ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES FOR CITIES ________________________________________ • Why is there so much attention on improving the urban environment? • What are key urban environmental problems? • Who suffers? Identifying the vulnerable groups. • Extracted from: DANIDA Workshop Papers: Improving the Urban Environment and Reducing Poverty; December 5, 2000; Copenhagen, Denmark. Why is there so much attention on improving the urban environment? Urban environmental issues are receiving more attention in the international development arena for several reasons: • The world is urbanizing, and will continue to do so. • The number of poor people living in urban areas has been underestimated in the past and is growing rapidly. • This poverty is exacerbated by environmental threats that account for a large share of ill-health, early deaths and hardship particularly in low-income cities and neighborhoods. • Urban consumption and production patterns contribute much to global and regional environmental burdens. • Some of the worst sites of ecological distress are found in and around cities. • Better urban environmental management is possible, while preventing urbanization is rarely either possible or even desirable. In short, it would seem that helping cities to address their environmental problems can meet both poverty and sustainability goals, thereby contributing to sustainable development. This justification for giving a greater priority to urban environmental improvement assumes a relatively broad definition of urban environmental problems and a balanced strategy for addressing them. It depends on addressing a wide range of environmental problems. An emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not reduce poverty, since global warming does not, at least as yet, contribute to a significant share of poverty and ill-health in low-income cities. An emphasis on healthier sanitation in low-income neighbourhoods, on the other hand, will not reduce regional and global environmental burdens, since bad sanitation affects mainly people living in the vicinity. And neither will it do much to address the worst sites of ecological distress which, typically, involve industrial pollution of air and waterways. Caracas, Venezuela. Urbanization is a key component in environmental issues. What are key urban environmental problems? Problems can be defined in different ways, as well as their operational implications, especially for development assistance. Often, very broad definitions are used to justify assistance for addressing urban environmental issues, while most internationally sponsored urban environment initiatives conform to a far narrower definition. The following anthropocentric definition is proposed as a workable compromise: Threats to present or future human well-being, resulting from human-induced damage to the physical environment, originating in or borne in urban areas. There is little coherence in how international agencies and others define the urban environment and identify its critical problems. (See: Defining urban environmental problems). However, several factors skew the operational definition of environment away from many of the central environmental concerns of the urban poor. (See: The urban environment in international development assistance). A summary table shows the range of city-related environmental hazards by scale and type. (See: Summary Table). Who suffers? Identifying the vulnerable groups. Low-income residents tend to be among the most vulnerable to exposure, the most susceptible when they are exposed, and the least able to cope with the consequences. Certain sub-groups are especially at risk, including children, women and some occupational groups. Generally low-income groups in cities suffer the most in terms of ill-health, injury and premature death caused by environmental hazards. They are the least able to afford accommodation that protects them from environmental risks – that is, good quality housing in neighbourhoods with piped water and adequate provision for sanitation, garbage collection and drains – and have the least resources to cope with illness or injury when they occur. Also, they generally have the least political power to demand that these problems be addressed. For instance: • Their houses and neighborhoods are the worst served with water, sanitation, garbage collection, paved roads and drains. This can be seen in the scale of the differentials between wealthy and poor areas in environmental hazards, in access to public services and in health indicators. Infant or child mortality rates in poorer areas of cities are often four or more times those in richer areas, with much larger differentials apparent if the poorest district is located near low-income settlements. • It is generally poorer groups who live in the places where the pollution levels are worst; they often choose to live in such places as these are the only locations where they can find affordable land for their housing, close to sources of employment. There is also the tendency for polluting industries, waste dumps and waste management facilities to concentrate in low-income neighborhoods. • It is generally poorer groups who suffer most from floods, landslides or other disasters because housing and land markets price them out of the safe, well-located areas. Thus, they occupy the most hazardous sites, often not planned for residential settlement, and with little investment in either infrastructure to mitigate the impact or in disaster preparedness to limit the health and other impacts when disasters occur. • Low-wage jobs often expose workers to a range of environmental hazards that threaten their health and well-being. Thus, street