Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Change. Reflections for an Urban Agenda1 Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez University of California, Riverside The destiny of today’s societies is closely tied to the evolution of their urban areas. Generating balanced growth in dynamic urban areas is undoubtedly challenging. Societal contradictions of different sorts affect the daily operation of cities, and determine the type of urban space created as well as their environmental impacts. Rapidly growing cities in poor countries are the most affected by the challenges of sustainable urban growth. Unemployment and underemployment, environmental degradation, deficiencies in urban services and housing, deterioration of existing infrastructure, inability to guarantee access to natural resources vital to urban life, and an alarming expansion of violence are but a few of the problems they face. All of these issues are aggravated by the rapid growth of populations and urban spaces, as well as by imbalances in urban structure and accumulated deficits in the construction, expansion and operation of public services. Economic and financial crises further aggravate the picture. The overall result has been the production of fragmented and segregated urban spaces that increase social exclusion and deficiencies in the urban function, as well as severe environmental problems (Lopes de Souza 2001, Pirez 2002, Moser and McIlwaine 2005). During the last 15 years, urban sustainability efforts have sought to balance three critical functions of urban areas: as engines for economic growth, as loci of improved social well-being, and as agents of environmental change. For the most part, however, urban sustainability continues to be more a normative ideal than an operational reality. Most approaches emphasize economic aspects (urban areas as center of production of wealth), giving limited attention to environmental protection and social well-being. A more effective approach to urban sustainability needs to recognize, and deal with, the complexity of the dynamic interactions that take place among socioeconomic, geopolitical, and environmental processes at local, regional, and global scales. Current approaches to sustainable development that tend to consider urban issues in a fragmented manner should be replaced with multidimensional perspectives capable of generating an integrated perspective of complex and dynamic urban realities (Pelling 2003). Fragmented approaches are frequently the result of the technical exercise of planning, of simplifying complex urban realities in order to facilitate the design and implementation of actions aimed at the resolution of immediate problems, such as in public services, housing, transportation, urban economy and environmental pollution. This fragmented vision inevitably dismisses the wide range of multidimensional social, economic, 1
To be published in: George Martine and Gordon McGranaham, eds. The New Global Frontier: Cities, Poverty and Environment in the 21st Century. Earthscan. New York, 2998. Please do not quote without the author’s permission (
[email protected]).
political, cultural and biophysical interactions behind each urban problem. Issues of natural resource supply, ecological services, and environmental pollution cannot be considered in isolation from their broader social, economic, and cultural context (Bryant and Wilson 1998, Gibbs and Jonas 2000). This chapter seeks to contribute to such an integrated multidimensional vision of urban sustainability and to a better understanding of the interactions between urbanization and global environmental change. A central argument made here is that urban sustainability in the 21st century requires looking beyond the local scale in order to foster a dynamic perspective of the interactions between local, regional and global biophysical and social processes that are generated by, and that affect, urban areas. One specific goal of this chapter is to help change the common perception that, since the negative consequences of global environmental change will occur in the long-term (25, 50 or 100 years), they do not require immediate attention. Such a perception fails to recognize that local processes -- that are affecting and being affected by regional and global biophysical processes -- also require short-term actions (mitigation and adaptation) to reduce their negative consequences. Such actions are linked directly and indirectly to current urban and environmental problems. Investments in solving current problems could help mitigate and adapt to the negative consequences of global environmental change if their design takes into consideration the interactions between local urban problems and regional and global processes. The good news is that many of those actions do not imply an additional cost to the programs currently focusing on planning for the urban future. The Interactions between Urban Areas and Global Biophysical Processes The negative effects that urban areas have on the global environment have drawn considerable attention, especially as concerns the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the so-called “heat island effect” on climate change (IPCC 2004). A series of international, regional, and local initiatives have prioritized the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in urban areas. However, the biophysical and chemical processes associated with global environmental changes also have negative but less-recognized impacts on urban areas. Figure 1 presents a graphic representation of a conceptual scheme for the study of the interactions between urban areas and global environmental changes (Sánchez et al. 2005). The scheme is based on the recognition of two important premises. The first is that urban systems result from alterations to the landscape through social processes expressed in physical space by the built environment. The impacts of the urban system on the biophysical system, or those caused by the biophysical system to urban space, will be different, depending on the type of space created (for example, a well-serviced area, as opposed to a slum area). The type of built landscape and the social groups occupying it have differentiated capacities to cope with, adapt to, and resist the impacts of global environmental change or to generate those impacts. This distinction is important when addressing equity issues in urban sustainable development.
