Rapidly growing cities and towns are faced with a range of developmental
choices that will shape their growth and long-term economic, social and
environmental sustainability. Many of these are complex choices with differing
short-term versus long-term cost and benefits. These choices are seldom determined
by individual actors or agencies, but emerge out of the complex interplay of decisions
made by a range of actors across national and local governments, investors and
entrepreneurs in the private sector, and a range of local community and civil
society voices. The outcome of one set of choices often influences outcomes in
other dimensions also, further increasing the complexity of the decision
processes and overall development pathways for cities. Some of the choices are
briefly described below, categorized under UNDP’s sustainable urbanization
approach –
Sustainability, Inclusiveness and Resilience.31
SUSTAINABILITY
Transportation and mobility systems Traffic is one of the major development problems of any
major city of the developing world and a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The
development options to ease traffic include mass transit public transport,
increased car-centric road transportation or shared economy solutions. Mass transit
public transport has higher up-front costs in terms of initial infrastructure investments and
service integration. with existing transport
options, although these costs can be mitigated through innovative approaches
such as bus rapid transit. Car-centric road transportation, on the other hand,
has lower up-front costs, as roads can be constructed and improved incrementally, as
exemplified by Dakar’s approach, which uses paving stones and small scale contractors for
road construction. Finally, there is a growing recognition of the potential
benefits of shared economy solutions such as carpooling and
bike schemes in Amsterdam and Copenhagen, in helping cities save costs and
protect the environment.
In many cities of the developing world, the default
choice has been expansion of the road network for cars. However, in the longer term,
investments in road building to reduce congestion induces more cars onto the road and
creates a cycle of car dependency that spurs urban sprawl. The lack of an
integrated and efficient public transport system, meanwhile,
severely hampers mobility and accessibility to social and economic activities
(particularly for those unable to afford private cars),
while also increasing pollution, traffic
hazards and costs to deliver public services. The
lower short-term costs of focusing on car-centric road transportation rather
than mass transit results in higher long-term. costs in gridlock, fossil fuel
dependence and pollution with its increased costs related to health care, and
consequently a decrease in productivity. The challenge for cities is to
overcome the short-term infrastructure investment costs of efficient mass transit
systems, which requires political will, effective planning and implementation
and access to suitable financing.
Energy systems
Cities face a trade-off in energy generation systems between options
that have lower up-front costs but are often polluting and inefficient (e.g.,
diesel generators and coalfired plants) and investments in renewable sources
(solar, wind or hydro) that may have higher capital costs but are less
polluting, produce fewer GHG emissions and often have lower life-cycle costs.
Energy efficiency measures in buildings, businesses and industries can provide
additional benefits including cost-savings and increased income. Sustainable
energy solutions can also contribute to other urban issues such as air quality,
waste management, more efficient transport, better health and safety. Developing
cities also face the choice to draw their energy production from a single energy
source or to develop more diversified energy systems, making them more
resilient to shocks such as natural disasters or sudden fuel price hikes.
These choices raise the question not just about the financial calculus
of these investments in sustainable and resilient energy systems, but also
about the added policy and technical complexity of planning for and instituting
municipal codes for energy efficiency and incentive mechanisms or policies for
renewable energy investments such as feed-in-tariffs. These complexities often
lead capacity-constrained developing countries to opt for well-tested solutions
such as grid systems and coal or diesel
power plants, even
when these have much higher total long-term costs. Yet, cities play a major role in transforming the current
energy systems towards
a more sustainable energy future, providing urban populations with access to affordable, reliable,
zero-carbon and climate resilient energy solutions.
Environmental protection
and waste management
Many developing countries cite the need to modernize at the cost of
environmental degradation. Pollution and water contamination and depletion may
be seen as necessary
side effects to rapid modernization, with the assumption that, once
cities become more developed, the rate of pollution and environmental destruction
will decrease and eventually recede. Public officials may be tempted to allow
pollution for immediate economic growth. However, this incurs long-term costs
for clean-up and remediation, as many developing
countries are now facing. Yet, cities also present unique opportunities for developing innovative
waste management such
as waste-to-energy technologies (e.g., methane from landfills), reusing and recycling as an economic
opportunity and ecosystem-based
sewage treatment. Solid waste
management measures including composting and generating energy from methane combustion can also
help reduce methane
emissions in landfills, increase forest carbon sequestration and contribute to overall reduction of
greenhouse gases.
INCLUSIVENESS
The geography of urbanization:
compact cities vs. sprawl
The spatial growth of cities can vary, depending on the policy choices
made by decision makers as well as variables such as the availability of cheap
land in surrounding areas. Older cities that developed before the advent of car
transportation tend to have more compact city centres. However, as cities have
grown over the last century, car ownership and the availability of cheap land
encouraged the development of cardependent suburbs.
