_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest07 March 2012 03:42
_______________________________________________________________
Document 1 of 1
A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American, European and Indian
citiesSmardon, Richard. Management of Environmental Quality 19. 1 (2008): 118-137.
_______________________________________________________________ Abstract The purpose of this paper is the comparison of Local Agenda 21 - sustainability plan
implementation and research activity between Europe, North America and India. Intensive
literature and web search for European, North American and Indian Local Agenda 21
sustainability planning and implementation status. Close to 6,000 sustainability plans have
been prepared for European communities versus about 100 for North American communities.
A total of 20 Indian cities have started sustainability planning efforts. There is an extensive
support network for European communities and much less so for North American and Indian
communities. Most sustainability/biodiversity/urban ecosystems research is ongoing in
Europe and North America and there is a beginning surge of activity in India. Knowledge of
Local Agenda 21 implementation status between these three regions can hopefully spur
more activity in North America and India. Comparisons of applicable planning innovations
and approaches could be useful. There has not been a comparison of Local Agenda 21
implementation that compares Europe, North America and India. There have been some
reviews respective to each region.
_______________________________________________________________ Full Text Urban ecosystems overview: definitions and principles
Before there was sustainability planning, an earlier field of research was urban ecosystems
research. The early work of the US Forest Service ([48] Santamour et al., 1976; Heisler and
Herrington, 1977) and US Fish and Wildlife researchers in the 1970s was mostly focused on
urban vegetation and urban wildlife. Active schools at this time were SUNY Syracuse ([27]
Hopkins, 1980; [41] Miller, 1973) and University of Mass, Amherst ([43] Noyes and
Progulske, 1973; [35] Little and Noyes, 1970). Later in the 1980s the emphasis shifted to
more systems perspective as expressed by [28] Hough (1984) and [15] Douglas (1983). John
T. [36] Lyle (1993) expresses this same systems perspective in his book Urban Ecosystems:
Cities of the Futureand Anne [58] Spirn (1984) in her book The Granite Garden, embraces
the ecology of the urban landscape and people - rather than set themselves apart. Also see
Penny Firth (2002) Cities as Urban Ecosystemsfrom the Environmental Literacy Council
(from Baltimore LTER Project) which also is a systems perspective treatment, as well as Paul
[21] Gobster's (2003) Human Dimensions of the Urban Ecosystem. [55] Smardon (1988) also
has reviewed the role of urban vegetation in cities from cultural and aesthetic perspectives.
Historical antecedents to the environmental systems perspective include: Jay Forester:
Urban Dynamics: interactive systems which has an inclusive treatment of both physical and
socio-economic systems. Richard N.L. Meyers: work on cities as information systems; and
Howard Odum work on energetics and ecological theory; all derive from the general systems
theory.
The problem, before 1980, of applying natural systems ecological models to urban peopled
systems is a radical idea. From the above cited work, it can be seen that urban ecology has
four perspectives:
human activity concentrated in an urban cluster;
humans as species dominating earth's ecosystems;
model of ecology must include human impact; and
understanding such processes provides utility to problem solving.
Demographic growth trends with attendant impact or humans are thought of as confounding
variables.
The ecology of urban ecosystems can be thought of from a systems perspective as:
ecological effects of land use change, spatial distribution of resources (abiotic) or population
(biotic), and whole system metabolism (energy flow). As urban ecologists, one needs a set of
research protocols for three biophysical forces/drives, which are:
flow of energy;
cycling of matter; and
flow of information (See [11] Decker et al.2000).
These forces exert influence on five major patterns/processes, which are:
primary production (energy by plants form photosynthesis);
populations (growth and decline);
organic matter (raw food);
nutrients (available food);
disturbance (human and natural).
Socioeconomic drives which in turn affect the previous biophysical processes include:
- information flow;
- cultural values and institutions;
- economic system;
- power hierarchies;
- land use and management;
- demographic patterns;
- designed or built environment.
There is also a need of integration mechanisms for incorporating socio-economic drives into
natural drivers within urban systems via Jay Forester or Howard Odum, e.g. diversity studies
conducted in urban areas needs to accept human presence as part of the model. From this
theoretical work - one can move to sustainability as a concept and its evolution.
Short history of the sustainable cities movement
Environmental consciousness began to increase after the first United Nations (UN)
Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Urban environmental
agendasthat evolved from this conference were named the "Brown Agenda" ([49] Serageldin,
1995) by the international development agencies such as the World Bank. The second UN
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
and subsequent UN Habitat II Conference held in Istanbul in 1996, developed the concept of
"Sustainable cities", leading to setting a number of international directions in making cities
sustainable. The Rio conference developed the Green Agendaof deforestation, resource
depletion, global warming, biodiversity and pollution. The Sustainable cities concept merged
the Brown and Green agendasand attempts to implement Agenda 21in an urban context thus
launching the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP).
The Sustainable Cities Program (SCP) is a joint UNCHS/UNEP program. It works toward the
development of a sustainable urban environment, building capacities in urban environment,
building capacities in urban environmental planning and management, and promoting a
board-based participatory process. At the moment the SCP is a locally focused program, in
which there is some national, regional and global support for activities and programs at the
city level. SCP provides a framework of linking local actions and innovations to activities at
the national, regional and global levels. Global networks such as the UN programs and the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which work in a coordinated
fashion, are very important in this regard.
The primary focus of SCP is at the city level where, the program applies more than 95
percent of its resources in the first five years. The SCP brings together all the stakeholders
whose cooperation is required:
- to clarify environmental issues;
- agree on joint strategies and coordinate action plans;
- implement technical support and capitol investment; and
- institutionalize continuing environmental planning and management.
The SCP is based on a development paradigm that:
- cities make an important contribution to social and economic development at national and
local levels;
- cities are important engines of economic growth;
- cities absorb two-thirds of the population growth in developing countries;
- cities offer significant economies of scale in provision of jobs, housing and service; and
- cities are important centers of productivity and social enhancement.
It argues that full realization of cities potential contribution to development are often
obstructed by severe environmental degradation in and around rapidly growing
environmental centers. It further accepts that environmental degradation threatens:
- economic efficiency in the use of scarce resources;
- social equity in the distribution of development benefits and costs;
- sustainability of hard won development achievements; and
- productivity in the urban economy in provision of goods and services.