It is equally important to understand that the biophysical system is, in reality, the result of interactions between regional and global biophysical and chemical processes and local, regional, and global socio-economic and geo-political processes. Alterations to the water or carbon cycles, responsible for climate change and other known aspects of global environmental change, are the result of such interactions.
The second premise is the recognition of the bidirectional relation between urban areas and biophysical systems, as shown by the short light-gray arrows. One side depicts the manner in which the urban system impacts on the biophysical system. Greenhouse gas emissions of urban origin—from transportation, industry, and services—and heat emissions, including heat islands, are clearly responsible for this impact. Other factors, such as changes in land use and land cover directly or indirectly induced by the urban system, also impact the biophysical system, but receive less attention. The demand for construction materials, food, energy, water, and other natural resources cause changes in land use and land cover. For example, the high urban demand for wood and food has caused deforestation and associated increases in CO2 gas emissions, while the demand for water produces alterations in the water cycle of large areas. The other short light-gray arrow illustrates how the biophysical system impacts the urban area. Natural disasters are one of the most visible examples, but there are other impacts on urban form and function
(urban economy and social activities) and on health, that are relevant to daily urban life and future urban sustainability. The diagram presents a second bidirectional flow (dark gray arrows) between the urban system and the biophysical system. It illustrates the dynamic nature of those non-linear processes. Society, like nature, often has unexpected responses to sudden shocks. Cities are complex systems where unexpected responses to extreme events are part of a wide array of feedback loops that result from the responses to the interactions with global environmental change. This second group of impacts occurs as a consequence of the first. For example, increase in temperatures (heat waves) can cause a strong increase in energy use in many urban areas aggravating the emission of greenhouse gases and the impact on the biophysical system. Extreme climactic events, such as floods or droughts, can intensify migrations to urban areas, resulting in changes to land use and land cover. These changes, in turn, cause a new series of impacts on the biophysical system and subsequently on urban areas. The interactions between global environmental change and urban areas can be classified into two main broad areas: land use and land cover change, and climate change. Each of these will now be examined briefly in turn. Land Use and Land Cover Change Cities are increasingly the site of most economic growth, a facet that has been accentuated by globalization. This concentration is associated with rising incomes and consumption patterns. Both of these consequences tend to increase pressure on natural resources at the regional and global level. Although urban production and consumption processes may originate in an urban area, their impacts are usually not confined within city boundaries. Urban dynamics have the potential to affect social, cultural, economic, and ecological processes in lands that are both near and distant from the urban core (Eaton et al. 2007). To fulfill their needs, urban systems have ‘zones of influence’ well beyond the immediate urban area. Cities depend on vast resources for the supply of critical ecological services, from the supply of inputs (e.g., food, energy, water, building materials), to the provision of ecological services (e.g., wildlife corridors, microclimate, buffer areas protecting against flooding, etc.). They also suffer the negative consequences of urban areas (e.g., pollution, urbanization pressures and land use changes, degradation of natural resources). “Peri-urban areas” satisfy many of these needs and also provide essential services to both.2 In the most general sense, the development of peri-urban areas involves a complex adjustment of social and ecological systems as they become absorbed into the sphere of the urban economy. Land use and land cover changes are associated with the provision of 2
Peri-urbanization refers to a highly dynamic process whereby rural areas, both close to but also increasingly distant from city centers, become enveloped by, or transformed into, extended metropolitan regions (Mbiba and Huchzermeyer 2002, Aguilar and Ward 2003). Land speculation often plays a large role in these gradual changes.
