference points in constant qualitative evolu-tion.

Dakar has also become a veritable hub of internaland international mobility, both of which have diversi-fied their sources and their destinations. Furthermore,the city is at once a zone of departure to foreign coun-tries and a site of return for international migrants. It isa privileged site of investment for emigrants attracted byits profitability. This is even more the case in peripheralzones of the capital where real estate production is com-plex, land regulations unclear, and financial structuresuncertain, but where a strong aspiration towards theaccumulation of property and, therefore, towards arapid renewal of modalities of the quest for urban soil,prevails. The transformation of urban milieus is con-stant, and verticalization becomes a new reference pointthat marks the landscape of peripheral neighbourhoodsthat are constructed and renovated by a new activeforce, the international migrants who heighten the ten-sion vis-á-vis access to urban property.

However, the return of a normal quantity of rainfallis posing a threat to these settlements. Environmentalbalances have been rendered precarious by the overpop-ulation and urbanites have had to adapt. The water sup-ply has become a recurrent and quasi-impossible prob-lem to solve. According to this report, the existence orsurvival of Dakar is threatened by the decreasing waterlevel and the insufficient mastery of water sources. Themanagement of the urban environment and its numer-

Pluviometric Average (in mm) by Decade in the Central-Western Regions of Senegal

Period Bambey Diourbel Fatick Kaolack Khombole M’Bour Thiès Tivaouane Average

1960-69 645 650 690 727 622 754 595 543 657

1970-79 478 509 516 530 438 453 483 409 477

1980-89 471 411 599 549 481 465 411 436 481

1990-93 473 --- 547 --- 484 482 404 447 469

Average 525 518 592 602 507 551 485 458 530

Source: Agrometeorology Group FAO-SDRN, NOAA and AGRYMET

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 1 7

UrbanizationU N D E R S T A N D I N G U R B A N G R O W T H

ous constraints linked to the insufficiency of networksof water supply and purification remain an importantchallenge in the context of a return of rainfall.

The considerable weight of Dakar in the urbanframework and the immobilization of secondary citieswere the two dominant characteristics of the Senegaleseurban network up until the 1970s. With the volunteer-based politics of urbanization initiated by the State, theprocess of decentralization of 1996, and the changes inthe economic structure of the country, we have noticedan affirmation of a multitude of small cities and second-ary cities. The emergence of numerous religious citiesoutside of the administrative or communal systems

contributes to a disturbance of urban mechanisms thatupset previously established schemes of urban creation.Touba, Mbour, Richard Toll, and Ourossogui are patentexamples of this new urbanization. However, all thecomponents of the urban network are experiencing newdynamics. These days, Senegalese cities experience adiversification of the original development factors andof its mechanisms, thus renewing the urban network inboth its typology and its configuration.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe authors of this article are featured on page 23.

Understanding Urban Growth in theContext of Global Change BY ANNEMARIE SCHNEIDER

Increasing urbanization, economic globalization, andthe acceleration of human-induced global environmentalchange are three of the most significant transformationsoccurring across Earth in recent decades. Cities and metro-politan areas are at the heart of each of these issues. Theworld’s urban population has multiplied tenfold duringthe past century, rising from just 14% of the total popula-tion in 1900 to more than 50% today. Over 70% of eco-nomic activity is now concentrated in cities, and economicgrowth is influenced more and more by continued globalintegration and the struggle for cities to be competitive inthe global marketplace. Associated with both economicdevelopment and urbanization are environmental impactsresulting from the rapid spatial expansion of metropolitanareas. Land conversion – in the form of decentralization,dispersion of the city, suburbanization, or fragmentationof the urban fabric – fundamentally alters the environmentin a number of ways across local, regional and global scales.Despite growing recognition of the important and com-plex role of cities in economic, political and environmentalsystems across the world, comparative, global-scaleresearch on cities has been severely limited.

The Study of Urban Areas:From Local to Global

Research in both the physical and social sciences hasfocused on the localized study of cities for more than a cen-tury, since the majority of the processes of interest occurwithin or near the city with outcomes that affect local resi-dents, markets, and quality of life. However, global envi-ronmental change and economic globalization haveprompted new concerns about the role of urban areas in

global systems. Social science has a longer history of treat-ing urban regions in a regional or global context, althoughthe vast majority of work has focused on “global cities”andcity-systems. The emphasis on “global cities” means thatonly a handful of economically prominent cities have beenconsidered, while mid-sized and small cities (with current-ly the fastest rates of growth) have been neglected in globalstudies.

Regrettably, global-scale research on the urban environ-ment lags further behind. While a growing volume of liter-ature is dedicated to the impact of forested land or agricul-ture on the global environment, little to no attempt hasbeen made to quantify the role of urbanized land in a sim-ilar manner (Lamptey et al., 2005). The reasons for thisstem from a lack of reliable, consistent data on cities atregional to global scales, as well as the common miscon-ception that the relatively small spatial extent of citiestranslates to only a minor impact on the environment. Anumber of recent reports and initiatives have highlightedthe role of urban areas in global change (UN-HABITAT,2003; IHDP, 2005; OECD, 2005), bringing new attention tothe need for multi-scale research on the drivers and conse-quences of dynamic urban processes. The work presentedhere contributes to these efforts, and in particular, Theme1* of the new IHDP Urbanization and Global Environ-mental Change Project. In order to understand urbanprocesses which contribute to global environmentalchange, it is critical to have accurate and timely documen-tation of patterns of urban growth.

* Urban processes that contribute to global environmental change

1 8 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationU N D E R S T A N D I N G U R B A N G R O W T H

Social and Environmental Impacts of Urban Growth

Urbanization of the world’s population and conversionof the Earth’s surface to urban uses are among the mostvisible and rapid of anthropogenic changes. In recent years,the most explosive population growth has occurred indeveloping countries, where urban populations are grow-ing at an average 3.5 percent per year as opposed to lessthan one percent growth in more developed regions. As aresult of this demographic shift, urban environments nowhave a significant influence on the majority of the world’spopulation. Rapid and unbalanced growth of urban areasis of particular concern, since many traditional urbanproblems become exacerbated when cities become moredispersed, including deficiencies in urban services, infra-structure and housing, social fragmentation and isolation,spatial mismatch between jobs and housing that leads tohigher unemployment, and increasingly long commutes.