From this general history of urban sustainability planning - one can now examine such
planning in Asia with specific reference to Indian cities, which are undergoing tremendous
rates of growth.
Urban policies in India address two levels of policy making:
the regional level which deals with urbanization and industrial location policies; and
the local level that covers; urban land use planning, housing including slums, poverty
alleviation, and urban governance which includes institutions of decision making and finance.
The post-independence period in India is divided into two periods for understanding the
major thrusts in urban policies over time ([37] Mahadevia, 2003) including pre-economic
reforms and post-economic reforms. An in-depth treatment of these policies and reforms is
presented by ([37] Mahadevia, 2003, pp. 22-66). For a review of India's national policies on
sustainability and biodiversity conservation the reader should refer to the [60] United Nations
(2002) Country Profile of India
The author's purpose is merely to present the current scorecard of Agenda 21Chapter 28
implementation of sustainable city programs in Europe, North America and India in
comparative fashion. By showing what has been done with such implementation - each
region illustrates the interaction of international and national agencies as well as NGOs in
support of such activities. As we compare and contrast European, North American and Indian
cities, one should note that Asian cities and especially mega cities have much higher
population densities ([57] Sorensen et al., 2004). This one factor presents unique challenges
to sustainability planning implementation, which will be outlined.
International programs
International programs for biodiversity within Urban areas can divided into about three areas;
those programs:
focused on making cities more sustainable under Agenda 21;
assessing urban biodiversity and urban biosphere reserves; and
green space protection and function.
Urban sustainability programs under the aegis of agenda 21include:
- Best practices database in UN-Habitat at www.bestpractices.org.html
- Caretakers of the Environment International - A global network of secondary school
teachers and students active in environmental education at www.caretakers.boker.org
- Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) a worldwide action agendafor reduction of greenhouse
gases and energy conservation at www.iclei.org/ccp/ This program includes some 500 cities
worldwide.
- International Center for Sustainable Cities promotes sustainability in cities around the world
through practical demonstration projects using Canadian expertise and technology at
www.icac.ca/index.html
- International Institute for the Urban Environment, which is a proposal to establish a network
on MILU: Multifunctional Intensive Land Use in Cities in Europe 2004-2007 at www.urban.nl/
- Urban Environmental Forum - UN Human Settlements Program - A global coalition of cities
and international support programs working on the urban environment at
www.unchs.org/progammes/uef/
- The UN Habitat Human Settlements Program the Sustainable Cities Program at
www.unesco.org/mab/urban/ This program includes at least 40 cities worldwide.
- The Virtual Library; Urban Environmental Management - Projects, features and themes
addressing urban environmental management at www.gdrc.org/uem/
- The WHO Healthy Cites Program includes some 1,500 localities.
International Biodiversity and Biosphere Reserve Programs
There exists the UNEP Activities in Biodiversity and Global Biodiversity Assessment at
www.unep.org/themes/biodiversity This program sets general assessment standards under
the Convention on Biodiversity. There also is the MAB Program - Biosphere Reserves and
urban issues. The MAB Urban group was created to stimulate discussion and information
concerning the contribution of the Biosphere Reserve concept to sustainable development.
There are four purposes or aims of this group:
Identify contributions that the biosphere reserve concept have made or could make to urban
planning and management, including in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity
with its focus on the ecosystem approach.
Examine if there is, or should be, a place for urban areas and cities in the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves,
Explore alternative ways and means of recognizing selected cities, or parts thereof, as sites
that exemplifies the Biosphere Reserve model.
Stimulate a discussion within MAB and with relevant partner institutions and organizations,
on the development of an agendafor possible MAB activities. See the paper [59] UNESCO-
MAB (1998) Application of Biosphere Reserve Concepts to Urban Areas and their hinterlands
and www.unesco.org/mab/urban/urbangroup.htm for further information.
Examples of biosphere reserves outside cities providing functions and benefits for urban
areas (watershed protection, tourism and recreation) include:
- Green belts around Rio de Janeiro and San Palo.
- Cerrado Biosphere Reserve around Brasilia.
- Cordillera Volconica Central Biosphere reserve near San Jose Costa Rica.
- Alto Manzanaris Biosphere Reserve near Madrid.
The Urban working group may look at the following scenarios for urban biosphere Reserves
(See [59] UNESCO-MAB, 1998 and [1] Alfonsen-Norodom et al., 2004):
city as biosphere reserve;
greenbelt biosphere reserve around the city;
mixture of (1) and (2) above.
There are two ongoing urban study groups: the New York Urban Biosphere Group and the
South Africa, Cape Town group at www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/cubes/groups/urbanbio/
Urban greenspace assessment
The programs below stress protecting, maintaining or restoring urban green space for the
functions that they provide (air quality, watershed protection, habitat) as well as for food and
fiber production:
- La Ciuda Necesita Espcios Verdes con Mayor Biodiversidad Autotona - the necessity of
Urban Greenspace and Biodiversity at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html
- FAO's urban and periurban agriculture on the policy agenda, (see paper by [42] Nilsson and
Randrop (1997)) "Urban and periurban forestry" at www.fao.org/urbanag).
- RUAF - Resource Center on Urban Agriculture and Forestry is a global resource center
initiated by the international support group on urban agriculture funded by DGIS
(Netherlands) and IDRC (Canada) at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html
- FAO's Trees for the Urban Millennium: Urban Forestry Update at
www.fao.org/docrep/x3989e/x3989e09.htm
European urban ecosystem and biodiversity programs
Within Europe there are several notable programs that address urban ecosystems and
biodiversity. The MAB-ROME project was begun in the 1970s as part of the MABn.11
Projects on Urban Ecosystems. According to Francesco [14] Di Castro (1984), "the general
aim (of the MABn.11 Projects) is to provide insights on how ecological research can
contribute to improving urban and regional planning and thus to help to counter the sectoral
and fragmented approach that has tended to dominate urban planning in the past". i.e. ...
approaching environmental problems by "testing the ecological approach', with its emphasis
on understanding the interactions within and between systems and long-term perspectives
rather than short-term expediency".