these ecological services and natural resources (Tratalos et al. 2007). Thus, global environmental change and globalization affect the pool of natural resources and ecosystem services upon which urban systems rely (the bidirectional arrows in figure 1). The rapid rate of change in rural and peri-urban areas demands greater attention in order to understand how urban-rural land use dynamics will be affected by different levels of global environmental change and social responses to them. Globalization is a driving force in the growth of cities but, at the same time, it facilitates the extension of a city’s area of influence over larger geographical space and even national boundaries. Studies on urban metabolism have documented fluxes of energy, water, food, construction materials. However, little attention has been paid to the locus of those resources or to consequences for environmental and socio-economic at the local, regional, and global level, including changes in the landscape induced by urban growth. An additional concern for the future is that the rapid transformation of rural and periurban areas providing such services could convert them to urban or other land uses without due consideration of their critical role for the long-term sustainability of the city as well as for the earth’s ecosystem. The extensive transformation of wetlands or forests near urban areas, for instance, has significant consequences at the local level (microclimate, the hydrological cycle, habitats and biodiversity, etc.) and affects basic biophysical processes at the regional and global level (the carbon and hydrological cycles, biodiversity). Ultimately, such alterations impact on global environmental change. Climate Change The transformation of human societies has always been intimately related to climate. The development and collapse of civilizations has a strong link with environmental management and, in particular, with climate management (Diamond 2005). For centuries, technological advances have gradually transformed the capacity for adaptation to adverse climate conditions in urban areas, particularly evidenced in the form and location of human settlements (housing and urban space). Changes have been particularly dramatic in the last century: the adoption of technological advances, such as air conditioning and central heating, has facilitated the prioritization of aesthetic over functional aspects in architectural and urban design and adaptation to climate. The transformation of cultural patterns, influenced by the growth of capitalist consumption societies, as well as by their rapid dissemination throughout the “global society,” has helped to induce the abandonment of traditional knowledge on how to adapt to local climate conditions. New patterns are based on significant energy costs (air conditioning, new materials), and new architectural and urban forms. Climate change and climate variability often aggravate the deficiencies of poor adaptation to climatic conditions and the dependence on artificial coping mechanisms. However, direct climate impacts are not the only component of GEC that shape the form and growth of the built environment. Indirect changes can also have an impact. Sea level rise in coastal areas also has an impact on the shape and form of urban areas, as well as
its vulnerability to inundation. Better knowledge and understanding of these interactions would provide useful information to national and local decision-makers about the way that biophysical processes shape the construction, form, and function of the built environment. Such knowledge would be useful in influencing growth and sustainable development policies for urban areas in both rich and poor countries, and assist them to adapt to the potential negative consequences of climate change. The urban heat island effect is a particularly important component in the relationship between urban areas and climate. An urban heat island effect is an increase in temperature of an urban area in comparison to its surroundings (Rosenzweig et al. 2005). The size of the urban center, its type of urbanization, and land use are some of the factors that determine the urban heat island effect. As population centers grow in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding increase in average temperature between 2 to 10°F (2-6°C) hotter than the surrounding countryside. As a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is greater in upwind parts of the urban area compared with areas downwind. The urban heat island effect is often aggravated by urban designs and forms that neglect the climatic conditions of urban centers’ location and that provoke the loss of green areas that previously had a cooling effect (Bochaca and Puliafito 2007). These problems are particularly prominent in urban areas of poor countries located in the tropics. Current urbanization trends in those countries, together with the impacts of climate variability and climate change, can aggravate the already-stressed conditions caused by the heat island effect in urban areas. Unfortunately, most of the existing studies on urban heat islands have been