As cities expand, it is becoming increasingly clear thatenvironmental impacts may indeed occur at regional andglobal scales. First, cities are known to produce microcli-matic changes through increases in temperature, surfacealbedo and subsequent convective activity, as demonstrat-ed in the urban heat island effect. Local and global climateare connected in at least three ways: through the chemistryof the atmosphere, the role of combustion, and the poten-tial interaction of local pollution policies with greenhousegas control measures (Harvey et al., 2000). Second, citiesappropriate a disproportionate share of the Earth’s carry-ing capacity in terms of resource input and waste sinks,despite the fact that built-up areas account for only 1-3percent of the Earth’s land surface (Folke et al., 1997). Envi-ronmental impacts extend beyond city boundaries, includ-ing the conversion of natural ecosystems, loss of produc-tive agricultural land, fragmentation of natural habitats,pollution of air, soil and water, changes to the water cycle,and reduced biodiversity (Alberti, 2005). Finally, environ-mental degradation in and around urban areas can lead toincreased rates of natural hazards such as floods, land-slides, and damaging storms.

Recent Research EffortsBecause of the central social, economic, political, and

environmental role of cities and the large number of peo-ple in urban areas, changes in urban areas are likely to havefar-reaching repercussions. Comparison of cities acrossregions and continents is crucial, because it provides ameans to contrast the effects of different physical environ-ments and management systems, to understand the differ-ences in rates of urban growth, to determine the mecha-nisms that cause these variations and how these factorsmight change in the future, and to determine the regionalto global impacts on the surrounding landscape. The focusof our research has been on two overarching questions: (1)How are urban areas changing across the Earth? and (2)What factors are responsible for these changes? The firstquestion is the fundamental ‘what’ question needed tocharacterize trends in urban extent, urban form, and ratesof change that are occurring across places. The secondquestion is the more complex ‘why’ question, intended toexplain the reasons behind the widely diverging rates andpatterns of urban growth.

To monitor how cities are changing (Question 1), ourresearch first focuses on mapping urban and built-up areasglobally. Expanding on methods developed in the globalland-cover change community, we used a data fusionapproach to combine multiple sources of remotely senseddata with spectral and temporal information from 1 kmMODIS data (Schneider et al., 2003; 2005a). Results wereparticularly effective for resolving the confusion betweenurban areas and other land cover types to establish a base-line map of urban location and extent not previously avail-able. Results suggest that data fusion methodologies pro-vide a repeatable, globally consistent way to map the loca-tion and extent of human settlements greater than onesquare kilometer.

While the results of the fused data global map are betterthan previously available products, continued validationefforts and feedback from users indicate that moredetailed, finer spatial resolution maps are needed. Fortu-nately, two key developments have taken place in the field

An

ne

mar

ie S

chn

eid

er

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 1 9

UrbanizationU N D E R S T A N D I N G U R B A N G R O W T H

of remote sensing since these initial attempts. First, addi-tional sources of remotely sensed data are now availablewith improved spatial, spectral, and radiometric quality(e.g. 250-500m MODIS, SPOT, MERIS data). Second, newadvances in classification algorithms, data fusion methods,and spectral and temporal unmixing techniques haveoccurred that provide increased capability for mappingurban extent. Our current work incorporates these newdevelopments to map the fraction of impervious surface,vegetation, and other land cover types at a subpixel levelacross the globe, allowing users to modify the maps to suittheir needs.

The coarse resolution of the global map hinders accu-rate characterization of changes in urban areas, however,since expansion of the built environment occurs at scalesfiner than one kilometer. To better tackle changes in urbanextent, we rely on a more localized approach using medi-um-resolution remotely sensed data, pattern metrics andcensus data (Schneider et al., 2005b). A sample of 25 urbanareas from different geographical settings and levels of eco-nomic development was used to examine the similaritiesand differences in urban form and growth that haveoccurred across mid-sized cities from 1990 to 2000. Using asimple set of urban growth metrics, results revealed fourcity ‘types’ or templates for growth: low-growth cities char-acterized by modest rates of infilling-type expansion, high-growth cities with rapid, fragmented development, expan-sive-growth cities with extensive dispersion at low popula-

tion densities (occurring almost exclusively in U.S. cities),and frantic-growth cities such as those in China, thatexhibit extraordinary rates of growth at high populationdensities (Schneider and Woodcock, in review). This workis critical for not only establishing a starting point for com-paring amounts, rates and patterns of growth in citiesacross the globe, but for determining whether urban pat-terns outside of the U.S. are consistent with common con-ceptions of American urban sprawl. Results show that,although all 25 cities are expanding at the urban-ruralboundary, the majority of cities outside the U.S. do notexhibit the large, dispersed spatial forms characteristic ofAmerican urban sprawl.

Understanding, documenting, and modeling the prox-imate and underlying driving forces that contribute tothese types of spatial changes (Question 2), is a far moredifficult feat than monitoring urban land (Question 1). Alack of accurate, comparable socioeconomic data at thelevel of the city and a shortage of appropriate methodsfor analyzing data across scales continues to impedeinvestigation. In a simple, bivariate analysis, we examinedthe driving forces for each city’s growth by connectingcity- and national-level data on population, household,and labor fluctuations to measures of urban growth anddispersion (Schneider et al., forthcoming). Results show alimited relationship between urban expansion and popu-lation change, a factor traditionally thought to play a cen-tral role in land conversion (Figure 1). Comparison of

FFiigguurree 11:: AAvveerraaggee aannnnuuaall cchhaannggee iinn uurrbbaann llaanndd ppllootttteedd aaggaaiinnsstt tthhee aavveerraaggee aannnnuuaall ppeerrcceenntt cchhaannggee iinn ppooppuullaattiioonn,,11999900--22000000,, ffoorr eeaacchh cciittyy.. CCiittiieess nnoott sshhoowwnn:: GGuuaannggzzhhoouu,, DDoonngggguuaann..

2 0 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationS U S T A I N A B L E U R B A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

Introduction: Car Transportation and Climate Change

Individual transportation by cars in cities contributesa lot to greenhouse gas emissions and thus to climatechange. Roughly 30-35 % of all CO2 emissions world-wide originate from the tailpipes of cars. As energy effi-ciency in heating, cooling, and household appliancesincreases, the contribution of road transportation toglobal warming will become even greater. In the develop-ing world, especially in India and China (Kobos et al,2003), the number of cars will rise manifold in the nextdecennia, due to economic, income, and populationgrowth.