Although the initial work of the project focused on plant ecology - in 1978 a group of social
and environmental psychologists worked on the "human dimension" or "environmental
perception aspects "A good overview of the history of the Rome Project can be seen in the
paper by Bonnes (2000).
Another more recent development is the Aalborg Charter, which is the Charter of European
Cities and Towns Toward Sustainability ([30] ICLEI, 1994). This is a consensus declaration
(Part 1), the European Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign (Part II) and engaging in
Local Agenda 21Processes toward local action plans (Part III). See
www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER
Part III processes is that part that includes the following specific steps:
Recognition of the existing planning and financial frameworks as well as other plans and
programs.
The systematic identification, by means of extensive public consultation, of problems and
their causes.
The prioritization of tasks to address identified problems.
Creation of a vision for sustainable community through a participation process involving all
sectors of the community.
Consideration and assessment of alternative strategic options.
Establishment of a long-term local action plan towards sustainability which involves
measurable targets.
The programming of the implementation of the Plan including the preparation of a timetable
and statement of allocation of responsibilities.
The establishment of systems and procedures for monitoring and reporting on
implementation of the plan.
Local Agenda 21from UNCED 1992 is a locally tailored program for sustainable
development. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21articulates the process by which sustainable
development plans must be developed and implemented. Chapter 28 does not specify what
local plans should include, but is process oriented. Development of local plans should
address local needs and concerns through education and mobilization of local citizens. Some
5,292 local authorities from 36 countries in Europe have Agenda 21action plans and a good
percentage of these have biodiversity assessment components.
Other regional European programs include:
- Cities Environment Reports on the Internet/Urban Environment Info Gateway at
www.ceral.net
- European Academy of the Urban Environment including conferences, seminars, workshops,
publications and SURBAN database on urban development at www.eaue.de
- The European Commission including the DG Environment page on Urban Issues at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/htm
- European Environment Agency including Europe's Environment - the Dubois Assessment
37 Urban Stress and Environment in EU at the Turn of the century at
www.bcdcold.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban
- ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) - European program
includes news and information, local government associations, campaigns and programs,
training and exchange and European Secretariat at www.iclei.org/europe This includes the
Local Agenda 21campaign plus Cities for Climate Protection, Sustainable Transportation plus
Water Campaigns.
As an example of Greenspace planning in Europe there is URGE - Development of Urban
Green Spaces to Improve the Quality of Life in Cities and Urban Regions. The European
Union-funded project is developing an integration toolkit of criteria and indicators to be used
by urban planners to assess ecological, social and economic sustainability of urban green
areas. URGE has two levels: whole city scale and urban green areas. Whole city scale
indicators include:
- fragmentation of urban green (indicators: size, shape, isolation, connectivity);
- level of nature protection (indicator: preparation for protected urban green);
- biodiversity - both species diversity and habitat(indicators: diversity of breeding birds and
vascular plants, biotype diversity).
On site scale:
- fragmentation (can be used for single site as well);
- biodiversity -species diversity (indicators: diversity of birds, vascular plants, carbid beetles,
butterflies and biotypes);
- naturalness (indicator: degree of disturbance/wear, exotica and rare species) at www.urge-
project.org/reports.htm
An example of support systems for sustainability planning in Europe include the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe at www.rec.org/REC/Programs/ and
the UNEP-European Regional Portal - Urban areas which contains State of Environment
reports, policy/strategy documents and data sets and can be seen at
http://europe.unep.net/index.php?struct_id=urbarea
Some of the European Urban Biodiversity action plans, especially Brussels ([25] Gosiun,
2001), Moscow, and Devon are very good examples of locally-based action plans (also see
[16] European Commission, 1990).
North American urban ecosystems and biodiversity programs
In North America (Canada and USA) there is a much different texture in terms of biodiversity
research and implementation. In the USA there is urban ecosystems research movement but
little implementation of Biodiversity plans. In Canada - there is less research but more
implementation of wildlife habitat protection programs and green space programs in larger
cities.
The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was charged with developing
and recommending a national sustainable development strategy in 1993 but disbanded in
1999. There was a Gore-Clinton Livable Communities Initiative in 1999 but the Bush
Administration eclipsed this. A Smart Growth Network, a partnership of government,
business and civic organizations, was established in 1996. The Sustainable Communities
network was established in 1993, which is a partnership of 15 non-profit organizations. Then
there is the joint Center for Sustainable Communities established in 1996 and sponsored by
several US Federal agencies such as US Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Energy, Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of
Agriculture and National Oceanographic Administration to support these activities. Dozens of
Non-governmental organizations, states and cities are supporting LA21 activities, In North
America there are 101 local authorities in two countries that have Agenda 21like plans but
only a few have biodiversity themes or components.
In the USA there is a major urban ecosystems research program called Urban LTER (Long
Term Ecological Research Program) which is funded by the National Science Program.
Initially there were two major sites: Baltimore metropolitan area and Phoenix, Arizona. The
NSF official abstracts are presented below.
Urban LTER: Human Settlement as Ecosystems: Metropolitan Baltimore from 1997-2001,
Stewart T.A. Picketts, Primary investigator, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY.
Objectives for the project included:
- How do the spatial structure of socio-economic, ecological and physical factors in an urban
area relate to one another and how do they change over time?
- What are the fluxes of energy, matter, capitol and population in urban systems, and how
they change over time?
- How can people develop and use an understanding of the metropolis as an ecological
system to improve their understanding?
Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showard?awards=9714835
Other links to this project include:
- www.sceincenetslinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=276
- www.beslter.org/frame5-page_2f.html
- www.enviroliteacy.org/article.php/530.html
There is also a new book based on this LTER project entitled Understanding Urban
Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education([6] Berkowitz et al., 2001) at
www.ecostudies.org/cary8/cc8book_toc.html
The second LTER Project is Central Arizona-Phoenix LTER. Investigators: Nancy Grim,
Jiange Luv, Stuart Fisher, Charles Redman and Alfredo de los Santo of Arizona State
University. Objectives of the project include:
- generate and test general ecological theory in an urban assessment;
- enhance understandability of the ecology of cities;
- identify feedback between ecological and socio-economic factors; and
- involve K-12 students in the enterprise of scientific discovery.
Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/seulet/showawd?award=14833
Similar research projects can be found in both Canada and the USA. Effects of urbanization
on biodiversity in Canada from Biodiversity in Canada: A Science Assessment for
Environment Canada. Recommendations include:
- Native biodiversity in a city can be enhanced if the biologically rich areas, such as ravines,
are linked to each other and to wild habitats outside.
- Need Information on the effect of increased human diversity and cultural diversity on nature
diversity within urban areas.
- Need to determine the exposure to urban biodiversity on the attitudes of citizens and
decision-makers.
Source: www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/biodiv-sci-assess/biodiversity/
Other projects in North America include:
Sustainable Forest Management Research Group at the University of British Columbia has a
research theme on Urban Ecology within forested parks in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Center for Urban Ecology (CUE) in Washington, DC has a team of multidisciplinary scientists
dedicated to developing a better understanding of the ecology of landscapes influenced by
human activities with the National Park Service. Source: www.nps.gov/cue/cuento
Center for Urban and Regional Ecology (CURE) is a multi-university and multidisciplinary
program to explore and promote options in sustainable human health and prosperity while
improving air, water, land use and biodiversity at the scale of regional ecosystems. This
group includes University of Georgia, Georgia State, Emory, and Morehouse at
www.cure.gatech.edu
The Ecological Cities Project is a quasi-independent program of research and outreach at the
department of Geosciences and the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This project seeks to promote sharing of knowledge
and experience among disciplines, sectors and urban regions regarding new approaches to
urban green space creation and management. See www.umass.edu/ecologicalcities and [44]
Platt (1994).
The Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College studies the merging field of urban ecology to
help residents understand natural resources in their communities in the Boston metro area.
Urban Eco the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory at the University of Washington Seattle
has three ongoing projects:
- NSF Biocomplexity Program - modeling the interactions among urban development, land
coverage and bird diversity.
- Impact of urban patterns on ecosystem dynamics through physical changes on an urban to
rural gradient.
- Analysis of the behavior of landscape metrics along urban to rural gradients (see
www.urbaneco.washington.edu/biocomplexity.htm)
The US Forest Service Urban Forestry Research program is involved with the Baltimore
LTER and the Houston Texas Urban Forestry Study which is the largest in the USA. See
http://cswgcin.nbii.gov/ecoregion/urban/urbanforests/index.htm
The US Environmental Protection Agency is also linked to the Baltimore LTER at EPA region
3 and has a green communities program at www.epa.gov/maia/html/urban.hmtl
The Metropolitan DC Urban Biodiversity Mode provides tools and makes them available to
decision-makers and stakeholders in the Washington DC Region. This node includes US
Geological Survey and Virginia Technological and State University plus others. See www.do-
urbanbiodiversity.nbii.gov
Actual biodiversity-related implementation support programs include:
- sustainability and food production;
- urban green space; and
- urban wildlife programs.
The following includes a few examples of each.
Sustainability and Food Security programs include:
- Cities Feeding People Program IDRC, Canada. Trying to bridge the gap in supporting
research and development activities that increase the food security and incomes of the poor
while maintaining public health and a clean urban environment. Source: www.bcd-
cbd/naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/urban
- New Jersey Urban Ecology Program at Rutgers. To ensure that all New Jersey
communities are food secure and that residents should have access to safe, nutritious and
culturally acceptable food that is procured by socially acceptable means. Source:
http://acscp.rutgers.edu/-niep/
Urban Greenspace Program examples include:
- Evergreen registered national charity in Canada has a mandate to bring nature to cities
through naturalization projects. See www.evergreen.ca/cn/about/about.htm
- Greenlinks Project: Restoring Habitat at Douglas College, its purpose is to increase the
ecological value and biodiversity of urban wildlife habitats ands green spaces in the lower
mainland - connecting or linking fragmented urban habitats. See
www.douglas.bc.ca/ine/restoring/connections.htm
- Audubon Society of Portland Oregon. Wild in the Citypublication emphasizes ecological
linkages among natural areas and offers 100 sites guide with detailed maps to natural
spaces, trails, waterways, parks, golf courses and cemeteries. At
www.audubon.portland.org/index.htm
- Open Lands Project: Urban Greening supports community and school based greening with
the City of Chicago with programs such as Neighborhood open space planning, tree keepers
and teaching for school gardens. See www.openlands.org/
- Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature preserve that includes more than 20,000 acres of
protected natural lands in the metro Chicago region. There is also a Biodiversity Recovery
Plan for this program, which is very detailed and is accessible at www.chicagowilderness.org/
More urban ecosystem conservation and biodiversity related programs. As we look to more
pragmatic means of incorporating biodiversity within Urbanizing areas in both Europe and
North America there may be some axioms that approach principles or trends of activity.
For Europe Agenda 21and the Aalborg Charter provide promising means of incorporation of
both participatory processes and pragmatic biodiversity assessment and action plans. For
North America Agenda 21does not have the same currency. For the USA the current wave is
"Smart growth" and in Canada the catchword is sustainability. For Canada and USA there is
strong interest in both multiple purpose urban greenway, private acquisition of open space
and ecosystem restoration.
Greenways are very popular for connecting opens pace and habitat, multimodal recreation
(bicycle and pedestrian), aesthetics and recreation benefits, air and water quality
maintenance. A book by [17] Fabos and Ahern (1996) assesses the international greenway
development. What is critical in the states as well as Canada is the growth of private land
trusts, which are actually acquiring pieces of real estate, which then can be subsumed into
Greenways. An excellent support network is the Land Trust Alliance, which is a national
support for hundreds of land trusts throughout the USA (see www.lta.org) Other such
organizations include: America Trails (see [47] Ryan, 1993): www.americatrails.org,
Treebranch Network in New York City www.treebranch.com and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
www.railstrails.org
The second area of activity is urban river restoration work in Canada and USA. There is a
recent Urban River Restoration initiative sponsored by US EPA, which focuses on urban
stream sediment remediation (Deason, 2001). Other major factors affecting urban river
restoration are flood damage reduction and riverine ecology restoration ([56] Smardon et al.,
1995, [18] Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 2001) and citizen
activated planning ([46] Riley, 1998). There are many NGO groups who support this
movement and examples can found in [40] Meier (2002) and [46] Riley (1998).