conducted in temperate zones, and yet most of the future urban growth will occur in the global south (Corbella and Magalhaes 2007). One of the most evident negative consequences of extreme climatic events is the growing number and magnitude of climate-related disasters in urban areas during the last few decades. The damage caused by hurricanes and other extreme climatic events has had a high social, economic, and environmental cost. It is often associated with unplanned and incomplete urban growth, often in risk-prone areas, and with severe modifications of the natural landscape (Mirza 2003, Pelling 2003). Such changes have increased the number of inhabitants vulnerable to the negative consequences of natural phenomena associated with climate (hurricanes and tropical storms, droughts, landslides, floods, etc.). The rates and patterns of ongoing urban growth, as well as increases in urban poverty, are key elements in the rising vulnerability of cities to the negative consequences of climate change (Cross 2002, Pelling 2003). A key feature is the manner in which the transformation of the global economy has triggered important changes in the urban dynamics of the largest cities in poor countries since the 1970s. These transformations are driven by foreign direct investment, large-scale capital movements, and structural adjustment programs that tend to redefine the economic base of such urban areas and recast their territorial patterns (bidirectional flows between cities and social and biophysical processes in figure 1). The outcomes are highly segregated urban spaces and
extended urban growth in risk-prone areas, along with severe deficiencies in the provision of public services. Poverty, income inequality, and segregation are thus key elements in the vulnerability of urban populations to the negative consequences of global environmental change (Satterthwaite 2007). Urban areas are indeed highly vulnerable in crises and disasters: sudden supply shortages, heavy environmental burdens or major catastrophes can quickly lead to serious bottlenecks or emergencies for a vast number of people, or exacerbate conditions for the socially weakest groups (Wisner 2004). Constraints and conflicts may acquire multiple dimensions, as they arise amid poorly coordinated administration and planning, increased subordination to the influence of the globalized economy, growing socio-economic disparities and intensifying environmental burdens. Realistic actions confronting these problems require a multidimensional and multi-scale approach, as mentioned above. The scientific debate around the frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events has not been thoroughly settled, but it is clear that natural disasters have become more frequent during the last two decades. This is due in part to the rapid increase in vulnerability and exposure of larger numbers of urban inhabitants, as well as to landscape modifications that aggravate the impact of extreme climatic events in urban areas. Lessons obtained from the impacts of natural disasters caused by frequent extreme climatic events have not yet been translated into systematic knowledge on vulnerability to those events, nor into effective adaptation to their negative consequences in poor countries (Burton et al. 2002). Decisions orienting urban growth largely neglect the interaction of local issues with regional and global social and biophysical processes. Current trends of urban growth in conditions of growing socio-economic disparities predict an increase in the impact of natural disasters in urban areas. The interactions between climate change and urban areas include myriad other processes that are not given sufficient consideration. Some of those interactions do not have as dramatic consequences as those associated to climate-related natural disasters, but they still have significant consequences for urban life and functions. Some of those consequences are associated with the organization of social life within urban areas, the decline of economic activities, labor productivity, and urban livelihoods. For example, changes in average and extreme temperatures, or in the intensity and length of seasons can have significant consequences for the importance of economic activities in some urban areas (e.g., tourism), the productivity of workers, the use of urban space for social activities (comfort index within the urban area), water supply, distribution and quality, energy demand, and human health. Climate change can also modify migration patterns between rural and urban areas or within urban areas. Drought, flooding and other consequences associated with climate change can be strong drivers of these demographic changes. Migration is often a desperate means of alleviating extreme pressure on the livelihoods of people, particularly among low-income groups. It is also a coping and adapting mechanism to global environmental change. The rapid rate of urbanization in the world, together with the size