In the cities of the Northern hemisphere, in the so-called ‘developed’ world, greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-sions will have to decrease by 80-90 % in the next 30-50years in order to limit climate change within acceptablelimits (Global Commons Institute, 2006). This reduc-tion cannot be reached by technological innovationsalone; other changes, including changes in lifestyles andbehavior, will be necessary. In the Southern hemisphere,the developing world, there is still some room forgrowth in GHG emissions, but quite soon populationgrowth combined with an increase in consumption willlead to similar challenges as in the North.

How can these challenges be addressed? This shortpaper describes a visionary approach that has beenapplied in two cities: Boston, MA, USA in the North,and Bangalore, India, in the South. Boston is the exam-

ple of a prosperous city with a reasonably good publictransportation system; but it is locked-in in a CO2 emis-sion level that is unsustainable. Bangalore in India is theexample of a fast-growing, economically booming cityin the South where car transportation is exploding caus-ing congestion, air pollution, ultimately climate change,and where conflicts about public transportation hamperimplementation of solutions.

1.The Case of Boston,MA,USA1

Boston is a major city on the East Coast of the USA, acentre of high tech industries and higher education. TheBoston municipality has about 0.6 million inhabitants,but the Boston Metropolitan area has approximately 3mio. inhabitants in an area of roughly 3600 sq km. Eachwork day, Boston’s population doubles by workers whowork in the central city. In 2004, the Metropolitan AreaPlanning Council (MAPC, 2006) started a visioningprocess, involving many stakeholders like local commu-nities, businesses, civil society, church representatives,and professional groups. The question posed was howthese groups would envision the greater Boston area inthe next 25 years. Many of these constituencies envisionBoston as greener, cleaner, more prosperous, with highemployment and good education on all levels. However,the issue of 80-90 % CO2 reduction is hardly ever men-

Visioning Sustainable Urban Transport – Case Studies for Boston and BangaloreBY PHILIP J. VERGRAGT

1 This project is carried out by James Goldstein, Chella Rajan, AnnaFleder and author, and funded by EPA/NCER

urban land use to factors related to changing lifestylesand consumption patterns highlighted the importance oftransportation infrastructure and fuel prices, but failed toreveal any significant relationship between changes inbuilt-up land and recent alterations in household size andstructure in many newly industrializing cities. Finally,some relationship between service sector activities andrates of dispersion is apparent, although additional dataare needed to prove the validity of this association. Ourcurrent work focuses on understanding the interaction ofeconomic and demographic indicators as mechanisms ofchange in urban environments.

Urban growth is clearly a complex and diverse phe-nomenon. Considering the numerous social, economicand environmental impacts at local to global scales, it is

imperative that we begin to understand the role thatrapid urban expansion and dispersion play in thesechanges. Such changes may be both positive and nega-tive for different places at different times, but the extentof potential negative changes represents a substantialchallenge to the functioning, stability and sustainabilityof urban areas. Therefore, comparative, cross-scaleinvestigation of urban areas is critical if we are to pro-vide policy-relevant information to governments, landuse managers, civil/transportation engineers andresearchers in a timely and efficient manner.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe author of this article is featured on page 23.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 2 1

UrbanizationS U S T A I N A B L E U R B A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

tioned. This is in accordance with a study by Portney(2003) who investigated US cities who call themselvessustainable. Massive CO2 reduction is nowhere on theagenda. This is understandable because most of the sus-tainability issues are framed as local issues, like econom-ic prosperity, social justice, as well as clean water and air.

How can climate change and CO2 reduction beaddressed in an urban visioning process? Tellus Institutestarted a study in 2005 to address this question. Thisstudy is part of a wider endeavor undertaken by Tellus,called Great Transition Initiative (GTI, 2006). GTI isinformed by earlier scenario studies undertaken by Tel-lus and the Global Scenario Group (Raskin et al, 2003).In “The Great Transition”, six probable global scenariosare sketched: “Conventional Worlds” consisting of “Poli-cy Reform” and “Market Forces”; “Barbarization” con-sisting of “Fortress World” and “Breakdown”, and “GreatTransitions” consisting of “Eco-Communalism” and“New Sustainability Paradigm”. Policy Reform and Mar-ket Forces will not bring a sustainable world, while thereis a real chance of Fortress World and Breakdown. For aGreat Transition scenario, market forces and policyreform will not be enough; deep changes in institutions,lifestyles, and values will prove to be necessary. Accord-ing to the essay the only change agent to accomplish thatwould be a Global Citizens’ Movement.

How could a Great Transition be envisaged on thelevel of a large city? With this question in mind, Tellusstarted a study to challenge and improve MAPC’s2

visioning and planning exercise, in order to bring CO2

reduction and ecological footprint reduction into thisprocess. The study consists of two parts: constructingvisions and scenarios of a Sustainable Boston in 2050,and developing strategies and actions how to get there(Boston Scenarios Project, 2006). Three visions weredeveloped: Business as Usual, Policy Reform, and DeepChange. The visions consist of narratives and are under-pinned by semi-quantitative scenarios. For DeepChange, narratives and graphs are developed for theBuilt Environment, Transportation and Land Use, Agri-culture, Energy, Water Resources, as well as Health andWell-being.

These scenarios were presented to and discussed by agroup of leading Boston academics and activists. Theyall endorsed the necessity of trying to realize a DeepChange scenario, and they launched many ideas on howto bundle local actions and activities, how to work oneducation and awareness raising, how to try to over-come fragmentation and inertia, and how to energizethe local community.

For urban transportation and land use, the DeepChange scenario envisions a 70 % CO2 reduction by2050. In the box we present parts of the narrative:

… Citizens are predominantly living and working nearpublic transportation hubs. Public transportation is attractivebecause of high speed, frequency, and comfort, and conven-ient payment. Its use is encouraged by employers who offerfree or reduced cost transit passes as a benefit, and a high frac-tion of offices and workplaces being situated near transporta-tion hubs. Easy access to transit stations is provided by anextensive car-sharing program, as well as pick-up shuttleservices using electric vehicles, underground parking spacesnear stations, and high quality provisions for bicycle storage.