It should be noted that there are European examples as well, especially in the UK and
mainland Europe. Many of these projects are documented in the river restoration news at
www.quest.demon.co.uk/rrc/rrc.htm Probably the most noted river restoration projects in the
USA are the San Antonio River In San Antonio Texas followed by The South Platte River in
downtown Denver.
From the European and North American sustainability planning activity - one can shift to the
Indian experience, which is detailed in the following sections.
Sustainability and biodiversity programs in India
The cities of Chennai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Delhi and Kolkatta have been directly
connected with the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP). While Chennai was the only Indian
partner for SCP activities, other cities joined the Urban Environmental Forum (UEF
mentioned earlier) set up as the primary partner. Some cities have received UN-Habitat best
practice Awards and three belong to the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA). All
these efforts, according to [38] Mahadevia (2004) are initiatives of city governments as there
is no national program in terms of written policy.
The first city in India to join the UN habitat/UNEP SCP was Madras (now Chennai) in 1995.
The program aims to promote local initiatives for environmental management, and to improve
the ability of individuals and organizations to identify, understand and analyze environmental
issues, and integrate them into sectoral programs. This effort resulted in the preparation of
the 1997 Environmental Profile (of Chennai) based on city level consultation, and the framing
of Madras Vision 2000. The resulting consensus for improving the infrastructural situation
was produced in collaboration with the World Bank. In Hyderabad City, while the Master Plan
2011 was being designed, an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) exercise was
carried out to identify urban environmental issues for incorporation into the Plan. The Plan
proposed the spread of urbanization throughout the state by decentralizing economic
development of small ports and improvement in the financial position of local bodies was
proposed, to be funded via an Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation.
Two SCP's in India have concluded that more funds should be sought for city-level
infrastructure, but of the 23 metropolises, only Chennai and Hyderabad have carried out
EPM exercises.
According to the [31] ICLEI (1997) Local Agenda 21Survey and Spiros (2006) there are 20
Indian Cities that are actively engaged in some form for Agenda 21Implementation.
According to back issues of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Monitor India - initial cities to
join ICLEI's Cites for Climate Protection Program (CCP) include Calcutta, Ludhiana, Sangli,
Baroda, Jabalpur and Hyderabad ([32] ICLEI, 2001). Indian Cities joining phase II of the
Climate Protection Campaign include Agra, Gwalior, Shimla, Dehradun, Bhubaneswar,
Udaipur, Madural, Coimbatore and Guwahati ([70] ICLEI, 2004)
Infrastructure projects in Indian cities
Infrastructure development is considered to be crucial to improving urban environmental
conditions ([26] Gupta, 2006; [50] Shah, 2003; [53] Singh, 2006). For example the
construction of flyovers and widening of roads are expected to ease congestion and reduce
air pollution. Water supply and sanitation infrastructure are designed to reduce air pollution.
These projects are usually funded by international loans; however, only large cities have
been able to prove that they are credit worthy, and so they have been made recipients of
these loans.
The internationally-funded Healthy Cities Program (HCP) supported by World Health
Organization (WHO) was initiated in the 1990s to build the local capacity required for
integrating environmental health concerns into all major urban policies and programs. There
are five HCP pilot projects in the mega cities of Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad
and Chennai. The estimated cost of the entire project is $125 million and its benefits will
accrue only to these cities ([38] Mahadevia, 2004).
There are a number of cities active with ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Program (see
section above [32], [70] and ICLEI, 2001, 2004). Most of these projects include documenting
current levels of green house gas production and energy consumption from buildings,
transportation, waste treatment and other municipal services. Utilizing these base data for
specific measures to reduce green house gas and energy consumption are anticipated next
steps.
Environmental management
Solid Waste Management (SWM) projects dominate among environmental management
efforts dominate among environmental management efforts in India. Some local
governments have tried to elicit the support of communities, NGOs and private agencies in
this regard. In both Ahmedabad and Mumbai a private company is contracted to compost
part of the city waste. In Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai NGOs are involved in the
collection and disposal of waste on behalf of the city government. In Pune the local
government has encouraged housing colonies to decompose their organic waste and in
Rajkat the city government is efficiently collecting solid waste ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996). All
these projects began in the early 1990s
In Ahmedabad, the World Bank donated Rs. 38 million to modernize SWM, and collection
consequently increased three or four times, documented by case studies where the NGO's
and community groups participate in composting garbage over only a few hundred
households ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996).
In Andhra Pradesh, the municipal administration has contracted out solid waste collection to
women's groups formed under the government of India's Golden Jubilee Urban Employment
Program (SJSRY) ([45] Rao, 2000). This is a holistic approach whereby local communities
and government are participating to address environment and poverty issues together.
According to [38] Mahadevia (2004) such initiatives are rare.
In Kolkatta, created wetland lagoons are used to treat east Calcutta's sewage and
pisciculture is used to raise fish at one end of the system. The local association also runs a
composting operation and produces crops adjacent to the wetlands sewage treatment
system (see [22], [23], [24] Ghosh, 1990, 1993a, b).
Legal initiatives
Numerous Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been filed by individual citizens or citizen
groups seeking legal remedies for industrial pollution ([37] Mahadevia, 2003). The relocation
of 9.038 of the 100,000 industries in Delhi, ordered by the Supreme Court, is a landmark
judgment in response to a PIL ([51] Shrivastava, 1995). The Ganga Action Plan to the clean
the River Ganga is the result of a PIL filed in the 1980s.
In Kolkatta, a fishing cooperative, that has managed wetlands that recycle the city's waste
since 1961, filed and won a PIL to halt construction that was diminishing the size of the
wetlands - which also provide fish for the local population ([12] Development Associates,
1996). In addition, individual citizens have filed suits in the State High Courts and Supreme
Court of India against local urban bodies for neglecting mandatory responsibilities - such as
ensuring that industrial land use does not increase the incidence of pollution in city master
plans.
Environmental groups in Mumbai obtained an eviction order against squatters living in the
Borivali National Park, in an effort to protect the ecosystem. Having recourse to the law has
become a way of protecting the urban environment when government systems fail.