of the population and the social conditions associated with it (a strong increase in poverty and inequity during the last decades), make the interactions between climate change, migration and settlement patterns a key issue. One of the alarming prospects of climate change is its impact on sea level rise and its potential consequences for coastal urban areas (McGranaham et al. 2007). Coastal cities in Africa and Asia, two continents with the lowest share of population living in urban areas, have a great number of urban dwellers. These differences reflect historical patterns of urban growth. Major cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America reveal their colonial heritage, in which they grew as ports and export nodes of raw materials. Many other cities of different sizes are also located on coastal zones around the world. The most evident impact of sea level rise in those areas is flooding, particularly when combined with extreme climatic events. Other impacts would include salt instruction in bodies of fresh water -- threatening critical resources used to supply water to urban areas -- as well as modifications of the landscape and ecosystems critical in the supply of ecological services and natural resources to urban areas (food, energy, building material, microclimate, biodiversity). Sea level rise could also trigger new waves of migration to inland urban areas (environmental refugees). Impacts on human health are among the most important consequences of climate change in urban areas. Urban living conditions make urban residents, particularly in poor countries, vulnerable to severe deficiencies in the supply and operation of public services, infrastructure, sanitation, and health service. In normal times, many urban inhabitants already face environmental problems, while suffering malnutrition, poor housing conditions and other problems associated with poverty and inequity. All of these conditions aggravate the negative consequences of changes in biophysical processes in urban areas. For example, changes in temperature and precipitation can expand the threshold of tropical vector-borne diseases (malaria, dengue, yellow fever) to areas currently unaffected by them (Haines et al. 2006, Few 2007). They can also speed up the spread of disease in already affected areas. The dearth of urban services (drainage and solid waste collection), coupled with dense living conditions and changes in temperature and precipitation, also fosters the reproduction of mosquitoes, aggravating the hazards for human health. Deficiencies in housing and urban conditions (infrastructure, public service, urban form) in poor countries can also aggravate the negative consequences of high temperatures, increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with heat stress. Insufficient infrastructure and transportation options in urban areas can exacerbate the consequences of climate change on local air pollution (tropospheric ozone). Changes in climate and the water cycle could affect water supply, water distribution, and water quality in urban areas with important consequences for the expansion of water- borne diseases in poor countries. The quest for urban sustainability
The above discussion illustrates some of the challenges of urban growth, particularly in poor countries. The interactions between local urban, social, and environmental problems and the impacts of global changes (social and biophysical) on cities create an alarming scenario. Sustainable development offers a framework widely accepted by urban constituencies that should result in positive social change and more balanced paths of growth for cities. But this framework has to be moved from rhetoric to operation if it is to become a useful tool in orienting urban growth. New approaches to urban sustainability should be based on integrated perspectives and their multi-scale connections with regional and global social and biophysical processes. Those approaches should create change though continuous learning and adaptation (Mog 2004) and should focus more attention on three issues: the advancement of knowledge based on integrated perspectives; greater attention to equity as a key component of sustainability, and; identification of the institutional changes needed to promote urban sustainability. The remainder of this section addresses those three issues. The development of new approaches to urban sustainability is supported by the rich legacy of urban studies having a long tradition in various disciplines and sub-disciplines. Still missing, however, are sustained efforts to create integrated and multidimensional perspectives on urban issues, taking advantage of the accumulated knowledge under these various disciplinary studies. The multidimensional approach coincides with increasing efforts to conduct interdisciplinary (Petts et al. 2006) and trans-disciplinary (Luks and Siebenhuner 2007) studies on topics related to sustainable development, and it also coincides with the study of the various aspects of global environmental problems. Breaking with the disciplinary culture of excessive specialization in favor of interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary thinking is admittedly not easy. Yet, there is growing recognition of the need to complement the disciplinary vision with integrated multidimensional perspectives in the study and management of the current and future urban reality. Adequate consideration of the various time/space aspects in those perspectives can contribute to the construction of better theories and methods (Bai 2007). This knowledge is relevant and useful in helping local officials and stakeholders in cities to recognize how local processes are affecting or are being affected by regional and global social and biophysical processes. Investments in solving current problems could help mitigate and adapt to the negative consequences of global environmental change through integrated knowledge of urban problems. But perhaps more important, it would help reduce the possibility that urban investments aggravate the vulnerability of individuals and social groups to the negative consequences or climate change, or diminish opportunities for urban sustainable development (Pritchett and Woolcock 2004). An integrated perspective would also help identify unintended consequences of actions in terms of equity, a key component in urban sustainable development. Intra-generational and intergenerational equity is recognized as a central component of sustainability and one of its most critical features for the future, given growing levels of inequality within and among societies. Scholars emphasize the importance of addressing equity concerns in the study of the risks from climate change and their connection to
development challenges, particularly in poor countries (Tol et. al. 2004, Thomas and Twyman 2005, Paavola and Adger 2006). The close association of vulnerability and equity is highlighted by contributions that draw attention to factors influencing the capacity of individuals or groups to anticipate, cope, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (Wisner 2004). These factors (assets, sources of livelihood, class, race, ethnicity, gender and poverty) are also part of the discussion of social justice presented in approaches seeking higher states of social well-being (development, sustainable development). A number of scholars have also begun to stress the importance of incorporating equity as a key element in the discussion of climate change. Adger et al. (2005) re-assert the fact that risks from climate change are imposed on present-day society as a result of previous actions in perturbing the climate system, as discussed in the first part of this chapter. They also highlight the key role played by underlying distributions of power, within the institutions that manage resources, in creating and accentuating vulnerabilities. For them, present-day adaptations often reinforce existing inequalities and do little to alleviate underlying vulnerabilities; thus, measures to reduce poverty and increase access to resources could reduce vulnerability to climate variability and climate change. Thomas and Twyman (2005) also highlight the fact that climate change does not occur independently of other processes impacting upon poor societies and draw attention to how the interface of climate change and development processes can enhance existing inequalities. Attention has also been called to distributional issues of adaptation, recognizing possible externalities at other geographical and temporal scales (the second set of bidirectional flows presented in figure 1) (Adger et al. 2005). They highlight the risk that actions which are effective for the adapting agent may produce negative externalities and spatial spillovers, potentially increasing impacts on others or reducing their capacity to adapt. Similar concerns have been expressed before about development and sustainable development. This underlines the importance of incorporating the consideration of contradictions, conflicts, and imbalances within and among societies in the discussion of vulnerability, adaptation to climate change, and urban sustainability. Recent studies highlight this issue. Tompkins and Adger (2005) propose that any response to climate change must be cognizant of wider development pressures as well as goals, instead of focusing solely on single system management. They highlight the relationships between assets, institutions and society, the role of cultural and regional differences among societies and the importance of public policy in responses to different hazards and different types of climate change. The above discussion thus highlights the need for institutional changes to respond to the challenges created by global environmental change and to enhance opportunities for urban sustainability (Evans, 2001). Scientific contributions that provide a better understanding of the wider range of sustainable development challenges (including socio-economic, cultural, and political
aspects traditionally considered under the umbrella of development, as well as environmental issues embedded in biophysical processes at a local and global scale) provide an important contribution in this direction. However, the difference between understanding and acting is large (van den Hove 2007), and institutional change should target both aspects. Institutional changes can be a lengthy process (Spangenberg et al. 2002). A better understanding of responses to global environmental change (mitigation, vulnerability and adaptation) and the way those issues are introduced to stakeholders and decision-makers could be improved. Making explicit the connections between vulnerability and adaptation with current urban problems and urban sustainability can be an effective method of achieving this goal. The advantage of this approach is that it presents an integrated vision of urban sustainability which stakeholders and decision-makers can relate to their daily lives and areas of concern. By the same token, institutions play a significant role in helping urban systems to cope with, and adapt to, the negative consequences of global environmental change. Recent attention to the role of institutions in building sustainable development initiatives in urban areas provides a useful framework for this discussion (Button 2002, Spangenberg et al. 2002). There are several research areas worth considering in this regard: bridging the gap between the domain of science and the domain of policy and practice in order to use available scientific knowledge in the design of adaptations to global environmental change and development policies (Hordijk, M and Baud, I. 2007); taking advantage of the attention to climate change to foster changes in institutions and better respond to the needs of society in the 21st century; the creation of governance processes that will include a broader participation of civil society in opening opportunities for urban sustainability; the reluctance and obstacles of institutions to change and update their structure, focus, and actions to the challenges in the 21st century. Final Thoughts This chapter began by indicating that the destiny of societies is intrinsically linked to the growth of its urban areas. Ultimately, urban concentrations are not, per se, the prime source of environmental threats; they are simply the geographical space where the contradictions, the social conflicts and relations, and the clash between society and nature are expressed most intensely. The problems in cities are a reflection of the inequity within our societies and among these societies. Proposing alternatives for a better future (sustainable development) implies a process of social change. The chapter sought to contribute to a broader discussion of social change, recognizing the interactions of social and biophysical processes, and their connections at different scales, from local to regional, and global. Addressing the complex reality of cities in the 21 st century, in conditions of growing socio-economic disparities and increasing negative impacts of global environmental change, creates challenges that cannot continue to be neglected or addressed through fragmented actions. Sustainable development can be a useful tool in this direction. The chapter suggested a realistic approach to sustainable
development by creating change through continuous learning and adaptation and institutional change. There is certain urgency in these changes. The size, scale, and form of cities and their likely future growth trajectories will be critical to global environmental change and to the sustainability of societies. References Adger, N. and Vincent, K. 2005. “Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Compters Rendus Geoscience 337: 399-410. Adger, N, Arnell, N., Tompkins, E. 2005. “Succesful adaptation to climate change across scales.” Global Environmental Change 15: 77-86. Adger, N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 : 268-281. Aguilar. A. and Ward, P. 2003. "Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in Latin America: Analyzing Mexico City's peri-urban hinterland." Cities 20 (1): 3-21. Bai, X. 2007. “Integrating global environmental concerns into urban management. The scale and readiness argument” Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (2): 15-30. Beg, N. et. al. 2002. “Linkages between climate change and sustainable development.” Climate Policy 2: 129-144. Bochaca, F. and Puliafito, E. 2007. “Dry island effect on intermediate cities. The case of the city of Mendoza.” R. Sanchez Rodriguez and Adriana Bonilla, ed. Urbanization, Global Environmental Change, and Sustainable Development in Latin America. Sao Jose de los Campos, Brazil. IAI, INE, UNEP. Bryant, R. and Wilson, G. 1998. "Rethinking Environmental Management." Progress in Human Geography 22 (3): 321-343. Burton, I., Huq, S. Lim, B. Pilifosova, O. Schipper, E. 2002. "From Impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy." Climate Policy 2:145-159. Button, K. 2002. "City management and urban sustainability." Ecological Economics 40: 217-233. Corbella, o., and Magalhaes, M. 2007. “Conceptual differences between the bioclimatic urbanism for Europe and the tropical sumid climate.” Renew Energy, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.04.004. Cross, J. 2002. "Mega-cities and small towns: different perspectives on hazard vulnerability." Environmental Hazards. Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking Penguin, New York: 592.