Individual car use has decreased as alternative public andprivate transportation options have become convenient.Transit includes a number of modes: “bus rapid transit”, rail,light rail, car-sharing, taxis, and ferry services. Walking,cycling, shared taxis, and high-speed transit have becomeeasy, attractive, quick, comfortable, and less expensive thandriving and parking, especially in the inner core communi-ties. All public fleets and most private cars are hybrids or runon hydrogen that is produced from renewables or natural gas… Electric and fuel cell bicycles are common to help overcomeadverse wind and ascents; bicycle lanes are common on mostmajor roads.

… A large part of downtown Boston is closed for individ-ual cars except certain categories (high-occupancy, all-electricor hydrogen vehicles; electric multi-occupancy taxis). In thisarea public transit is free; bicycle facilities are readily avail-able (lanes, storing, zip-car-like renting system) …

2.The Case of Bangalore,India3

Bangalore is the fourth largest Indian city and the prin-cipal cultural, administrative, commercial and industrialcentre of the state of Karnataka. Bangalore Urban District

3 This study has been carried out by Seema Parakh under supervisionof Halina S. Brown (Clark University) and the author.2 Metropolitan Area Planning Council

2 2 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

UrbanizationS U S T A I N A B L E U R B A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

is spread over 2190 sq km. From 1991 to 2001, Bangalore’spopulation grew from 4 million to 6.5 million, and by2010, it could grow to 8.5 million. Today, it is a centrefor high-tech manufacturing and research. In 1991, totalsoftware exports from Bangalore were USD 60 million,increasing to USD 2000 million in 2001. The IT industryrepresents 30 percent of Bangalore’s economy, employsabout 300,000 people, and contributes to 32 percent ofthe total taxes.

Faced with the challenges of rapid urban growth,Bangalore’s public infrastructure and services arestrained. Buses and auto-rickshaws are the primarypublic transit modes. Private cars, two-wheelers, taxis,private vans, and bicycles are also used. There is increas-ing pressure on the State Government to provide effi-cient services and effective infrastructure.

A review of the transportation history of Bangalorereveals numerous plan developments since 1960s. Nonewere implemented mainly due to financial constraintsand lack of political will. Recently, a Bus Rapid Transitsystem was stalled and there is controversy about ametro system. Most recently (end of 2005), a study hasbeen commissioned to prepare another ComprehensiveTraffic and Transportation Plan.

Initial interviews with the main stakeholders in 2004revealed that most transit agencies work independentlyfrom each other on issues like infrastructure develop-ment and maintenance, resulting in ‘transit chaos’. Theaim of this research project is to contribute to theunderstanding of how structured multi-stakeholderdialogue may lead to learning and trust building. Multi-stakeholder visioning workshops will be instrumental inachieving a shared vision; interactions that occuramongst the key stakeholders in such a workshop couldlead to learning and trust building. This research was ajoint project by Clark University, Tellus Institute andJanaagraha (a prominent Bangalore NGO), and is con-sistent with Janaagraha’s mission of practicing partici-patory democracy.

A visioning workshop was organized under the spon-sorship of Janaagraha in August 2005, with 19 partici-pants representing 15 institutions. The scope of theworkshop was to explore future pathways on institu-tional reform and the design of an Integrated BangalorePublic Transit System (I-BPTS). The workshop facilitat-ed participation of bureaucrats, technocrats, processconsultants, educators, as well as representatives of theurban poor and of civil society. They were able to reflectin semi-systematic way on the institutional reform andthe I-BPTS design to (re)define the problem, search forsolutions and reach a consensus on the problem defini-tion. The workshop contributed to an emergence of aplatform for further development of a shared transitvision for Bangalore. The brainstorming sessions ingroups led to creative inputs from all the stakeholders.

3. ConclusionsDrawing on several authors, Berkhout (2006) calls

visions “Pseudo-facts that guide behavior”, “Cognitivestructures that orient behavior and define roles”, and“Metaphorical structures, consistent with underlyingvalues”. He views visions as mapping a ‘possibilityspace’; a heuristic device for problem defining andproblem solving; a stable frame for target setting andmonitoring progress; a metaphor for building actor-networks; a narrative for focusing capital and otherresources. Every plan of action requires an image or avision and visions with greater ‘interpretive flexibilityare more effectively diffused.’

When used appropriately, visions are powerfuldevices that can orient and structure actions and behav-iors. They have the power to inspire societal actors toinvestigate and test alternatives – from technology tobehavior to culture and institutions. Shared visions mayunify competing or warring interests by creating ashared framing of a situation.

This article has shown that visions of sustainabletransportation systems could be developed for cities asdifferent as Bangalore and Boston. For each of the twocities, these visions could contribute to strategies andpathways on how to reach a sustainable transportationsystem. In Boston, the main hurdle is lack of awarenessand lock-in of entrenched institutions. In Bangalore,institutions are both fragmented and overwhelmed byproblems of fast economic development.

The next step is to demonstrate how the power ofvisions is effective in advancing “deep change” processesin land-use planning and transportation, leading todeep reductions in GHG emissions. The hypothesis isthat back-casting (looking back from a future vision tothe present) (Weaver et al, 2000; Vergragt, 2005) couldbe an effective tool.

The research described fits into two of the mainthemes of the IHDP Urbanization and Global Environ-mental Change Science Plan: Themes 1 and 4. Theme 1is about Urban processes that Contribute to GlobalEnvironmental Change: it contributes to Themes 1.1.1.(dominant liberal ideology leading to increasing cartransportation in cities) and 1.1.2 (rising consumptionpatterns). It also contributes to Themes 4.1.1. (copingmechanisms of urban residents) and 4.1.3 (existing anddesired urban governance processes). While the SciencePlan is mainly focused on analysis and on the betterunderstanding of both causes and mitigation efforts ofGEC, the present research aims at developing newapproaches that may help to advance change processes,both in governance and in civil society.

References:http://www.ihdp.org/updateUGEC.references.htmThe author of this article is featured on page 23.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 2 3

UrbanizationL I S T O F A U T H O R S

Article 1:Carbon Management and Clean Air (page 1)Louis Lebel is Director of the Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai

University, Thailand; [email protected] Contreras is a Professor at the De La Salle University,Philippines; [email protected] Garden is a Researcher at the Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Thailand;[email protected] Lasco is a Project Coordinator at the World AgroforestryCentre (ICRAF), Manila, Philippines; [email protected]. Mitra is a Professor and Researcher at the National PhysicalLaboratory, Delhi, India; [email protected] Hoang Tri is Director of the Center for EnvironmentalResearch and Education,

University of Education, Hanoi, Vietnam; [email protected] Giok-Ling is a Professor at the National Institute ofEducation, Singapore, and a member of the IHDP Urbanizationand Global Environmental Change Project Scientific Steering Committee; [email protected] Sari is Director of PELANGI, Jakarta, Indonesia, andChair of the IHDP Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change SSC;[email protected]

Article 2: Urban Landscape Patterns (page 5)Marina Alberti is Associate Professor of Urban Design andPlanning at the University of Washington ([email protected]), and Director of the UW UrbanEcology Research Lab, USA; www.urbaneco.washington.eduCharles Redman is Virginia M. Ullman Professor of NaturalHistory and the Environment, and Director of the InternationalInstitute for Sustainability and the School of Human Evolution& Social Change, Arizona State University, USA;[email protected] (Jingle) Wu is Professor of Ecology, Evolution, & Environmental Science, Arizona State University, USA;[email protected] Marzluff is Professor at the College of Forest Resources,University of Washington, USA; [email protected] Handcock is Professor of Statistics and Sociology, CSSS,University of Washington, USA;[email protected] M. Anderies is Assistant Professor at the School of HumanEvolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, USA;[email protected] Waddell is a Professor at the Evans School of PublicAffairs, University of Washington, USA;[email protected] Dieter Fox is Associate Professor of Computer Science andEngineering, University of Washington, USA;[email protected] Henry Kautz is Professor of Computer Science & Engineering,University of Washington, USA; [email protected] Jeff Hepinstall is a Research Associate at the Urban EcologyResearch Lab., University of Washington, USA;[email protected]

Article 3: Urban Modeling, Policymaking (page 7)Michail Fragkias is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Center forEnvironmental Science and Policy, Freeman Spogli Institute forInternational Studies, Stanford University, USA;[email protected]

Article 4:Global Cities and Local Vulnerabilities (page 10)Robin M. Leichenko is Associate Professor of Geography at Rutgers University, USA;[email protected] D. Solecki is Professor of Geography at Hunter College– City University of New York, USA, and a member of the IHDPUrbanization and Global Environmental Change Project Scientific Steering Committee;[email protected]

Article 5:Chinese Urbanization,Research and Policy (page 12)Yan Xiaopei is a Professor at the Center for Urban and RegionalStudies, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, and Vice-Mayor of Shenzhen City, China; she is also a member of theIHDP Urbanization and Global Environmental Change ProjectScientific Steering Committee and the scientific leader of theUrbanization Workgroup of CNC-IHDP;[email protected] Desheng is Director of the Department of Urban andRegional Planning, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China;he is the Secretary General of the Urbanization Workgroup ofCNC-IHDP; [email protected] Xiaoying is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Center for Urban andRegional Studies, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China;[email protected]

Article 6: Climatic Deterioration and Urbanizationin Senegal (page 15)Cheikh Guèye is a Geographer and Chargé de Mission au Secrétariat Exécutif with Enda Third World, Dakar, Senegal. Heis also a member of the IHDP Urbanization and Global Environmental Change Project Scientific Steering Committee;[email protected] Abdou Salam Fall is a Sociologist with IFAN (Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire), Dakar, Senegal; [email protected] Mansour Tall is a Geographer and Head Program Manager of UN-HABITAT in Senegal; [email protected]

Article 7: Understanding Urban Growth in theContext of Global Change (page 17)Annemarie Schneider is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography and Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA;[email protected]

Article 8:Sustainable Urban Transportation (page 20)Philip J. Vergragt is a Senior Associate at Tellus Institute,Boston, and a Visiting Scholar at MIT/ CTPID, Cambridge, MA,USA. He is a Professor Emeritus of Technology Assessment atDelft University of Technology, The Netherlands;[email protected]; [email protected]

Guest Editors and UGEC Co-ChairsKaren Seto is Assistant Professor of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, USA;[email protected] Sánchez-Rodríguez is Director of UC MEXUS,University of California, Riverside, USA;[email protected]

For more information visit www.ugec.org

2 4 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

ConferencesI C L E I / S C I E N C E - P R A C T I C E

ICLEI World Congress 2006, Cape Town, SouthAfrica

The Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI)World Congress 2006 was held in Cape Town, SouthAfrica, from February 27 through March 3, 2006. Con-vening every three years, the Congress aims to providemayors, local government politicians and staff, repre-sentatives from international agencies, national govern-ments, donors and other partners with the opportunityfor peer exchanges, knowledge-sharing, capacity build-ing and on-site visits and exhibits.

This year’s Congress themes were “Protecting GlobalCommon Goods, Building Sustainable Communitiesand Cities, and Implementation Instruments.” TheIHDP Project on Urbanization and Global Environ-mental Change participated in the Congress and thePre-Congress Researchers’ Symposium February 24-25.The motivation for the Researchers’ Symposium is therecognition that researchers and local government prac-titioners share a common interest in addressing com-plex urban environmental problems and that there is anurgent need for dialogue among these communities.The Researchers’ Symposium was built on the outcomesof the Conference on Sustainable Urban Development-From Research to Action, held in Nanning, China,November 2005. The Researchers’ Symposium identi-fied four broad areas for action: 1) Identifying andestablishing formal relations between research commu-nities and local governments; 2) Ensuring that researchis focused on information needs of local governmentsand providing information that informs and enhancespolicy and implementation practices; 3) Improving thecommunication between partners during the researchprocess and enhancing the communication and broaddissemination of research results to the broader com-munity; 4) Improving linkages between internationalresearch efforts relevant to sustainable urban environ-ments such as the Urbanization and Global Environ-mental Change Project, and local level research activi-ties. Karen Seto

Linking the Sciences of Global EnvironmentalChange to Society and Policy, Ubatuba, Brazil,November 2005

Over the past 25 years it has become widely recog-nized that human activities are transforming the earthon a global scale through alterations to earth systemprocesses and through the cumulative effects of manychanges (such as land-use and land-cover change, biodi-versity loss, ecosystem fragmentation, urbanization)that, in aggregate, contribute to the degradation of envi-ronmental resources and services on a global scale.

The complexity of processes and interactions hasgiven rise to an interdisciplinary and international glob-al environmental change (GEC) science. Growing public

concerns about global change and the ability of vulnera-ble ecosystems to sustain human welfare, result inincreasing pressure to ensure connections and commu-nication between science and policy-making, in particu-lar with regard to decision needs of governance and pol-icy-making. Science must become more integrative,involving the natural and social sciences in a collabora-tive way in order to provide sound scientific under-standing in support of sustainable development.

This science-policy interface, is the focus of the rapidassessment project initiated by IAI* and SCOPE** inNovember 2005 in Ubatuba, Brazil. It brought togethersome 45 international experts from a wide spectrum ofdisciplines to discuss and draft their assessment of cur-rent GEC science knowledge and its linkages to societalconcerns and governance with a focus on the Americas.Chapters produced by four cross cut discussion groupsexamine:• The challenge of steering research towards policy rel-

evance: lessons learned from 10 years of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI)projects

• Stakeholders and GEC science • Delivering global environmental change science to

the policy process• Communicating science to the media, decision mak-

ers and the publicThese chapters will be published together with back-

ground papers on cooperative global change scienceprojects which were submitted prior to the workshop,and an overview synthesis chapter, in volume form inthe SCOPE Series under the Island Press imprint in late2006, early 2007. Maureen Woodrow

* The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is anintergovernmental organization established in 1992 and supported by19 countries in the Americas. It has generated a wealth of knowledgeon such topics as biodiversity, biogeochemistry, land quality, ecosys-tem function, climate change and variability, regional hydrology andoceanography. Some of the IAI's cooperative research networks(CRN) have significant extension and policy components becausetheir themes explicitly address human dimensions such as risk man-agement, land or other resource use (e.g. CRNs on land-use change,fisheries, disasters). Others have synthesized scientific findings intohigh-level advocacy (e.g. CRN on biodiversity in the MillenniumAssessment). Other large science projects in the Americas such as theLBA (Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia)

Resource Policies: Effectiveness,Efficiency, and Equity

The 2006 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change

17-18 November 2006, Berlin, Germany

Paper proposals until 15 June 2006http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2006/

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 2 5

ConferencesG L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L G O V E R N A N C E

International Organizations and Global Environmental Governance – The 2005 BerlinConference

The pressing problems of global environmental changehave challenged the international research community togenerate new theoretical understandings, methodologicalrefinements and empirical knowledge of its institutionaldimensions. Most of this work, however, has concentratedon the principles, norms, rules and decision-making pro-cedures that underlie the emerging system of global envi-ronmental governance. More systematic work will beneeded to better understand the actors at the internation-al level that identify, analyse, manage and evaluate thepressing problems of global environmental change. Thisparticularly applies in the case of the plethora of intergov-ernmental organizations and programmes that areentrusted with assisting in the mitigation of, and adapta-tion to, global environmental change. These organizationswere hence the central focus of the 2005 Berlin Confer-ence on the Human Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange, which was held 2-3 December 2005 in Potsdamunder the title “International Organizations and GlobalEnvironmental Governance”.

Altogether, about 200 colleagues from 30 countriesparticipated, with roughly 100 plenary and panel pre-sentations. Keynote addresses were given by the formerGerman Federal Minister of the Environment, JürgenTrittin on “Reforming International Organizations forGlobal Environmental Governance”; by Professor KlausTöpfer, the then Executive Director of the UnitedNations Environment Programme, who spoke on the“Environmental Reform of the United Nations: TheRole of the UN Environment Programme”; by Profes-sor Thomas Risse, the Director of the Center forTransatlantic Foreign and Security Policy, Freie Univer-sität Berlin, who lectured on “New Modes of Gover-nance”; and by Pieter van Geel, Netherlands’ Secretaryof State for the Environment, closed the conference withan outline of his vision on “Reforming InternationalOrganizations on Global Environmental Governance.”

Four semi-plenary sessions addressed more specificquestions: In one session, Johanne Gélinas, Commis-sioner of the Environment and Sustainable Develop-

ment of Canada, elaborated on “Evaluation of Organiza-tional Policies Regarding the Integration of Environ-mental Issues and Sustainability”. Other panellistsincluded Klaus Jacob, Freie Universität Berlin, Germanyand Heino von Meyer of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development. A second parallel semi-plenary session focused on the results and new directionsof the 8-year international IHDP research programme“Institutional Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange” (IDGEC), with presentations by Oran Young,the Chair of IDGEC; Leslie King, Chair of the SynthesisConference planning group, and Frank Biermann, Chairof the New Directions in Institutional Research initia-tive. A third semi-plenary addressed “Teaching GlobalEnvironmental Governance”, with presentations bySonja Wälti, Hertie School of Governance; Kirsten Jör-gensen, Freie Universität Berlin; and Ruben Mnatsakan-ian, Central European University, Hungary. In the fourthsemi-plenary, research group leaders of the Global Gov-ernance Project – Steffen Bauer, Bernd Siebenhüner,Klaus Dingwerth and Philipp Pattberg - presented firstresults of their project.

The about 100 papers presented in the various parallelpanels addressed a variety of new research findings,insights, methods, and theories in the growing field of thestudy of international organizations. Empirical examplesof the research presented includes agencies of the UnitedNations system, ranging from the UN Environment Pro-gramme to the secretariat of the UN climate convention;intergovernmental agencies outside the UN system, suchas the Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, or the World Bank; regional integrationschemes such as the European Union, the African Union,or the North American Free Trade Agreement; new formsof intergovernmental mechanisms that have some actor-quality, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange; nongovernmental transnational actors, such asGreenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature or theGlobal Climate Coalition; and novel multi-stakeholderorganizations beyond the state, such as the Forest Stew-ardship Council or the World Commission on Dams.