Biodiversity conservation in India
Approximately 5.3 percent of the total geographic area of the country has been earmarked
for extensive in situ conservation of habitats and ecosystems through a protection area
network of 89 national parks and 496 wildlife sanctuaries. The Central and State
governments together run and manage 33 botanical gardens. In addition, universities have
their own Botanical gardens. There are 275 centers of ex-situ wildlife preservation in the form
of zoos, deer parks, safari zoos, aquaria, etc. The government has set up a central zoo
authority to oversee, monitor and coordinate these centers. The Ministry of Forestry in
charged with implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
to manage biodiversity in India including the forestlands and biosphere reserves. It is known
that shortage of land and resources have resulted in man-forestland conflicts in some areas
of the country ([60] United Nations, 2002) such as Borivali National park mentioned above. It
is not known whether any biosphere reserves are within or adjacent to any of the five Indian
mega cities.
Community-based efforts
There has been a long history of community-based efforts in India to manage the urban
environment. One successful NGO experiment to manage solid waste disposal is Exnora in
Chennai. This started in 1989 when citizens, concerned with deteriorating environmental
conditions, drew up an action plan to collect garbage. New containers were placed in the
street and an awareness campaign was organized. The rag pickers, renamed city-beautifiers,
were given loans by Exnora to purchase tricycles for door-to-door garbage collection and
street cleaning. They received monthly salaries from the residents, from which they repaid
the loans. Today the city has 1,500 Exnora units, each serving 75,000 families or 450,000
people.
Many Exnoras have now branched into other environmental activities, such as monitoring
waterways, desilting canals, planting trees and harvesting rainwater. They also run
environmental education programs in schools and public information campaigns on the
environmental impacts of industrial development, upgrading slums and converting
degradable waste into compost. Exnora projects are multisectorial and address a wide range
of issues ([3] Anand, 1999).
Other cities have started similar activities. In Vadodara City in Gujarat, Baroda Citizens
Council, a local NGO, started garbage collection in 1992, engaging local unemployed young
people and rag pickers in garbage collection at a monthly salary of Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 ($7-
10) paid by the residents. Recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal, etc) is carried away by rag
pickers and sold. Degradable waste is composted and the rest is dumped as landfill. With the
support of USAID, this project has been extended to cover 20,000 households or 100,000
people ([9] Cherail, 1994). Similar experiments are being carried out in some areas of Delhi
with input from local NGO's such as Aatavarn (Environment) ([39] Malik, 1998)
Public participation process
In almost all successful cases mentioned above - whether that is Biodiversity Action Plans,
Biosphere Reserves, greenways restoration projects - the key in many cases is local activism
or leadership, which causes local NGO's to work with local government units to accomplish
mutual goals. Therefore a key to any process is a mutual visioning, goal setting which
continues through fact finding, action planning, implementation and monitoring. Such a
process can be found in successful Agenda 21plans, the Aalborg Charter Part III and the
greenway and river restoration plans mentioned above. Such a process is outlined in [56]
Smardon et al.(1995) for Protecting riparian resources and is outlined in a recent [64] US
Environmental Protection Agency (2002) compendium of public participation techniques.
Summary and conclusions
From an international perspective, the Convention on Biodiversity and Local Agenda 21have
been the two major driving forces for biodiversity within urban areas. In Europe, the Aalborg
Charter is providing a framework for combing the Convention plus Agenda 21for local
implementation. In many cases NGO's are working with local government in collaboration on
both sustainability and biodiversity planning efforts Such biodiversity reports posted on the
biodiversity web site: http://bch-cbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban.htm
In North America there is not as much activity on biodiversity assessment, but more research
activity in urban ecosystems including the two LTER sites in Baltimore and Phoenix as well
as other university research centers as previously outlined. There is considerable local grass
roots organizing activity by NGO's in Greenway development and river/stream restoration.
There is also activity in private natural area protection via local land trusts but little of this is
within urban areas.
India has a long history of grass roots participatory processes applied to poverty reduction,
water resource management, waste management and now energy/GHG management. There
is much to be learned from Asian cities, which have much denser urban populations and
more growth pressure. Innovative programs to elicit local cooperation have been developed
by Indian community based organizations for waste management ([52], [51] Shrivastava,
1990, 1995), aquaculture/agriculture (Ghate et al., 2001; [65] Verma and Singh, 1990; [66]
Vettivel, 1993), water management ([2] Ahmed, 2005) housing ([4], [5] Banerjee, 2002a, b)
and poverty reduction ([8] Chopra, 2000; [13] Devasia and Devasia, 1994; [33] Jain, 2006;
[67] Vivian, 1992).
In terms of urban ecosystem biodiversity research: protocols are being developed for
regional scale and sit scale assessment in Europe. LTER research in the USA is focused on
gradient and spatial analysis of biodiversity (among other variables) within urban
metropolitan areas (Baltimore, Phoenix, Houston and Seattle). There is assessment of the
role of urban biosphere Reserves at UNESCO and the Urban Working group (New York City
and Capetown, South Africa) There is continuing research on the role of urban vegetation
functions or urban/periurban forestry in the USA and northern Europe. In the USA and UK
current research is focused on ecological restoration techniques concurrent with
environmental cleanup. In India there is valuable research on participation process and
equity issues applied to sustainability implementation. In short, much is still to be done, but
there is some notable progress on the biodiversity action planning and research fronts.
ad hoc
A Symposium on Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment
Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes; Proceedings of the Symposium
Originally prepared as a keynote presentation for "Urban planning and environment:
strategies and challenges", 30-31 January, Elphinestone College, Mumbai, India
References
1. Alfonsen-Norodom, S., Lane, B.D. and Corry, M. (Eds) (2004), "Urban biosphere and
society: partnership for cities", Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1023.
2. Ahmed, S. (Ed.) (2005), Flowing Upstream Empowering Women through Water
Management Initiatives in India, Centre for Environmental Education, Ahmedabad and
Foundation Books, New Delhi.
3. Anand, P.B. (1999), "Waste management and Madras revisited", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-76.
4. Banerjee, B. (2002a), "Security and tenure in Indian cities", in Durand-Lasserve, A. and
Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in
Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 37-58.
5. Banerjee, B. (2002b), "Security of tenure of irregular settlements in Visakhaptnam", in
Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for
the Urban Poor in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 86-97.