vendors are exposed to high levels of vehicular pollution, waste pickers are exposed to hazardous materials, and cramped and crowded working conditions can create a wide range of environmental risks. Four issues are explored further: vulnerability and susceptibility; vulnerability to disasters; reducing vulnerability; and strengthening asset bases. • • . • Is urban development an environmental blessing or a curse? • Is urban poverty a cause or consequence of environmental problems? • Is the ‘Green Agenda’ appropriate in poor cities? How to reconcile conflicting priorities? • Why do rural-urban linkages matter? • What can governments do? Good governance for good environments – I. • What can civil society do? Good governance for good environments – II. • What can the public-private sector do to improve environmental services? • What can the private sector do for ecological sustainability? | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ________________________________________ Interactive Community Planning Schweizer-Reneke Case Example Source: Action Planning for Cities. Hamdi, Nabeel and Reinhard Goethert. 1997. John Wiley & Sons. Case files, pp. 223-246. Note: other examples of participatory planning in both developed and developing countries are also included in the Case Files chapter. This 10-step approach is drawn from a field workshop in the Schweizer-Reneke community of South Africa, April 1995. It details the steup required and the day-by-day activites in participatory planning. ________________________________________ Preparation for Workshop: Workshop Checklist Participants: • Are there representatives reflecting the range of families in the community: the old, the young, men and women, as well as the leaders? • Are government representatives drawn from the various departments involved in the community: water and sanitary engineers, road engineers, health workers, local teachers, elected representatives? • Are NGOs, both local and from the outside included? What/how could they contribute? • And do not forget: who will be the moderator? Arrangements with community: • Has the community been made aware of the objectives and the program of the workshop beforehand? • Is the community clear about the purpose and expected outcome? • Is their a strong commitment by the community and the other participants? • Make sure that the expectations are not out of hand and unrealistic. Workshop location, equipment, and materials: • Find suitable location well before workshop - make sure space is large enough for expected attendance. • Ideally the workshop should be on-site, and not in office remote from issues. This allows instant checking of the situation during the discussions. • Make sure that there is sufficient wall space for hanging charts and worksheets. • Make sure you have necessary materials on-hand: - ‘Flip-chart’ paper - lots! Any large sheets of paper are OK: wrapping paper, etc. - Handouts: overview of schedule - Markers, crayons, etc. of different colors - 4 kinds? - Tape or pins to attach charts to wall - Sufficient tables or chairs for participants - Base plan of area, and any other information useful to discussions as resource - Perhaps a folder for each participant with paper, pencil schedule, small base plan, etc. - Maybe a camera to document workshop - And last, perhaps a bell or whistle to call the sessions to order! • Arrange for drinks, snacks, and if needed lunches. Maybe ask the community to provide this? Managing the workshop: • A higher level authority person should open the workshop to give legitimacy to the sessions and to address the dynamics of city politics. • Encourage participants to organize a final day event; i.e., reception, dinner, entertainment, etc. • Ensure that invitations to guests for the final day - and perhaps the first day - are prepared and sent out in a timely fashion. Those guests who attend the opening should attend the closing to see the outcome. • If workshop has a parallel training objective, consider and arrange for certificates if appropriate, • Participants should be led to discover for themselves: do not force ideas. They should not be prescribed by the moderator. • Participants should be encouraged to perceive problems, issues, and solutions through the eyes of the various actors with whom they will deal with when undertaking the tasks. Role playing is a very useful technique in this respect. • Local people have a better understanding of local issues than experts from the outside. Keep this in mind during the discussions and encourage local participants to express their ideas. • Each session should start with a summary of the previous days activities and with an outline of what is to come. • Each day should end with a summary of the days activities. Remember: 1 - Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2 - Tell it to them. 3 - Tell them what you told them. • Adhere to schedules, but be flexible enough to incorporate new ideas or to spend additional time where it may be needed. • Illustrate issues and points with concrete examples which participants can identify. Summarize what you have said several times to make sure people have understood. Repeat entire sessions if needed. Try “mini-exercises” if needed to clarify issues. • Point to charts when you talk about them: place charts in a visible place and easy to reach. • Go around and see how people are getting on during the workshop. Remind people of what they are doing. • Be sure someone knows how to change bulbs in projectors and overheads if you are using them. • Keep breaks (tea, lunch, etc.) short. It is better to finish the day early than to extend to extend breaks, or to fill in time. • During discussions or participant responses, ensure