Regarding these types of actors, all papers elaboratedon one or more of four core themes of the 2005 Berlin

have made strenuous attempts to improve communication withpoliticians; www.iai.int

** The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment(SCOPE) was established by the International Council for Science(ICSU) in 1969. It brings together natural and social scientists toidentify emerging or potential environmental issues and to addressjointly the nature and solution of environmental problems on aglobal basis. Operating at an interface between the science anddecision-making sectors, SCOPE's interdisciplinary and criticalfocus on available knowledge provides analytical and practicaltools to promote further research and more sustainable manage-ment of the Earth's resources. SCOPE’s members, 38 national sci-

ence academies and research councils, and 22 international scien-tific unions, committees and societies, guide and develop its scien-tific programme; www.icsu-scope.org

Workshop CallEcosystem Services in the Neotropics:State of the Art and Future Challenges

Valdivia, Chile, 13-19 November 2006

http://www.forecos.net/neotropics/

2 6 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

Conferences/ In BriefN E W S

Conference: 1) Environmental effects and influences ofinternational organizations in global environmentalgovernance; 2) Design of international organizationsand programmes in order to understand how differenttypes of organizational design influence the effects oforganizations; 3) Institutional and organizational inter-linkages and the role of international organizations inlarger regimes (including interplay of internationalorganizations within the UN system); and 4) Analysis ofpolicy integration within international organizations.

Frank Biermann, Bernd Siebenhüner, Anna Schreyögg

Conference papers and other conference informa-tion are available at http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/ bc2005/papers.html.

In BriefBritish Global Change Researchers andSocial Scientists Hook up with IHDP

Senior representatives of the UK Global ChangeCommittees agreed to increase collaboration with theInternational Human Dimensions Programme onGlobal Environmental Change (IHDP). This decisionwas taken at a UK-IHDP get-together during the IHDPScientific Committee Meeting in Norwich, UK, from 27to 30 March 2006.

The British Economic & Social Research Council(ESRC) will support regular events such as seminars andworkshops, with one concrete follow-up step being acapacity building workshop and forum for youngAfrican and British scientists. While UK scientists arealready active within IHDP research projects, such asIndustrial Transformation, Urbanization, or Food Sys-tems, it was agreed that more remains to be done inorder to link UK global change research to an interna-tional agenda.

IHDP SC Meeting: Entering a New DecadeAs IHDP is entering its second decade and has suc-

cessfully consolidated its work of the first 10 years, theIHDP Scientific Committee decided on developing along-term strategic plan. With the main foci science,policy relevance, capacity building, and outreach, thestrategic plan will be presented at the next ScientificCommittee Meeting in 2007. New Chair of the IHDP SCis Oran Young from the Bren School of EnvironmentalScience and Management at the University of California(Santa Barbara), taking over the SC leadership fromColeen Vogel (Witwaters University, Johannesburg).Roberto Sánchez-Rodriguez (UC Mexus, University ofCalifornia) has stepped back as the SC Vice Chair toconcentrate on his new role as Scientific Co-Chair ofIHDP's new Core Research Project UGEC (Urbaniza-

tion and Global Environmental Change). SC membersGeoff Dabelko (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars,Washington), Roberto Guimaraes (United NationsDivision for Social Policy and Development, NewYork), and Hebe Vessuri (IVIC, Caracas) are the newSC vice chairs. Longstanding SC member ElinorOstrom (University of Indiana) has rotated off theCommittee. We are thanking all for their commitment!

At the Secretariat in Bonn, the International ScienceProject Coordinators Gregor Laumann and DebraMeyer-Wefering have left – both for a new positionwithin the realm of global environmental changeresearch. We wish them all the best and we will missthem! New faces at the Secretariat include Falk Schmidtand Nils Harder as Science Consultants, Alexia Dutenas Assistant Conference Manager, Petra Friedrichs asFinancial Coordinator, as well as Jens Marson andMareike Kroll. Jens will also concentrate on conferencemanagement, while Mareike will take over the studentassistant post previously filled by Nora Reich who hasleft to concentrate on the completion of her studies.Finally, we are looking forward to have our colleague,Lis Mullin, back with us in the office (as of June) afterher maternity leave.

CCoonnAAccccoouunntt 22000066::““DDeemmaatteerriiaalliizzaattiioonn AAccrroossss SSccaalleess:: MMeeaassuurreemmeenntt,,

EEmmppiirriiccaall EEvviiddeennccee,, FFuuttuurree OOppttiioonnss””SSeepptteemmbbeerr 1133--1144,, 22000066,, VViieennnnaa AAuussttrriiaa

Back to back with a policy dialogue“Dematerialization Why and How?”

SSeepptteemmbbeerr 1155,, 22000066

Further information and online submission of abstracts: http://www.iff.ac.at/socec/conaccount2006/

lliipphhee44 ssuummmmeerr sscchhoooollPPrroocceedduurreess aanndd TToooollkkiittss ffoorr IInntteeggrraatteedd aanndd

PPaarrttiicciippaattoorryy AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyyJJuullyy 1166 –– 2222,, 22000066

wwwwww..lliipphhee44..oorrgg ·· iinnffoo@@lliipphhee44..oorrgg

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6 2 7

PublicationsN E W B O O K S

a continuous, ‘reflexive’ process. This book sets out to analysethe consequences for sustainability research and policy analy-sis. This collection, by many of the leading thinkers in thefield, blends sophisticated theoretical discussion with practicalperspectives on how to deal with the conundrum ‘the onlything certain about the future is that you’ll be wrong about it!’Frans Berkhout, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, TheNetherlandsThis book deals with the issue of sustainable develop-ment in a novel and innovative way. It examines thegovernance implications of reflexive modernizationand the condition that societal development is endan-gered by its own side-effects. With conceptualizingreflexive governance the book leads a way out of end-less quarrels about the definition of sustainability andinto a new mode of collective action.