6. Berkowitz, A.R., Hollweg, K.S. and Nilon, C.H. (2001), Understanding Urban Ecosystems:
A New Frontier for Science and Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
7. Bonnes, M. (2000), "The 'ecosystem approach' to urban settlements: 20 Years of the
'MAB-Rome Project'", paper presented at the first meeting of the MAB Working Group to
Explore the Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Urban Areas and their
Hinterlands at the 16th MAB International Coordinating Council, UNESCO, Paris.
8. Chopra, G. (2000), India: Policies to Reduce Poverty and Accelerate Sustainable
Development: Executive Summary, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC.
9. Cherail, K. (1994), "Haul your own garbage", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 8, p. 10.
10. Deason, J.P. (2001), "Passaic River restoration initiative: a new model for cleaning up
our nations contaminated urban rivers", in EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated
Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites, Alexandria, Virginia, May 30, 2001, Environmental and
Energy Management program, George Washington University.
11. Decker, E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R. and Rowland, F.S. (2000), "Energy and
material flow through the urban ecosystem", Annual Review Energy and Environment, Vol.
25, pp. 685-740.
12. Development Associates (1996), "NGOs/civic societies and urban environmental
advocacy", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental
Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi
and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam.
13. Devasia, L. and Devasia, V.V. (1994), Empowering Women for Sustainable
Development, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.
14. Di Castro, F. (1984), MAB, Rome, F. MABn. 11 Projects.
15. Douglas, I. (1983), The Urban Environment, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London.
16. European Commission (1990), "Windows on Europe. The spatial dimension", Green
Book on the Urban Environment, European Commission, Brussels, Chapter 12.
17. Fabos, J.G. and Ahern, J. (1996), Greenways: The Beginning of an International
Movement, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam.
18. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (2001), Stream
Corridor Restoration; Principles. Processes and Practices, GPO Item No, 120-A, Sup Docs
No. A57.6/2 EN 3 PT.653 ISBN-0-934213-09-3.
19. Firth, P. (2002), Urban Ecosystem 1: Cities are Urban Ecosystems available at:
www.sciencellinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=273.
20. Ghate, U., Nalawade, S. and Bhatt, S. (2001), "Urban havens: Nero's fiddle",
Earthscapes; The Hindu Folio, 20 May, 7 pp.
21. Gobster, P.H. (2003), "Human dimensions of urban ecosystems", USDA Forest Service
Research Station, Chicago available at: www.ecostudies.org/cary8/gobster/gobster/html.
22. Ghosh, A.K. (1990), "Biological resources of wetlands of East Calcutta, India", Journal of
Landscape and Ecological Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 10-23.
23. Ghosh, D. (1993a), "Uncertainty over Mudialy Nature Park in CPT wetlands near Brace
Bridge Railway Station", Environment, Vol. 1, p. 45.
24. Ghosh, D. (1993b), "Towards sustainable development of Calcutta wetlands, India", in
Davis, T.J. (Ed.), Towards Wise Use of Wetlands, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, pp.
107-12.
25. Gosiun, D.3. (2001), 3. The Brussels Capitol Region First National Report of Belgium to
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brussels Institute of the Environment, Brussels,
available at: www.bcdcbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/contribution/natiorep1/brussels.htm.
26. Gupta, R.C. (2006), "Environmental and infrastructural sustainability: major challenges
facing Indian metropolitan cities", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.), Sustainable Urban Development,
Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 3-11.
27. Hopkins, G. (1980), Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, 13-16
November, 1978, Washington DC, USDA Forest Service, Forestry Research, State and
Private Forestry, plus SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
ESF Publication 80-003,Vols I and II.
28. Hough, M. (1984), City Form and Natural Processes; Towards a New Urban Vernacular,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
29. Housing Settlement Management Institute (HSMI)/Waste Management Collection (WMC)
(1996), "City-wide best practices in solid waste management in collection, transportation and
disposal", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental
Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi
and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam.
30. ICLEI (1994), Charter of European Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability (The Aalborg
Charter) as approved by the participants of the European Conference on Sustainable Cities
and Towns (Aalborg, Denmark, May 27, 1994), available at:
www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER.htm.
31. ICLEI (1997), Local Agenda 21Survey; A Study of Response by Local Authorities and
Their National and International Associations with Agenda 21, ICLEI World Secretariat,
Toronto, available at: www.iclei.org.
32. ICLEI (2001), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 1 No. 1, p.
1.
33. Jain, A.K. (2006), "Urban issues and an agendafor the next century", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.),
Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 12-18.
35. Little, S. and Noyes, J.H. (1970), Trees and Forestry on Urbanizing Environment (August
18-21, 1970 University of Massachusetts), Planning and Resource Development Series No.
17, Holdsworth Natural Resource Center, Massachusetts Cooperative Extension.
36. Lyle, J.T. (1993), "Urban ecosystems; cities of the future", Designing a Sustainable
Future, available at: www.context.org/ICLIB/K35/Lyle.htm.
37. Mahadevia, D. (2003), Globalization, Urban Reforms and Metropolitan Response: India,
School of Planning, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad with
Manak Publications Ltd, New Delhi.
38. Mahadevia, D. (2004), "Sustainable urban development in India: an inclusive
perspective", in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), Unsustainable to Inclusive Cities, United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, pp. 57-85.
39. Malik, I. (1998), "Waste management in Delhi", Shelter, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 59-60.
40. Meier, B. (2002), City Streams: Trout Unlimited Urban Rivers Success Stories, Trout
Unlimited, Arlington, VA.
41. Miller, H.C. (Ed.) (1973), Proceedings Urban Forestry Conference, (March 12-15, 1973
SUNY/ESF), SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
42. Nilsson, K. and Randrop, T.R. (1997), "Urban and periurban forestry", in World Forestry
Congress, Antalya, Turkey 13-22 October 1997, Orman Bakanligi, pp. 97-113, available at:
www.fao.org/monyes/foda/wforcong/PUBLI/VI/T3E/1.htm.
43. Noyes, J.H. and Progulske, D.R. (1973), (27-29 November, 1973, Springfield, MA)
Planning and Resource Development Series No, 28, Holdsworth Natural Resources Center,
Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service.