In the short term, such urban sprawl was an attractive option for
municipal authorities due to the low costs of converting surrounding
agricultural land; the availability of more affordable housing; affordability of
automobile transportation due to low fuel costs; and the dispersion of
concentrated poverty, crime and associated social problems. In many instances,
however, these benefits mainly accrued to those who lived in those suburban communities, leading to crime and poverty being
concentrated in core
urban areas. Yet, relocation of low income groups away from inner city slums to the outskirts of the city
can reduce their access
to employment and livelihoods opportunities in the city centre, as has
occurred in Mumbai. In other cases, poverty ridden and
sometime ghettoized suburbs tend to be
hubs of social problems.
In other cities, the choice to invest in public transport
rather than car-centric road networks encouraged the development of more
compact cities, particularly when surrounding land was scarce. These compact cities
are more energy-efficient (due to lower per capita transportation costs and to
lower heating or cooling costs), encourage greater upward mobility as people from different economic strata mingle and
associate, and provide greater access to social services and employment.
Compact urban development also provides greater scope to maintain key ecosystem services
in surrounding hinterlands, such as watersheds for water supply and agricultural land for food to be grown for these cities.
Spatial equality and social equality
Cities are confronted with increased spatial inequalities within cities
and between cities. With rapidly growing populations and limited land, the
spatial planning choices cities make
can risk creating ‘ghettos’ of concentrated poverty, crime, unemployment
and limited basic services. Consequently, developing well-off neighbourhoods
can create gated communities that privatize the space they occupy and
exacerbate the socio-economic gaps between communities and disparities in
access to education, health and employment opportunities. Even where physically
gated communities are not in use, more
subtle forms of exclusion and inequality are evident. A recent analysis
demonstrated how poorer districts in Cairo receive proportionately lower per
capita local development budgets, despite demonstrating greater need for
service provision. In many developing countries, the links between periurban and
urban areas are important, where local landholders participate in subsistence activities
but try to utilize proximity to markets and services. These peri-urban areas are
often excluded from landuse planning and governance systems and present
significant challenges for poverty reduction and contribute to inequality.
Public space and land development
Countries urbanize to accommodate a growing population by building
sewage conduits, water pipes, optic fiber and electricity lines; increasing
security and fire fighters; and building and staffing local clinics and primary
schools. All of this is done in a much more extensive territory with a
proportionally much smaller fiscal base. Public space therefore remains an
important urban development choice in which officials must confront short-term
gains in economic growth from land development with long-term losses in social
inclusion of urban populations. Cities can be made more inclusive by choosing
to provide greater access to public spaces that offer opportunities for
interaction and would enhance the social and cultural development and
integration for families of various cultures and diverse backgrounds. These
long-term social development concerns are viewed with less importance when land
is initially developed to house much needed residential, commercial or
industrial properties.
Governance systems:
openness and participation
Developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions has
become a key target under SDG Goal 16, signalling the significance of a
functioning public service. The urban governance approach focuses not only on
the spatial boundaries (‘where’ governance systems are applied), but also on
‘how’ and ‘by whom’ governance and local development processes are promoted, such
as supporting the role of elected mayors. Such an approach would need to be
holistic and strongly risk-informed. It
also needs to consider the long-term climate change and disaster risks that cities are likely to be exposed to
and to envision a
role for municipal authorities and mayors as champions and facilitators of action rather than as reactive
administrators of change. Many
forward-thinking city leaders around the world are already shifting to such forms of governance, as has been
seen in cities as diverse
as Medellin in Colombia,40 Makassar in Indonesia41 and Seoul in South Korea.
The influence of economic actors such as outside investors and local
economic elites is
often disproportionately high in developing cities, where mechanisms for the countervailing voice of local
communities and
neighbourhoods are underdeveloped. Participatory governance systems are good for
long-term social cohesion and effective public service systems and challenge the capture, collusion and
influence of the political
system by elites. The compact size of cities makes the creation of mechanisms to promote collective action
and to institutionalize negotiations
between disparate societal
interests easier than is possible at the national level. Cities offer the greatest potential for the development
of inclusive institutions
for managing political conflict rather than suppressing it. They are critical spaces for institutionalized
forms of political debate
and participation.
Effective urban governance requires better integration
across the different levels of government policymaking processes. Greater decentralization
and devolution of power using multilevel governance approaches also increase
responsiveness and efficiency. Government agencies, in particular line ministries,
and other national actors, public and private, are implementing their
strategies and plans at local level, where policies meet people. Hence, government’s choice of policies, programmes and plans
should be based on people’s demand and coordinated across the different levels of
governance. It is also important to foster cooperation amongst actors that
operate at the local level, based on local demand. This helps to prevent the risk of fragmentation and
overlap of actions and
to build complementarities among actors and coherence between local
processes and national strategies.