Edward Elgar 2006, 480 pp, Hardback, USD 135.00/GBP 79.95; ISBN13 978 1 84542 582 1

Land-Use and Land-Cover ChangeLocal Processes and Global ImpactsEditors: Eric Lambin and Helmut Geist

The edited book synthesizes research achievements bydozens of scientists related to the Land-Use/Cover Change(LUCC) project of the International Geosphere-BiosphereProgramme (IGBP) and the International Human Dimen-sions Programme on Global Environmental Change(IHDP). It summarizes relevant findings on global land-usechange which arose from value-adding activities of theLUCC project, starting in 1995 and extending until its ter-mination in October 2005. The main intention is todescribe how human modification of land cover became amajor driving force of Earth System changes over the past300 years, a period of most rapid transformations, withfundamental implications for current landscape configura-tions. In writing this book, current knowledge and under-standing is reported on the rates, causes/pathways, impacts,future scenarios/models, policy implications and newresearch directions in the field of land-use/cover change.Springer, Series: Global Change - The IGBP Series 2006, approx. 220 p. 44 illus., 20 in colour,Hardcover 85,55 €ISBN: 3-540-32201-9

Reflexive Governance for Sustainable DevelopmentEditors: Jan-Peter Voß, Dierk Bauknecht and René Kemp

Innovations are introduced inthe hope that they will have posi-tive impacts on their targets, butalso in the certain knowledgethat there will be negative andunintended effects as well. Intime, these less desired effectsmay also come to generate inno-vative and adaptive responses in

IHDP Update is published by the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Enviromental Change (IHDP),

Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany, V.i.S.d.P.: Ula Löw

The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change

and its research community.

ISSN 1727-155X

UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat, Walter-Flex-Strasse 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.

EDITOR: Ula Löw, IHDP; [email protected]

LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn+Berlin, Germany

UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any

reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat. This newsletter is produced using funds by the German Federal Ministry of Education and

Research (BMBF) and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF).

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP or its sponsoring organizations.

I m p r i n t

Carbon Management at Urban and Regional Levels: Connecting

Development Decisions to Global Issues

Mexico City, Mexico

4-8 September 2006

www.globalcarbonproject.org

Marie Curie Summer Schools 2006-2009

Emerging Theories

and Methods in

Sustainability Research2006: Analysing Complexity, Barcelona, 7-17 June

www.umb.no/research/themes

2 8 I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 2 . 2 0 0 6

AddressesC O N T A C T A D D R E S S E S

IHDP SECRETARIAT

IHDP Secretariat:Andreas Rechkemmer,Executive DirectorWalter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050Fax: [email protected]

IHDP CORE PROJECTS

GECHSGlobal Environmental Changeand Human Security c/o Lynn Rosentrater,Executive OfficerGECHS International Project OfficeDepartment of Sociology andHuman GeographyUniversity of Oslo, [email protected]

GLPwww.glp.colostate.edu

IDGECInstitutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change c/o Heike Schröder, Executive OfficerIDGEC International Project Office,Bren School of Env. Science andManagement, University of Californiaat Santa Barbara, CA, [email protected]://fiesta.bren.edu/~idgec/

ITIndustrial Transformation c/o Anna J. Wieczorek,Executive OfficerIT International Project OfficeInstitute of Environmental Studies University of AsterdamThe [email protected]://130.37.129.100/ivm/research/ihdp-it/index.html

LOICZLand-Ocean Interactions in theCoastal Zonec/o Hartwig Kremer and MartinLe Tissier, Excecutive Officers,Institute for Coastal Research GKSSGeesthacht, [email protected]

UGECUrbanization and Global Environmental Change University of Arizona, Tempe,AZ, USAwww.ugec.org

JOINT ESSP PROJECTS

GECAFSGlobal Environmental Changeand Food Systems c/o John Ingram, Executive OfficerGECAFS International ProjectOffice, NERC-Centre for Ecology &Hydrology, Wallingford, [email protected]

GCP Global Carbon Projectc/o Pep CanadellExecutive OfficerGCP International ProjectOffice, CSIROCanberra, [email protected]

Tsukuba Officec/o Penelope CananNational Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, Tsukuba, [email protected]

GWSPGlobal Water Systems Projectc/o Eric Craswell, Executive OfficerInternational Project Office GWSPCenter for Development Research,University of Bonn, [email protected]

IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)

ChairOran R. Young Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara, CA, [email protected]

Vice ChairsRoberto GuimarãesUnited NationsDivision for SocialPolicy andDevelopmentNew York, NY, [email protected]

Geoffrey DabelkoEnvironmental Change and SecurityProject (ECSP)Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter for Scholars, WashingtonD.C., [email protected]

Hebe VessuriDepartment of Science Studies,Instituto Venezolano deInvestigaciones Cientificas, Caracas,[email protected]

Katrina BrownSchool of Development StudiesUniversity of East Anglia,Norwich, [email protected]

Carl FolkeCentre for Research on NaturalResources and the Environment(CNM)CNM, Stockholm UniversityStockholm, [email protected]

Gernot KlepperKiel Institute of World EconomicsKiel, [email protected]

Tatiana Kluvankova-OravskaInstitute for ForecastingSlovak Academy of SciencesBratislava, Slovak [email protected]

Sander van der LeeuwDepartment of Anthropology,Arizona State University, Tempe,AZ, [email protected]

Xizhe PengInstitute of Population ResearchFudan UniversityShanghai, P.R. [email protected]

Coleen Heather VogelDept. of Geography & Env. StudiesUniversity of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South [email protected]

Paul L.G. VlekCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn,Bonn, [email protected]

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS IHDPSCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

ICSUThomas RosswallExecutive Director ICSUParis, [email protected]

ISSCLourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónomade México (UNAM)Cuernavaca, [email protected]

DIVERSITASMichel LoreauÉcole Normale SuperieureLaboratoire d'Écologie Paris, [email protected]

IGBPCarlos Nobre Centro de Previsao de Tempo e Estudos Climaticos - CPTECINPE - Instituto Nacional dePesquisas Espaciais, Brazilwww.igbp.kva.se

➤ START (alternating)

Roland FuchsSTART Secretariat, WashingtonD.C., USA [email protected]

➤ WCRPAnn Henderson-SellersWorld Climate Research ProgrammeGeneva, [email protected]

➤ GECHSKaren O’Brien Institute for Sociology & Human GeographyUniversity of Oslo, [email protected]

➤ IDGECAgus P. Sari Yayasan Pelangi IndonesiaPejompongan, [email protected]

ITFrans BerkhoutDirector, Institute forEnvironmental Studies (IVM),Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,The [email protected]

LOICZJosef PacynaCenter for Ecological EconomicsNorwegian Institute for Air ResearchKjeller, [email protected]

URBANIZATIONKaren Seto

Environmental Sciences Stanford University, USA [email protected]

GLP (Global Land Project)Anette ReenbergInstitute of GeographyUniversity of Copenhagen,[email protected]

Dept. of Geological &