Eaton, R., Hammond, G., Laurie, J. 2007. “Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urban and rural living in the developed world.” Landscape and Urban Planning, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.009. Evans, P. (ed.) 2001. Livable cities?: urban struggles for livelihoods and sustainability. University of California Press, Los Angeles: 275. Few, R. 2007. “Health and climate hazards: Framing social research on vulnerability, response and adaptation.” Global Environmental Change 17: 281-295. Gibbs, D., Jonas, A. 2000. “Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: the utility of a regime approach.” Geoforum 31: 299-313. Haines, A., Kovats, R., Campbell, D. and Corvalan, C. 2006. “Climate change and human health: Impacts, vulnerability and public health. Public Health 120: 585-596. Healey, P. 2002. “On Creating the ‘City’ as a Collective Resource.” Urban Studies 39 (10): 1777-1792. Hordijk, M and Baud, I. 2007. “The role of research and knowledge generation in collective action and urban governance: How can researchers act as catalysts?” Habitat International 30 (3): 668-689. IPPC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation , and Vulnerability , Summary for Policmakers and technical Summary of the Working Group II Report. IPCC. Geneva Lopes de Souza, M. 2001. “Metropolitan decentralization, socio-political fragmentation and extended suburbanization: Brazilian urbanization in the 1980s and 1990s.” Geoforum 32:437–447. Luks, F. and Siebenhuner, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contributions of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability. Ecological Economics, doi10.1016/jj.ecoloecon. 2006.11.007. McGranaham, G., Balk, D., and Anderson, B. 2007. “The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones.” Environment and Urbanization 19 (1): 17-37. Mbiba, B. and Huchzermeyer, M. 2002. “Contentious development: peri-urban studies in sub-Saharan Africa” Progress in Development Studies 2(2): 113-131. Mirza, M. 2003. “Climate Change and extreme weather events: can developing countries adapt?” Climate Policy 3: 233-248.
Mog, J. 2004. “Struggling with sustainability. A comparative framework for evaluating sustainable development . World Development 32 (12): 2139-2160. Moser, C. y Mcilwaine, C. 2005. “Latin American Urban Violence as a Development Concern: Towards a Framework for Violence Reduction.” World Development 34 (1): 89-112. Paavola, J., Adger, N. (2006). “Fair adaptation to climate change.”Ecological Economics 56: 594-609. Pelling, M. 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities. Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, England. Petts, J., Owens, S., and Bulkeley, H. 2006. “Crossing Boundaries: Interdiscplinarity in the context of urban environments.” Geoforum, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.02.008. Pirez, P. 2002. “Buenos Aires: fragmentation and privatization of the metropolitan city.” Environment and Urbanization 14(1):145–158. Pritchett, L. and Woolcock, M. (2004). “Solutions When the Solution is the Problem: Arraying the Disarray in Development.” World Development 32 (2): 191-212. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Parshall, L., Chopping, M., Pope, G., Goldberg, R. 2005. “Characterizing the urban heat island in current and future climates in New Jersey. Environmental Hazards 6: 51-62. Sanchez, R., Seto, K., Simon, D., Soleki, W., Kraus, F., and Laumnan, G. 2005. Urbanization and Global Environmental Change. Science Plan. International Human Dimensions Program for Global Environmental Change. Bonn. Satterhwaite, D. 2007. “In persuit of a Healthy Urban Environment in Low-and Middleincome Nations.” P. Marcotullio and G. McGranahan, eds. Scaling Urban Environmental Challenges. From local to global and back. London. Earthscan. Spangenberg, J., Pfahl, S., Deller, K. 2002. “Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21.” Ecological Indicators 2 (1-2): 61-77. Thomas, D. and Twyman, C. 2005. “Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resources-dependent societies.” Global Environmental Change 15: 115124. Tol, R., Downing, T., Kuik, O. Smith, J. 2004. “Distribution aspects of climate change impacts.” Global Environmental Change 14: 259-272.
Tompkins, E. and Adger, N. 2005. “Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 562-571. Tratalos, J., Fuller, R., Warren, P., Davies, R., Gaston, K. 2007. “Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services.” Landscape and Urban Planning. Doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003. Van den Hove, S. 2007. “A rationale for science-policy interfaces.” Futures ,doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.004. Wisner, B. 2004. “Assessment of capability and vulnerability.” In: Bankoff, G., Freks, G., Holhorst, T. (Eds.). Vulnerability, Disasters, Development, and People. Earthscan, London: 183-194.