that only one discussion is being conducted at any one time. • Avoid abstract diagrams or ideas. • Control wandering of participants during presentations and discussions. Make a Timetable • A detailed hour-by-hour schedule is necessary for the workshop. • First make a general outline, then the detailed activities. • A helpful framework is as follows: Phases Tasks Outputs ________________________________________ SETTING IT UP Plan Workshop WORKSHOP CHECKLIST Time Goals Activity Arrangement ________________________________________ Stage I: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION WHAT DO YOU NEED Identify Larger Area Problems and Opportunities CHART 1 Problems Opportunities Why To Whom Undertake Community Survey Survey Information Identify Community Problems and Opportunities CHART 2 Problems Opportunities Why To Whom Determine Goals and Priorities (On Chart 2) Now Soon Later ________________________________________ Stage II: STRATEGIES, OPTIONS AND TRADEOFFS HOW TO GET WHAT YOU NEED Allocate Resources CHART 3 Proposals Relative Costs Resources Identify Proposals CHART 4 Do Ourselves Need Help Done by Others ________________________________________ WHAT GETS IN YOUR WAY Identify Constraints CHART 5 Technical Organizational Political Financial Human Resources Review Sequence of Proposals (On Chart 5) Now Soon Later ________________________________________ Stage III: PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION BUILDING A PLAN OF ACTION Identify Proposal/Tasks CHART 6 Tasks Partners Funding Sources Develop Schedule CHART 7 Steps Time Design Proposals CHART 8 Preliminary Sketches GETTING PROJECTS GOING Identify Project Teams CHART 9 List of Members Decide Immediate Task CHART 10 Key Steps ________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL-LEAD PLANNING ________________________________________ LEAP Local Environmental Action Plan Source: Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in Urban Design. Josef Leitmann. 1999. McGraw-Hill. See Chapter 5 for full explanation of approach. Table of Contents INFORMED CONSULTATION - Clarify issues - Involve stakeholders - Set priorities & objectives LEAP FORMULATION - Identify options - Develop strategies - Prepare action plans LEAP IMPLEMENTATION - Initiate projects, policies, & programs - Institutionalize the process - Monitor & evaluate. TOOLS: For Collection Contingent Valuation ________________________________________ Targeted Use This is both an economic tool and community analysis tool. It is considered most useful during the strategy development phase, where it is often used in deciding how much to charge for a good or service. It is a part of a family of tools that addresses issues of benefits not traded in markets; for example, environmental quality and historic cities. The method attempts to link planning options to their affordability, thus allowing more realistic choices. It is useful for determining pricing of services related to the standard provided. Description of technique The approach is based on interviews with a representative sample group in an area. The interview consists of: 1 - A detailed description of the good(s) being valued and the hypothetical circumstance under which is is made available to the respondent. A market model is constructed in great detail which is communicated in the form of a scenario that is read by the interviewer during the course of the interview. The market is designed as plausible as possible: it describes the good to be valued, the baseline level of provision, the structure under which the good is to be provided, the range of available substitutes, and the method of payment. Respondents are usually asked to value several levels of provision. 2 - Questions which bring out the willlingness to pay for the good to be provided. 3 - Questions about the respondent characteristics (for example: age, income), their preference relevant to the good(s) being valued, ad their use of the good(s). This information is then generalized for a representative group of people. Limitations Theresults are dependent on respondents understanding and being able to visualize the circumstance of the good being considered. Some argue that it results in individual rather than social evaluations about the importance of different options, and that it can only be used for environmental goods and services that can be charged for. ________________________________________ Sample survey (From: Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Carson, Richard T. 1989. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Pp 4-5.) This is what the interviewer would say: (Note: the survey has been shortened, and not all the questions have been included) “This research is designed to more closely examine some of the trade-offs between industrial development, recreation, and the environment in the Lake Powell area. In connection with these objectives, I would like to ask you a few questions to see how you feel about environmental quality and its future in this area. There are plans to construct a large electric generating plant north of Lake Powell. This plant is expected to be at least as large as the Navajo Plant on the south side of the lake. Have you noticed the Navajo Plant or its smokestacks? _____ Yes ____No Depending on exactly where and how a new plant is constructed, it could have a significant effect on the quality of the environment. If the plant is built near the lake, it could be visible for many miles up and down the lake. If air pollution is not strictly controlled, visibility in the area may be significantly affected. These photographs (interviewer shows photographs) are designed to show how a new powerplant on the north side of the lake might appear. Situation A shows a possible plant site but assumes that the powerplant would be built at some distant location, not visible from the lake area. In situation B the powerplant is easily seen from the lake, but emits very little smoke; visibility is virtually unaffected. Situation C is intended to show the situation with the greatest impact on the environment of recreationists in the area. It is easily seen from the lake, and the smoke substantially reduces visibility. Vacationers, of course, spend considerable amounts of money and time and effort to equip themselves with vehicles, boats, camping, and fishing gear, and for traveling to the destination of their choice. It is reasonable to assume that the amount of money you are willing to spend for a recreational experience depends, among other things, on the quality of the experience you expect. An improved experience would be expected to be of greater value to you than a degraded one. Since it does cost money to improve the environment, we would like to get an estimate of how much a better environment is worth to you. First, let’s assume that visitors to the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area are to finance environmental improvements by paying an entrance fee to be admitted into the recreation area. This will be the only way to finance such improvements in the area. Let’s also assume that all visitors to the area will pay the same daily fee as you, and all the money collected will be used to finance the environmental improvements shown in the photos. Would you be willing to pay a $1.00 per day fee to prevent Situation C from occurring, thus preserving Situation A? $2.00 per day? (increment by $1.00 per day until a negative response is obtained, then decrease the bid by 25 cents per day until a positive response is obtained, and record the amount.) _________$/day Would you be willing to pay a $1.00 per day fee to prevent Situation B from occurring, thus preserving Situation A? (repeat bidding procedure) (Answer only if a zero bid was recorded for either question above.) Did you bid zero because you believe that: ________ the damage is not significant ________ it is unfair or immoral to expect the victim of the damage to have to pay the costs of preventing the damage ________ other ________________________________________ Resources Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Carson, Richard T. 1989. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. The Action Cycle Adapted from: Toward Environmental Strategies for Cities: Policy Considerations for Urban Environmental Management in Developing Countries. Bartone, Carl, Bernstein, Janis, Leitmann, Joset and Jochen Eigen. 1994. Urban Management Program, The World Bank. Pp 39-40. ________________________________________ Entry Points for Action HUMAN ACTIVITIES IMPACTS/CAUSES STRATEGIES RAPID URBAN GROWTH • Rapid uncontrolled growth of urban areas, particularly low income. INSUFFICIENT LAND AND HOUSING SUPPLY • Insufficient serviced land and shelter. • Poorly functioning urban land and housing market • Over-regulated prices • Lack of affordable housing for poor. PROPERTY RIGHTS/MORTGAGES/ REGULATIONS • Reform property rights • Develop mortgage financing • Introduce affordable standards and target subsidies to the poor • Reduce unneeded regulations, government interventions and subsidies. RAPID DEMAND FOR SERVICES • Rapid increase of demand for services: water supply, sanitation, drainage, solid waste collection, and transport; both in quantity and quality INABILITY TO PROVIDE BASIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES • Domination of supply by government monopoly • Prices heavily regulated • Heavy subsidies DEMAND MANAGEMENT/SUBSIDY REFORM/DECENTRALIZATION • Introduce pricing and demand management • Reduce subsidies • Move toward decentralization, privatization, participation UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT POLLUTED WATER AND ENVIRONMENT • Uncontrolled municipal and industrial discharges • Excessive water use and waste generation • Failure to link water quantity and quality issues CHARGES/SUBSIDIES/ PLANNING • Introduce water pricing and effluent charges • Subsidize sewage treatment Strengthen regulations and capacity for monitoring and enforcement • Prepare comprehensive basic plans INCREASED TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY USE AIR POLLUTION • Increased motorization and transport congestion • Polluted ambient and indoor air • Energy supply side dominated by government monopoly • Heavy energy subsidies • Household and cottage industry use of low-quality fuels PRICING STRATEGIES/ PLANNING/SUBSTITUTIONS • Introduce energy and fuel pricing, road charges, emissions charges • Reduce automobile subsidies, fuel subsidies • Integrate transport and land use planning • Promote clean technologies, fuel substitution, vehicle maintenance INCREASE OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE POLLUTION OF LAND AND AIR • Poor municipal management • Lack of disposal facilities • Inadequate regulation and enforcement REGULATIONS/REDUCTION/ MANAGEMENT/PRIVATIZATION • Introduce regulations, licensing and charges • Simulate waste minimization • Strengthen municipal management operations • Privatize disposal operations OVERUSE OF WATER GROUND WATER DEPLETION • Unsustainable extraction linked to unclear property rights and treatment as free resource PROPERTY RIGHTS/CHARGES • Clarify property rights • Introduce extraction charges SQUATTER DEVELOPMENT ON FRINGES OF URBAN AREAS LAND AND ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION • Low income settlements “pushed” onto fragile lands by lack of access to affordable serviced lands • Lack of controls over damaging economic activities COORDINATE/REMOVE SHORTAGES/MONITOR AND ENFORCE • Coordinate land development • Remove artificial shortages of land • Develop sustainable uses of sensitive areas • Monitor and enforce land use controls ENCROACHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC AREAS Loss of cultural and historic property • Lack of property rights, regulations, enforcement, maintenance • Failure to reflect social values in land prices INCENTIVES/REGULATIONS/ PROPERTY RIGHTS • Introduce tax incentives for preservation • Use redevelopment planning, zoning, and building codes • Develop property rights LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IN DEVELOPMENT Natural and man-made hazards HIGH-RISK AREAS WITH SEVERE AFFECTS FROM DISASTERS • Poorly functioning land markets • Ineffective land policies • Poor construction practices •Inadequate regulation and enforcement • Low-income settlements alongside hazardous activities ENABLEMENT/DISINCENTIVES/ ENFORCEMENT/PREPAREDNESS • Enable land markets • Provide disincentives to occupation of high-risk areas, incentives for using disaster-resistant construction techniques • Introduce and enforced environmental zoning • Formulate urban disaster preparedness plans and strengthen response capacity | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | ________________________________________ A number of approaches are available to the practitioner in developing strategies. An appropriate process takes into consideration scale of intervention, level of action and impacts anticipated, and the stakeholders involved. In many cases indviduals are also involved as key actors in addressing environmental issues. It is noted that the basic steps or phases are largely similar, and the key difference is the manner in which it is executed - defining the problem, collecting information, setting priorities, implementing program - and its emphasis. Examples are shown for both types of approaches. Scale of Action and Planning Strategies PARTICIPATORY PLANNING Click for Example: MicroPlanning Click for Examples: Strategic Planning Guide LEAP - Local Environmental Action Plan PROFESSIONAL - LEAD PLANNING | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | This section summarizes key tools available to the environmental practitioner. Tools are arranged into four sections: 1. Introduction 2. For collection 3. For analysis 4. For management and finance Introduction • Developing appropriate tools For Collection • Data questionnaires • Household surveys - Random sample surveys - Open-ended surveys • Participatory techniques: involving stakeholders - Stakeholder engagement techniques - Participatory urban environmental assessment - Contingent Valuation - Worksheet: Indentifying Stakeholders • Geographic information systems For Analysis • Health profiles • Indicators • Ecological footprints • Environmental profiles • Comparative risk assessment • Urban environmental impact assessment • Urban environmental profiles For Management and Financing • Roles of stakeholders: residents, NGOs, CBOs, government • Integrated management systems • Environmental regulations and standards • Zoning • Pricing/use • Sector management: transport, utilities • Public awareness • Proactive - reactive regulations | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | At present only the Solid Waste sector contains content. Click on the Solid Waste link or its photo to go to that sector. ________________________________________ Water Sanitation Solid Waste Health Energy Transportation Urbanization | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | ________________________________________ Overview In all communities people generate waste, At the most basic level these consist of food waste, animal manure, ashes, broken tools and utensils, and old clothing. In an agricultural society this waste is readily absorbed in the natural cycle. However urbanization and industrial development have rapidly increased the diversity as well as the quantity of wastes. Indicators The volume of waste varies whether it is urban or rural, income, stage of development of the country and region. In Asia, about 90% of solid waste is collected in high income countries, versus 50-80% in middle income and 30-60% in low income countries. The composition of waste generated varies according to the source. Sources to be considered include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, construction and demolition, municipal services (street cleaning, water treatment plants), and from manufacturing processes. In general, the trend is that waste generation per person in high-income countries is much lower than in lower-income countries. However, as incomes increase, the amount of waste increases. Waste from high-income countries is less dense from more packaging and lighter materials being discarded, and has less food waste. Impacts Many current problems with waste have resulted from increased urban populations. Problems are often exacerbated because of limited resources and low professional status of waste workers. Failure of an effective approach results in wastes dumped along roads, riverbanks, abandoned quarries, with the inevitable effect of contaminating water supplies as well as the whole aquatic chain. Animals grazing on dumps can pass on diseases via the food chain. People living near dumps are also at risk. Air pollution is another factor to be considered. Strategies An integrated strategy on waste management is the fundamental goal for collection and disposal. The focus should be on collection in low income and high density areas. The least technically complex and most cost-effective solution should be chosen. Municipal governments are usually the responsible agency, but other collection means should not be discounted, for example, informal waste pickers. Behavior modification of the general community is an essential component of any solution. Separation of waste for efficacious recycling and environmentally friendly purchasing habits are two areas for effective management. Open dumping is mistakenly believed to be the cheapest method of disposal. Only when landfills can isolate waste from the environment is it considered safe. Composting is an option but generally unsuccessful at a larger scale in middle and low income countries. It can be useful at the ‘backyard’ scale and in large facilities in higher income countries. Incineration not generally common, but used in areas of high land costs. Costs tend to be inversely related to income: in low income countries, often 80-90 percent of the a municipal budget goes to collection of waste. In high income countries, less than 10 percent is for collection, and waste treatment facilities represent the highest cost component. Collection of fees to cover costs vary from direct charges to users to incorporation into a general overall tax. Collection can be problematic and must be carefully studied. The basis for assessing costs to users should be based on waste generated. Initiation of fees should start with the business community. Quality of service desired and a general environmental health concern should feature in the fee structure. Private sector involvement should be encouraged. Commercial, institutional, and industrial waste collection can usually be self-financing, and here the private often plays a role. Waste should be also seen as a ‘resource’ and not just a problem. Regional approaches should also be considered. See also: Strategic Planning Guide for Municipal Solid Waste Management. A download which highlights a 7-step process of planning through to implementation of solid waste management at the local and regional levels. (pdf files, totalling over 50MB - these files are only available on the Environmental Strategies CD and not on the web site.) | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | The sections may be accessed directly by clicking on the green and white arrow. ________________________________________ Glossary Words of particular relevance to environmental strategies for cities. ________________________________________ Abbreviations Short forms of words or phrases of particular relevance to urban environmental issues. ________________________________________ References Contains a listing of key books and reports and their Table of Contents. References may be accessed in three ways by topic, title, and when using search, by author or title. General References Key Issues and Sectors Basic Services Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid and Hazardous Waste Land and Ecosystems Environmental Hazards Global Environmental Challenges Tools Handbooks Journals, Magazines, Newsletters ________________________________________ Web Sites Contains a listing of key web sites that offer information for environmental strategies for cities. Environmental Links Databases Organizations Undefined open space invariably becomes a dumping ground. (Jordan) ________________________________________ Organizations Contains a brief description of key international, professional, and government organizations involved in urban environmental issues. Each listing contains a brief summary of the support they are able to provide and their contact information, and their website and e-mail address if available. ________________________________________ Examples Examples are selected to illustrate specific issues and provide insights for strategic project and program planning and development. | ISSUES | FRAMEWORK | STRATEGIES | TOOLS | SECTORS | RESOURCES | | SITE MAP | QUICK ENTRY | HOME | INTRODUCTION | SEARCH | | CONTRIBUTIONS | ‘Must read’ are indicated by and include a copy of the Table of Contents or the Abstract. ________________________________________ Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in Urban Design. Leitmann, Josef. 1999. McGraw-Hill. (Table of Contents.) 1001 Terms in Solid Waste Management. Ed: Skitt J. 1992. International Solid Waste Association. Copenhagen, Denmark. World Without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable Development. Pearce, David, and Jeremy Warford. 1995. Oxford University Press, New York. Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanization. Pugh, Cedric (ed.) 1996. Earthscan Publications, London. ‘Must read’ are indicated by and include the Table of Contents or the Abstract. Selected references are available as PDF downloads and are indicated by the phrase: (PDF download available). Basic Services Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid and Hazardous Waste A Gestão do Resíduos Sólidos em Belo Horizonte (The management of solid waste in Belo Horizonte). Tavares-Campos, H.T. and Abreu, M. 1996. In: Memorias Tecnicas, XXV Congreso Internacional de AIDIS, Mexico. Assessment of investments in solid waste management: Strategies for urban environmental improvement. Gopalan, P. and Bartone, C. 1997. Transport, Water & Urban Development Department Discussion Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Composting and its Applicability in Developing Countries. Hoornweg, D., Thomas, L. and Otten, L. 2000. Urban and Local Government Working Paper Series No. 7, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-income Countries. Schubeler, P. et al. 1996. Urban Management Programme Working Paper No. 9, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Decision Makers’ Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. Haukohl, J.; Rand, T.; and Mr. U. Marxen. 1999. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 20. (PDF download available) Guidance Note on Landfill Siting. Johannessen, L.M. (in press). Urban and Local Government Working Paper Series, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Guidance Note on Recuperation of Landfill Gas from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Johannessen, L.M. 1999b. Urban and Local Government Working Paper Series No. 4, The World Bank, Washington, DC. (PDF download available) Guidance Note on Leachate Management for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Johannessen, Lars Mikkel. 1999. Working Paper Series No. 5. Urban Development Division, Urban Waste Management Thematic Group. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 22. Health Care Waste Management Guidance Note. Johannessen, Lars Mikkel; Dijkman, Marleen; Bartone, Carl; Hanrahan, David; Boyer, M. Gabriela; and Chandra, Candace. May 2000. Urban Development Division, Infrastructure Group, Environment Department and Health, Nutrition and Population Team. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 64. Investments in Solid Waste Management: Opportunities for environmental improvement. Bartone, C.R., Bernstein, J. and Wright, F. 1989. Policy, Research and External Affairs Working Paper No. 405, World Bank, Washington, DC. Methodological Guidelines for Sectorial Analysis in Solid Waste: Preliminary Version. Pan American Health Organization. 1995. PIAS Technical Report Series No. 4, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. 1999. The World Bank Technical Guidance Report. Washington, D.C. Pp. 112. (PDF download available) Municipal Solid Waste Management: Involving Micro- and Small Enterprises - Guidelines for municipal managers. Haan, H.C., Coad, A. and Lardinois, I. 1998. International Training Centre of the ILO, SKAT, WASTE, Turin, Italy. Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in Developing Countries: Africa, Asia and Latin America. Johannessen, Lars Mikkel and Boyer, Gabriela. 1999. Working Paper Series No. 3. Urban Development Division, Waste Management Anchor Team. The World Bank. Washington, D.C. Pp. 41. (PDF download available) Solid Waste Landfills: Decision-Makers’ Guide Summary. Thurgood, Maggie. 1999(?) Joint publication of the World Bank, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, and the Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT). Washington, D.C. and Copenhagen, Denmark. Pp. 31. (Table of Contents) Planning Guide for Strategic Municipal Solid Waste Management in Major Cities in Low-income Countries. Environmental Resources Management 1998. Draft report prepared for Transport, Water & Urban Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC. Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management. Cointreau, S. 1994. Urban Management Programme Technical Paper No. 13, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management: Guidance Pack (5 Volumes). Cointreau, S., Gopalan, P. and Coad, A. 2000. SKAT, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Service: Experiences in Latin America. Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T. and Schertenleib, R. 1991. Waste Management & Research, 9(6):495-509. Safe Management of Wastes from Health-care Activities. Prüss, A., Giroult, E. and Rushbrook, P. 1999. World Health Organization, Geneva. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower-income Countries: A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Preparation. Rushbrook, P. and Pugh, M. 1999. World Bank Technical Paper No. 426, Washington, DC. Solid Waste Management in Latin America: The Role of Micro- and Small Enterprises and Cooperatives. Arroyo-Moreno, J., Rivas-Rios, F. and Lardinois, I. 1999. IPES-ACEPESA-WASTE Urban Waste Series No. 5, Lima, Peru. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower- Income Countries: A Technical Guide to Planning, Design, and Operation. Rushbrook, Philip and Pugh, Michael. 1999. World Bank Technical Paper Technical Paper No. 426. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 248. What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Hoornweg, Daniel, with Thomas, Laura. 1999. Working Paper Series No. 1. Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pp. 43. (PDF download available) Summary: Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: Requirements for a Successful Project. Haukohl, J.; and U. Marxen. Summary of full report. World Bank Technical Paper No. 462. The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 14 pages. (Full report: 103 pages) Workshop report. International Workshop on Micro and Small Enterprises Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste Management, Cairo, Egypt, 14-18 October 1996. Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT), St. Gallen, Switzerland. Workshop report. International Workshop on Municipal Solid Waste Management, Ittingen, Switzerland, 9-12 April 1995. Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT), St. Gallen, Switzerland. Workshop report. International Workshop on Promotion of Public/Private Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-income Countries, Washington, DC, 22-23 February 1996. Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT), St. Gallen, Switzerland. Workshop report. International Workshop on Waste Disposal Upgrading Options for Lower- and Middle-Income Countries, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 8-11 September 1998. Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT), St. Gallen, Switzerland. Land and Ecosystems Environment Hazards Global Environmental Challenges
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:19:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015