Migration
Many developing cities continue to grapple with burgeoning migrant
populations from rural areas and foreign countries who move to cities in the
hope of finding greater opportunity and peaceful societies. Cities can integrate
these migrants and other minority
communities into the social fabric of a city or isolate them in camps,
temporary settlements or other transient arrangements. Urban migrants can
contribute greatly to the economic growth, cultural diversity, entrepreneurial culture
and economic dynamism of a city, providing long-term benefits that will often
outweigh the short-term costs of inclusion. Many major cities worldwide have benefited
from waves of migration, including global capitals such as New York, Hong Kong,
Berlin and Sydney.
Integration can pose huge challenges and opportunities. Inclusiveness is
particularly difficult in the contexts of crises and sudden massive
displacements, as seen with the Syrian crisis. Even where integration is
attempted, cities need to consider the obstacles that migrants face in finding
employment, learning the culture and language of their host country and
navigating public service systems. Any interventions to address these obstacles
need to be balanced by the sentiments of host communities, as they may feel threatened
by increased competition for social services and economic opportunity and might
view migrants as draining social
service programmes.
Job creation, informality
and entrepreneurship
Cities actively promote local economic development by creating
employment opportunities that build on the comparative advantages and unique
qualities of their localities. Some cities are hubs of innovation and
entrepreneurship, such as Bengalore, while others are centers of manufacturing,
such as Dhaka. In all instances, the choices cities make to create an enabling
environment for development and growth should depend on dialogue and
partnership among local-level stakeholders (e.g., employers, workers’
organizations, entrepreneur organization and informal workers), based on an understanding
of business opportunities and the labour environment to target skills training,
support local enterprises to thrive, and extend social security coverage to informal
workers.
In many places, the informal economy provides financial services and
social safety nets, for instance through moneylending, mutual savings groups
and informal and indigenous health care. Yet, some cities perceive informal
businesses such as street vendors, hawkers and streetside food stalls as nuisances
that disrupt orderly environments needed to encourage tourists and businesses to
invest. Others choose to recognize informal businesses as essential drivers of growth
and providers of goods and services, particularly for poor and working-class residents.
They also see these informal businesses as critical entry-points for the poor, migrants
and other marginalized groups to earn
livelihoods and assimilate into cities. The degree to which cities allow space for and encourage informality is
important to consider
when fostering a climate of entrepreneurship. Allowing space for informality encourages a business climate
that drives job
creation and innovation. Balancing the vibrancy and diversity of informal businesses against the need for structure
and efficiency is
a delicate choice that many growing cities grapple with.
RESILIENCE
Managing risk and
investing in resilience
Rapid growth often results in development on hazard-prone sites
(coastlines, river beds, hill-slopes), which increases exposure and
vulnerability to climate and disaster risk. Vulnerability to climate and
disaster risks in urban areas is also shaped by socioeconomic
variables like poverty, security of tenure, access to social safety
nets, livelihoods and ecosystem services, and other inequities. Decisions to
integrate measures such as disaster risk management and climate change
adaptation into national development planning are critical for cities to build
sustainability and resilience against future climate and disaster risks.
Cities must institute effective planning and administrative systems to
avoid continued development on these vulnerable and disaster-prone areas and
the pressure for land for growing populations. Informal settlers often settle
on these locations, causing other policy challenges related to relocation, compensation
and the use of these informal settlements as political bargaining chips. Cities
must also contend with the short-term vs. the longer-term disaster risk
management strategies. The short-term responses such as better building codes
and emergency action plans are most often not well integrated into long-term
disaster risk strategies. Many local governments in developing cities are limited
by financial or technical know-how in administering effective building codes and
zoning regulations.
Urban conflict, violence and crime
Political violence and civil wars increasingly ignite in cities, as they
are the locus of political
and economic power and social tensions and inequalities. Refugees and
internally displaced persons (IDPs) are increasingly drawn to cities and towns,
where they seek better access to basic services and livelihood opportunities.
In a context where national structures and authorities cease to operate
or become too fragile and weak, local-level structures and municipal
administrative systems can be the only means to reach out to local communities.
In Bogota and Medellin, urban violence has been reduced due to better urban governance
policy choices, in particular through their ability to establish inclusive coalitions
between elites and popular groupings. The choice to engage at this level, though,
needs to be done in a risk-informed and conflict-sensitive manner so as to
avoid doing harm to local communities.
CONCLUSION
The choices and dimensions above are complex in and of themselves.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that these choices or development pathways
are interconnected in multiple ways. For example, whether cities develop in
smart, compact ways or through suburban sprawl depends in part on the
availability of efficient public transport infrastructure (which encourages compact
development around public transportation hubs) or on whether transportation is
car-dependent, which allows for and encourages sprawl. This also links to the
issue of spatial inequality, livability and hence potential to attract
entrepreneurs and inbound investment. Hence, decisions around infrastructure
drive the degree to which inequality and pockets of poverty may arise,
affecting in turn outcomes in economic development, social cohesion, conflict
and crime.
Source:
Development Choices: Sustainable Development Trajectories for Rapidly Growing
Cities. SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION STRATEGY: UNDP’s Support to
Sustainable, Inclusive and Resilient Cities in the Developing World. United
Nations Development Programme 2016