44. Platt, R. (Ed.) (1994), The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Diversity,
University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
45. Rao, K.R. (2000), "Clean and green cities: participation of communities/neighborhood
committees", Shelter, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 50-3.
46. Riley, A.L. (1998), Restoring Streams in Cities; A Guide to Planners, Policy Makers and
Citizens, Island Press, Washington, DC.
47. Ryan, K.L. (1993), Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design and Management
Manual for Multiple Use Trails, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Island Press, Washington, DC.
48. Santamour, F.S. Jr, Gerhold, H.D. and Little, S. (1976), , held on 4-6 November at the US
National Arboretum, Washington DC. Northeast Fr. Exp. Stn, Upper Darby PA. USDA For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-22.
49. Serageldin, I. (1995), "The human face of the urban environment", in Serageldin, I.,
Cohen, M.A. and Sivaramkrishnan, K.C. (Eds), The Human Face of the Urban Environment,
Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable
Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 16-20.
50. Shah, K. (2003), "Agenda 21for sustainable construction in developing countries: The
Indian case", in Girard, L.F., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., de Torro, P. and Forte, F. (Eds), The
Human Sustainable City: Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate,
Hants UK and Burlington, VT, pp. 261-95.
51. Shrivastava, R. (1995), "A question of industry", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 23, pp. 18-19.
52. Shrivastava, R.C. (1990), "Wasteland development and people's participation: a case
study of the Patha area of Bundelkhand, U.P.", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and
Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 441-56.
53. Singh, R.B. (Ed.) (2006), Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing
Company, New Delhi.
54. Spiros, Z.A. (2006), Local to Global Links to Implement Agenda 21- the Local Agenda 21
Process, Sustainable Developments International, Division for Sustainable development
(DSD), UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, New York, NY, pp. 9-12.
55. Smardon, R.C. (1988), "Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: the role of
vegetation", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 16 No. 1988, pp. 85-106.
56. Smardon, R.C., Felleman, J. and Senecah, S. (1995), Protecting Floodplain Resources:
A Guidebook for Communities, The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
Force, US Gov. Print. Office FEMA 68.
57. Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (2004), "Towards sustainable cities", in
Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (Eds), Towards Sustainable Cities East Asian,
North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, Ashgate
Publishers, Burlington VT and Hampshire, pp. 3-23.
58. Spirn, A.W. (1984), The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design, Basic Books
Inc, New York, NY.
59. UNESCO-MAB (1998), Application of the Biosphere Reserve concept to Urban Areas
and their Hinterlands, UNESCO-MAB, Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves Fifth
Meeting, 7-10 July 1998, UNESCO HQ Room XIV.
60. United Nations (2002), Johannesburg Summit 2002: India Country Profile, United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development.
64. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002), Community Culture and the Environment: A
Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place, US EPA (EPA 842-B-01-003), Office of Water,
Washington DC.
65. Verma, S.S. and Singh, J.B. (1990), "Social forestry: a strategy for wasteland
development: a case study of Gorakhpur District", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and
Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 431-40.
66. Vettivel, S.K. (1993), "Community involvement in managing natural resources - the case
of Chilika Lagoon", in Vettivel, S.K. (Ed.), Participation in Sustainable Development; Theory
and Practice in Government and NGO's, Vol. Chapter 6, Vetri Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 83-
105.
67. Vivian, J.M. (1992), "Foundations for sustainable development: participation,
empowerment and local resource management", in Ghai, D. and Vivian, J. (Eds), Grassroots
Environmental Action - Peoples Participation in Sustainable Development, Routledge,
London.
70. ICLEI (2004), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 4 No. 1, p.
1.
100. Heisler, G. and Herrington, L. (Eds) (1977), Proceedings of the Conference on
Metropolitan Physical Environment, Northeastern Fr. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech.
Report, Upper Darby, PA.
Further Reading
1. Krishna, S. (1996), "The business of sustainable development", in Kishna, S. (Ed.),
Environmental Politics: Peoples Lives and Development Choices, Chapter 12, Sage
Publications India Printing Ltd, New Delhi, pp. 233-53.
2. UNU-IAS (2004), "Cities as drivers of sustainable development", World Urban Forum 2004
Networking Event Discussion Paper (17 September, 2004, Barcelona, Spain) UNU-IAS, 7pp.
3. UNU/IAS UNESCO/MAB (2002), "Urban ecosystem research and the millennium
ecosystem assessment: exploring the interlinkages", WHO Urban Ecosystems meeting 12-
15 March 2002 Salle XVI Bonum Building UNESCO 1, rue Miolles, Paris.
4. UN World Urban Forum (2002), Sustainable Urbanization: Achieving Agenda 21, United
Nations Habitat, Nairobi.
Appendix
About the author
Richard C. Smardon, PhD, Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, and Director,
Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute, SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210 USA. Richard can be contacted at: [email protected]
AuthorAffiliation
Richard C. Smardon, Department of Environmental Studies, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, USA
_______________________________________________________________ Indexing (details)
Subject Community support;
Comparative analysis;
Biological diversity;
Sustainable development;
Studies;
Urban areas
Location North America, Europe, India
Classification 9172: Canada, 9190: United States, 9130: Experimental/theoretical,
9179: Asia&the Pacific, 1540: Pollution control, 9175: Western Europe
Title A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American,
European and Indian cities
Author Smardon, Richard C
Publication title Management of Environmental Quality
Volume 19
Issue 1
Pages 118-137
Publication year 2008
Publication date 2008
Year 2008
Publisher Bradford
Publisher Emerald Group Publishing, Limited
Place of publication Bradford
Country of publication United Kingdom
Journal subject Occupational Health And Safety
ISSN 14777835
CODEN EMHEEB
Source type Scholarly Journals
Language of publication English
Document type Literature Review
Document feature References
Subfile Studies, Comparative analysis, Sustainable development, Biological
diversity, Community support, Urban areas
DOI 10.1108/14777830810840408
ProQuest document ID 204609797
Document URL http://210.48.222.80/proxy.pac/docview/204609797?accountid=44024
Copyright Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2008
Last updated 2010-06-07
Database 2 databases
-ProQuest Health&Medical Complete
-ProQuest Social Science Journals
<< Link to document in ProQuest
_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest 2011 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions