Urban Air Pollution Management: Applicability of Urban...

UNU-IAS Working Paper No. 120

Urban Air Pollution and Urban Management:

Applicability of Ecosystem Approach and

the Way Forward

Satoshi Ishii

July 2004

Urban Air Pollution and Urban Management: Applicability of Ecosystem Approach

and the Way Forward

Satoshi Ishii

Abstract

In response to the facts that some Asian developing countries were experiencing the fastest

rate of industrialisation and urbanisation, several international initiatives called for a better

and „sustainable‟ urban management. Development of management tools including strategic

environmental assessment (SEA), life cycle assessment (LCA), cost benefit analysis (CBA),

environmental management system (EMS) had widened a scope of traditional management

remarkably. For instance, urban water management that used to deal only with an aspect of

„urban water‟ is nowadays required to consider urban water issues in a larger perspective,

namely whole river and catchment‟s ecosystem. The management of the latter is called river

basin management. Yet still, it is also realised that various managements (e.g. air, poverty,

water, socio-economic etc.) were actively inter-linked and influenced each other on the same

platform of „urban‟ and could not be dealt in isolation. As a challenge to respond to these

complex urban problems, an ecosystem approach was considered to be a powerful tool to

achieve a holistic management.

By taking widely known ecosystem approach frameworks into consideration, this paper

attempted to discuss on applicability of ecosystem approach to urban air pollution

management. The review provided current knowledge on urban air pollution problems and

pros and cons of urban and peri-urban agriculture as an example. In discussion, millennium

ecosystem framework and human ecosystem frameworks were explored in terms of urban air

pollution management. This inspired a process approach and its usefulness was analysed in

the light of translating the philosophy of ecosystem approach into practise. In this particular

case, ambient urban air pollution and promotion of urban and peri-urban agriculture was

discussed as an example. The findings showed that although the process approach could

supplement those frameworks in practise to some extent, it had a difficulty in addressing the

social system that played a major role in urban ecosystem. It was indicated that the social

system was considered to associate closely with spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the

target area. And the approach must figure out a way to incorporate them effectively towards

successful urban ecosystem approach. The suggestion was made on another approach that

could facilitate to bring the philosophy of ecosystem approach into actual urban management.

Key words: human ecosystem framework, material flow, millennium ecosystem assessment,

process approach; spatial heterogeneity, urban and peri-urban agriculture, urban management

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Urban Environmental Problems and Global Initiatives

In the year 2000, the global population exceeded 6 billion with more than 80% living in

developing countries, and the figure was projected to increase by over 9 million in 2050, with

86.4% (PRB 2000). Along with this, population density in urban areas is sharply boosting

(urbanisation) and poses enormous pressures on environment and social well being of human

being (UNEP 1997). Recent statistic shows that totally 47% of world population are living in

urban area with annual growth of approximately 2% (UNEP 2002) and the pressure is

intensifying particularly in Asian region, where experienced rapid rise in the portion of the

urban population by 19% to 33% (ADB 2000). The highest growth of 149.3% was noted

especially in the Southeast Asian region from 1970s to 1990s (UNEP 1999).

Increasing human activities in urban arena means higher demand for energy, goods and

services in one side, and more emission and material wastes on the other. Through the

process of consumption and growth of urban area, a number of problems can be triggered,

including degradation of quality and depletion of quantity of environmental media,

intensification of deforestation and desertification, and a number of social problems such as

increase poverty, unemployment, lack of basic social security and limited access to quantity

and quality of food products and so forth.

As a global recognition, the necessity of appropriate urban management is consistently

advocated in several internationally recognised documents. The chapter 7 of Agenda 21,

declared in the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992, called for strong initiatives on urban

environmental management in order to promote the development of sustainable human

settlement (UNCED 1992). Urbanisation problem was looked in the context of urban poor

2

eradication perspective in the sentence 19 of the United Nations Millennium Declaration

which promised to achieve significant improvement for the lives of 100 million slum

dwellers by the year, 2020 (UN 2000).

In response to those endorsements, several international initiatives are also in place. For

example, UNHCS (UN-Habitat) / UNEP joint programme called „The Sustainable Cities

Programme‟ was launched in 1996. The programme was built on so-called broad-based

cross-sectoral and stakeholder participatory approaches that promoted learning-based process

to advance collective know-how among the partner cities for building capacities in urban

environmental planning and management (UN-HABITAT/UNEP 2003).

On the other, WHO Healthy City initiative, which originally started from WHO European

regional office, was expanded its scope to global scale in 1996 to attain a sustainable

ecologically sound urban development. The programme examined various health implication

(e.g. human, environment and service) of policies through two key concepts namely, inter-

sectoral collaboration for health and supportive environments (WHO 1995).

1.2 Seeking New Approach for Sustainable Urban Management

Traditionally, a management for urban environmental and social problems tended to be

confined only to individual aspects (e.g. air, water, poverty) and thus, there were little

overlaps among these managements. In addition, these managements generally preferred to

concentrate only within city and state boundary probably due to a lack of knowledge and

experience (Figure 1).

3

Figure 1: Traditional Managements for Various Aspects in the Urban Area

It is an undeniable fact that introduction of stringent legal controls, guidelines, economic

instruments and technological innovations provided successful management to some extent.

Recently, however, raising complexity of urban problems called for more powerful

management tools, such as strategic environmental assessment (SEA), life cycle assessment

(LCA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and environmental management system (EMS), which

accordingly broaden the scope of traditional managements. As a result, these tools clearly

suggested that current urban environmental and social problems could not be dealt in

isolation without taking inter-linkages among other urban components into account.

Coordination with other management would be a key importance. Meanwhile, urban

boundary was considered no longer meaningful because overreaching problems lay

irrespective to these boundaries. In this context, the policy makers and practitioners in cities

are now required to confront increasingly complex management tasks.

Air quality management

Water management Waste management

Poverty alleviation

Human health

management

Economic activities

Energy & Transport

Urban boundary Management boundary

4

Figure 2: Concept of Urban Ecosystem Management

The concept of „ecosystem approach‟ had been emerged as one of approaches to tackle above

environmental challenge. By linking unique urban socio-economic and bio-phisical aspects

together, it suggested highly integrated and holistic urban management (UNU/IAS, 2003a). In

other words, „ecosystem approach‟ can highlight a concept lying behind of all kinds of urban

managements in order to understand dynamics of complex urban ecosystem (Figure 2).

The „ecosystem approach‟ was, although definition and perception varied, currently

advocated by several global initiatives and research institutes such as Convention of

Biological Diversity (CBD), International Development Research Centre in Canada (IRDC),

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(MA), Resilience Alliance (RA), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural

Organizations (UNESCO) and World Health Organization (WHO). The comprehensive

review and comparison for these programmes was made by UNU/IAS (2003a).

Urban Ecosystem Management

Human health

management

SEA

EMS CBA

LCA

Poverty

alleviation

River basin

management

Waste

management

Air quality (shed)

management

Energy &

transportation

management

Economic

activities

5

1.3 Study Objectives

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Study has been actively engaging to

ecosystem approach through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and human ecosystem

framework established in one of the US National Science Foundation‟s Long Term

Ecological Research projects. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) conceptual

framework and the human ecosystem framework were illustrated in figure 3 and figure 4

(next page), respectively.

The aim of this working paper is to explore applicability of ecosystem approach by using

urban air quality management as an example. In order to facilitate the discussion, background

information on urban air pollution and urban (peri-urban) agriculture, one of the management

options, were given in the next section. The section discussed several key questions, firstly

how useful the present ecosystem approach frameworks for specific issue such as urban air

quality management. The usefulness of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conceptual

framework and Human Ecosystem Framework were examined in a light of urban air quality

management. The second part addressed the common weakness of the frameworks and

discussed how to incorporate the „process‟ and how useful it would be in the ecosystem

approach. Here, attempt was made by author to explore a process based approach. Promotion

of peri-urban agriculture for urban management was used as an example and advantage and

disadvantage of using the approach was discussed. Finally, Shortcomings of the process

approach were analysed and the approach that could effectively fulfil the idea of conceptual

framework into actual management was discussed. Suggestions were made at the end of the

paper.

6

(Source: Reid et al, 2002)

Figure 3: Millenium Ecosystem Asseessment Conceptual Framework

(Source: Machlis et al., 1997)

Figure 4: Human Ecosystem Framework

Local

Regional

Global

PRIMARY DRIVERS

Demographic Change

Economic Change (incl. globalization, trade, market & policy framework)

Social and Political Change (incl. governance,

institutional, legal framework)

Technological Change

Lifestyle and Behavioral Change

Health and Decrease

Environmental Security

Cultural Security

Economic Security

Equity

HUMAN WELL-BEING &

POVERTY REDUCTION

ECOSYSTEMS & THEIR SERVICES Supporting (Biodiversity and ecosystem

processes)

Provisioning (Food, water, fiber, fuel,

other biological products)

Cultural (Cultural, aeshetic)

LIFE ON EARTH

PROXIMATE DRIVERS

Climate Change

Land and Water Use & Cover Change

Desertification

Factor inputs (e.g. irrigation, fertilisers)

Pollution

Harvest

Nutrient Release Species Introductions

Flows: 1 Individuals 2 Energy

3 Information

4 Materials

5 Money

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Reproduction Health

Justice

Faith Commerce

Education

Leisure Government

Sustenance

SOCIAL CYCLES

Physiological

Individual Institutional

Environmental

HUMAN SOCIAL SYSTEM

1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

RESOURCES Information

Population

Labour

Capital

CULTURAL RESOURCES Organization

Beliefs Art & Crafts

Myths

NATURAL RESOURCES Energy Air & Water

Land

Flora & Fauna Materials

Nutrients

1-5

CRITICAL RESOURCES

1-5

SOCIAL ORDER

Identity Norms Hierarchy

Age Gender

Class

Caste

Clan

Informal

Formal

Wealth Power

Status

Knowledge

Territory

HUMAN ECOSYSTEM

7

2 Background Review

2.1 Urban Air Pollution

Air pollution - „the presence in the atmosphere of substances or energy in such

quantities and of such duration liable to cause harm to human, plant, or animal life,

or damage to human-made materials and structures or changes in the weather and

climate, or interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property or other

human activities‟

(Elsom, D.M, 1992, p.3)

Urban air pollution is relatively a recent phenomenon as urbanisation and related problems

start gaining an increasing attention. Boubel et al. (1994) stated that during last few decades

people were experiencing a shift in nature of air pollution from spatially localised issue to

much wider and ubiquitous phenomenon. Concomitantly the global concern on air pollution

changed from those closely related to particular point sources such as sulphur dioxide and

hydrogen fluoride to the ones associated with mobile or even non-point sources such as

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxide of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and secondary

pollutants, e.g. photochemical ozone. The change driven largely by boosting motor vehicle

population was documented elsewhere (Faiz et al., 1996; Mage et al., 1996 etc.) and it posed

the governments and those policy makers to tackle a new challenge of air pollution

management and related environmental issues.

Despite above trends in transition of the air pollution problems, each country, region and area

have different problems attributed by their degree of development, culture, geography and

characteristic. McGranahan et al. (2001) stated a persuasive discussion on understanding the

sanitation issues in the cities by looking cities from the view point of its development and

affluence. The theory was further expanded and discussed by Marcotullio & Lee (2003) by

using the case of urban transportation systems. It was argued that there were certain

environmental problems associated with the degree of cities‟ economic development namely

8

low, medium and high income levels and they were called grey and green agenda,

respectively. For urban air pollution problems, each agenda can be described as Table 1.

In current high income cities, level of so-called traditional pollutants closely related to brown

and grey agenda (Table 1) are currently less pronounced due to enforcement of laws and

regulations (Figure 5) (OECD 1995). Yet it is also known that commonly these cities suffer

from new arising problems such as fine and ultra fine particulate matter (PM0.1 - PM2.5),

photochemical ozone and greenhouse gases as they were described as a green agenda (Table

1).

Figure 5: Urban Economic Transition and Associated Environmental Agendas for Current

Affluent Cities in Developed Countries

In low and medium income cities, nowadays, situations were slightly different from those

affluent cities in the past. Historically in those high income cities, there was a situation that a

brown, grey and green agenda came in sequence over relatively longer time scale and, policy

and initiatives such as strong legal enforcements and effectively overcame arising problems

(Figure 5) (Bai and Imura, 2000).

Medium Income level

Green agenda

High

Brown agenda

Low

Grey agenda

Introduction of Legal

enforcements & controls

?

9

Figure 6: Environmental Agenda for Current Middle and Low Income Cities in Developing

Countries

?? Agenda

Income level Medium Low

10

Table 1: Cause of Air Pollution, Pollutants, Associated Problems and Scale of the Pollution for Each Environmental Agenda

Agenda Cause Pollutant Associated problems Scale

Brown

Increasing number of vehicle

Heavy usage of diesel powered vehicle

Heavy usage of obsolete vehicles

Heavy usage of motor cycles (2 stroke)

Unpaved and/or poorly maintained street

Open burning

Inadequate infrastructure

Low quality of fuel

Little emission control & technology in industry

Presence of industries (e.g. ceramic, brick works,

agrochemical factory)

Particulate matters (PM10, PM2.5)

Lead (Pb)

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

Ozone (O3)

Hydro carbons (HCs)

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Hydrogen fluoride (HF)

Heavy metals (e.g. Pb, Hg, Cd etc.)

Human health problem (acute)

Ecosystem health problem (acute) Local

Gray

Increasing number of vehicle

Use of motor cycles (2 stroke)

Use of obsolete vehicles

Use of diesel powered vehicles

Inadequate infrastructure

Improved but still low quality of fuel

Some emission control & technology in industry

Particulate matters (PM10, PM2.5)

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)


Ozone (O3)

Hydro carbons (HCs)

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Human health problem (chronic)

Ecosystem health problem (chronic)

Greenhouse gas emission (global)

Acid rain (global)

Regional

Green

Large number of vehicle population

Limited dry deposition of pollutants

Waste incineration

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)


Ozone (O3)

Hydro carbons (HCs)

Endocrine disruption substances (EDS)

Human health problem (chronic)

Greenhouse gas emission

Stratospheric ozone depletion

Acid rain

Long-range transport

Global

11

In current low and medium income cities, however, current perception indicates that the

stories will not be repeated any more (IIED 2001). In these cities, the rate of urbanisation and

development is so fast compared to current affluent cities in the past that the cities are

experiencing more than one agenda simultaneously within shorter time scale instead of

separately in order (Figure 6) (Marcotullio and Lee, 2003).

This shows that urban air pollution problems are becoming increasingly complex and thus,

same approaches employed in current affluent cities in the past will not be appropriate for

medium and low income cities in developing countries. Regarding the urban problems from

the perspective of city‟s income level and associated problems actually implies that

environmental problems could not be dealt without considering social, cultural and

economical setting of the cities, which consist „urban ecosystem‟. Because air pollution issue

is no longer an issue on itself alone, desirable urban management called for holistic approach

by incorporating socio-economic factors into the management in a greater extent.

2.2 Management Option: Role of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

Agriculture is undoubtedly one of the most important sectors in the developing countries. It

provides not only food for the purpose of domestic consumption and trade but also plays a

significant role in local economies. Importantly it is also recognised as one of the most

vulnerable sectors to development and environmental degradation because of its heavy

reliance on the environment.

Recently relationship between agriculture and cities has been changing. At first, gradually

expanding city narrows a gap between developed urban area and rural agricultural area.

Urban encroachment makes local land use be increasingly colourful picture and it is visually

12

apparent that remote rural areas are getting no longer regarded as a „rural‟ with free from

influence of cities. Secondly, some agricultural areas have already been merged by cities.

Peri-urban areas are the places where competition of land intensified the most. Moreover

resent trend of raising urban population means increasing number of month to be fed,

suggesting increase in demand for agricultural output.

Consequently, seeking a solution for this conflicting problem will become an urgent issue. As

an effective countermeasure, urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) has been receiving a

growing attention as one of the useful solutions with global support (COAG/FAO 1999;

Mougeot 2000). The global plan for action in the Habitat Agenda during the HABITAT II

conference in 1996 advocated that healthy and environmentally sound agricultural activities

in urban area as a realistic and desirable land-use option (UNCHS 1996). Moreover

promotion of urban agriculture was incorporated to fulfil the main objectives of food security

and poverty eradication in the World Food Summit Plan for Action (FAO 1996).

Yet there have been no conclusive definition of the UPA, but COAG/FAO (1999) defines it

as;

“Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture (UPA) is perceived as agriculture practices

within and around cities which compete for resources (land, water, energy, labour)

that could also serve other purposes to satisfy the requirements of the urban

population. Important sectors of UPA include horticulture, livestock, fodder and milk

production, aquaculture, and forestry.”

(COAG/FAO 1999, p.4)

A number of benefits have been identified, for instance, access to fresh nutritious food,

employment, education, natural enhancement, improvement in urban microclimate and

environment and so forth (Bourque 2000). The first aspect is particularly important for the

cities in developing countries, where large urban poor communities are present (Bourque

2000). After all the general recognition is that although UPA may not be a panacea to solve

13

all problems that urban areas are facing, it can be one of the best available options for

management. Nowadays the UPA has been slowly picked up by the central and local

governments in some developing countries (Armar-Klemesu 2000). In the case of Shanghai,

UPA provides 60% of vegetables, more than half of pork and poultry, and 90% of milk and

eggs (Moustier 2000), while in Bangkok, still cabbage and onions originate from the Chang

Mai area, located more than 200 kilometres away but the leafy vegetables such as Chinese

mustard, spinach or lettuce, are from peri-urban areas.

Nevertheless, compatibility of UPA in the urban environment is one of the key aspects.

Although UPA provisions a number of positive impacts to urban environment, some negative

impacts can be associated. For instance, the UPA is assumed to increase the competition of

the water use in urban area, agrochemicals‟ runoff to water bodies and land, amount of dust

and waste (COAG/FAO 1999; Deelstra & Girardet 2000; Mougeot 2000).

Meanwhile UPA seems to be under various environmental pressures in urban environment.

For example, degraded environmental media in urban area can directly affect productivity

and safety of agricultural production. There is a concern over limited availability of land and

water especially within and around the cities, and UPA has to compete these resources with

other uses (COAG/FAO 1999). Increase co-existence of agricultural and urban land alerts the

influences of air pollution on crop production. A number of studies in developed countries

showed that air pollution could have potentially an adverse impact on the growth, yield and

quality of agricultural outputs. As it just started to be perceived in developing countries, this

can be a large pit hole for the cities, which are about to enjoy the benefits of UPA.

14

Figure 7: Millenium Ecosystem Asseessment Conceptual Framework Described on Urban Air Pollution Management

PRIMARY DRIVERS

Demographic: Increasing population in (peri-) urban area

Social: Social status between rich & poor (heterogeneity)

Economic: Rapid increasing in economic activities

Socio-economic: Pressure of development (expansion of

the city)

Technological: Increase in motor vehicle population and

development (industrialisation)

Lifestyle: Consumerism, NIMBYism, Wealth oriented

HUMAN WELL-BEING & POVERTY REDUCTION

Health: Indoor air pollution, Respiratory disease,

Decrease in comfortable urban space (recreation)

Environmental security: Food security (quantity &

quality), Force to live in slam & squatter condition

Economic security: Lack of employment opportunities

Cultural security: Damaging cultural heritage,

Adaptation to new urban life (e.g. throwing agricultural

skills) leading to low life motivation

Equity: Increasing income disparity and „urban poor‟

PROXIMATE DRIVERS

Climate change: CO2, CH4 emission

Climate change: Urban heat island effect

Land & water use: Improper allocation of industry,

Lack of space for developing public transport

Pollution: Motor vehicle borne air pollution, NOx, SOx,

HC, PM, Pb, secondary pollutants O3

Waste: Increasing amount & type of waste difficult to

handle, Incineration option, Open burning

Energy: Increasing energy demand

ECOSYSTEMS & THEIR SERVICES (LIFE ON EARTH)

Air: Deterioration of quality

Biodiversity: Decrease in number & variety

Food supply: Decrease in quantity & quality

Aesthetic value: Decrease in quantity & quality

A

B C

D

Urban & Peri-urban Area

Regional

Global

15

Figure 8: Possible Interventions and Foreseen Improvements of Urban Air Pollution Management Described on MA Conceptual Framework

PRIMARY DRIVERS

Demographic: Increasing population in (peri-) urban area

Social: Social status between rich & poor (heterogeneity)

Economic: Increasing economic activities

Socio-economic: Pressure of development (city expansion)

Technological: Increase in motor vehicle population and development

(Industrialisation)

Lifestyle: Consumerism, NIMBYism, Wealth Oriented

IMPROVE IN PROXIMATE DRIVERS

Climate change: Reduce CO2, CH4 emission

Climate change: Urban heat island phenomena

Land & water use: Efficient town planning

Pollution: Reduce motor vehicle borne air pollution, Suppress the

rate of raising motor vehicle population

Waste: Promotion of waste recycle & re-use

Energy: Increase the dependence of clean energy

IMPROVE IN ECOSYSTEMS & THEIR SERVICES

Air: Slowing down the deterioration of quality

Climate: Buffering the heat island phenomena

Biodiversity: Slow down the rate of decrease in number &

variety, creating niche & migration of new species

Food supply: Slow down deteriorating agricultural productivity,

Less contamination (e.g. heavy metal)

Visual beauty: Improved by providing „buffer zone‟

Comfort: Increase dry deposition of PM (e.g. pollutants & pollen)

A

C

D

B

INTERVENTION B

Policy: Air quality management policy

Regulatory frame work: Emission standard & control,

Economic incentives: Taxation, Development of environmental

market, Tariff (water)

Education: Information & raising awareness

Ethic: Development of environmental stewardship

INTERVENTION D

Technology: Clean energy, Waste recycling & energy recovery,

Pollution absorption device

Land & water use: Increase & properly planned allocation of urban

green space

INTERVENTION A

Agriculture: Increasing productivity (safe & nutritious food),

promotion of urban peri-urban agriculture

Economic: Opportunity for employment

Housing: Rural development (Decentralisation

INTERVENTION C

Policy: Public transportation & road systems

Technology: Clean energy, Waste recycling, Energy recovery,

Pollution absorption, Hybrid- & Fuel cell- powered vehicle

IMPROVE IN HUMAN WELL-BEING & POVERTY REDUCTION

Health: Improve indoor & outdoor air quality, Less hospital

admission, Increase recreational place, Safer city

Environmental security: Slow down food shortage and increase

access to fresher food, Improve slam & squatter condition

Economic security: Help financial independence of „urban poor‟

Cultural heritage: Slow down the rate of degradation

16

(Source: Modified from Machlis et al. (1997) by author)

Figure 9: Human Ecosystem Framework Described on Urban Air Pollution Management

SOCIAL SYSTEM

Flows: 1 Individuals 4 Materials

2 Energy 5 Money

3 Information

1-5

1-5

SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES Population: increase urban population, migration

from poor rural villages

Labour: job productivity and efficiency,

occupational health concern

Capital: increasing capital flow and their influence to

the environment

CULTURAL RESOURCES Organisation: NGOs, green consumerism, Belief: urban area (= unhealthy environment),

pollution (= development)

Myths: use of motorcycle

NATURAL RESOURCES

Energy: boosting demand, power plants, cleaner fuels

Water: modification of urban heat environment, thus climate, pollution

Flora & Fauna: impacts on growth & yield, changing composition of ecosystem, natural emission

Materials: waste flow, nutrient cycle, transport of

materials from/to the region

1-5

1-5

1-5

1-5

CRITICAL RESOURCES HUMAN ECOSYSTEM

SOCIAL CYCLES Physiological: day/night, wet/dry seasons

Individual: weekend activities, cycles influenced by commuter transport

Institutional: working/non-working

days, school holiday, national holiday, religious festivals

Environmental: seasonal haze incidents,

wet/dry seasons and climates,

harvesting/non-harvesting period

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Reproduction: changing family structure and people‟s life style

Health: health care system for respiratory

disease, acute/chronic impact of air pollution Justice: rights to pollute the air, violation of

the laws and regulations

Faith: religious activities & rules Commence: excessive consumption of

energy and materials, increasing freight

transport, environmental industry and market Education: relatively high standard,

awareness of cause, impact and risk of

pollution Leisure: more recreational activities, change

in lifestyles

Sustenance: clean air, ecosystem health

Government: regulations, interventions

1-5

1-5

1-5

Identity: colour of skin, nationality, race, religion, gender, clan

Norms: culture (ceremonies), customs,

moral, corruption Hierarchy: wealth, political power,

knowledge, educational background,

occupation

SOCIAL ORDER

Land: dry deposition of pollutants, effect of land coverage

17

3 Analysis & Discussion

3.1 How Useful the Ecosystem Approach Frameworks to Deal with Particular Issues Such as

Air Quality Management?

The review clearly provided background of urban air pollution issue and current challenges.

It also indicated that ecosystem approach that regards urban area as an ecosystem might

provide a desirable urban management. Here, by adopting the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MA) conceptual framework and human ecosystem framework, components of

these frameworks were adjusted to fit urban air quality issue (Figure 7 & 9). The power of

two frameworks was recognised instantly. Although both frameworks adopt different series

of components, both sets were well organised and concise that they inspire users an extent of

problems in systematic way.

By using MA framework (figure 7), dynamics of the problem in urban area was revealed. The

framework described that there were primary drivers and proximate drivers had impacts on

human well being and ecosystem. Firstly primary drivers triggered the proximate drivers.

After these drivers affected human well being and ecosystem, impacts would bounce back

and lead further deterioration of primary drivers, therefore consequently they could cause

adverse effects to human and natural environment. The framework successfully visualised

complex cause-response relationship found in the „ecosystem‟. In order to slow down and/or

cut off the sequence of vicious cycle, practitioners were encouraged to intervene it by taking

preventive actions, for example, shown in figure 8. The framework consisted of four main

categories and therefore, „process‟ of environmental impacts was described by categorical

basis but not by that of specific components within the categories. This might confuse the

policy makers and could result in adopting not locally specific management options but rather

general and ubiquitous management options. It was, however, considered to serve on scenario

building for the policy makers, which is one of the main aims of MA (Reid et al. 2002).

18

Human ecosystem framework (figure 9) focused on the ecosystem where social system and

critical resources were strongly interlinking one another. Its application might be more

directly suitable for describing urban and regional ecosystem where human influences are

seen to be dominant. Force and Machilis (1997) applied the framework to select the social

indicators for the upper Columbia River basin ecosystem approach. Their findings showed

that, by taking the social parameters from the framework into account, it added substantial

value in terms of flexibility to the management previously carried out by resource managers

with limited social science knowledge.

Comparatively, the framework might be seen more dynamic and flexible than the MA

framework. By taking advantage of having more components and detailed categorisation (two

main categories with three sub-categories in each), the framework enabled users to spot out

specific & influential category and/or components. This concept of human ecosystem

framework was more relevant to the urban management. Yet, the weakness of the framework

might be applicability to actual management practise in this stage because it also did not

indicate cause-response relationship as MA framework covers partially. Some studies

discussed the point that the human ecosystem framework had a limitation in focusing on

structure of the system hence processes of the system was not fully expressed (Pickett et al.

1997; Luzadis, et al. 2002).

In summary, it could be stated that the MA framework was originally designed for a wider

usage of various „ecosystem‟ assessments, and therefore, urban management might prefer to

application of the human ecosystem framework. Nevertheless both frameworks were believed

to provide strong background concept for the ecosystem approach by comprehensively

covering scale issues and inspiring adaptive management. In the light of practicality and

19

applicability, the MA framework might be seen as more practical since it allowed user to

brainstorm the management options (intervention) that could be readily incorporated into

management (cause-response) although there might be a threat that interventions could be

quite in general.

Here, main challenge was the reflection of background concept into actual urban

management. Undoubtedly these frameworks proved powerful and inspiring holistic

approach in urban area. One common weakness, however, might be a structure of the system,

where there was a lack of description on processes and function of the components and hence

the relationship of inter-linkages and trade-offs could not be fully explored.

3.2 How to Incorporate „Processes‟ to the Frameworks and How Useful It Is in the

Ecosystem Approach?

The above frameworks proved to be extremely useful for sketching out urban ecosystem and

management. However the problem remained when actual management practice was

considered. It was partially because above frameworks were still in a form of „conceptual‟

and they were designed to provide a baseline philosophy when practitioners considered to

address the problems but not to provided a „how-to manual‟ for urban management. Since

highlighted weakness for above frameworks was a lack of specification of process (Pickett et

al., 1997; Luzadis, et al., 2002), the attempt was made to establish simple approach

exclusively focusing on processes and direct inter-linkages within urban ecosystem.

In this approach, „process‟ and direct inter-linkages were expressed by selecting a few

components and connecting them by two types of arrows indicating positive (broken arrows)

and negative (dotted arrows) impacts. Here it is important to clarify that these arrows were

showing impacts and did not intended to illustrate a flow of materials and/or energy between

20

the components. Establishment of the approach began with selecting air pollution and several

components known to be closely associated to it and connecting them with arrows (figure 10).

Figure 10: Several Components Related to Urban Air Pollution and Their

Inter-linkages

In reality, influential components for air pollution were exhaustible in the urban area but here,

the approach was kept as simple as possible. The process approach in present example kept

the line on urban air pollution and tentatively used it by hypothetically adopting one of

management options to tackle the problem, namely promotion of urban and peri-urban

agriculture.

To add to the figure 10, the figure 11 showed primary impacts resulting from promotion of

urban and peri-urban agriculture. The idea of ecosystem approach indicated the holistic

ecological approach to solving problems (UNU/IAS, 2003a), suggesting that possible

components should be fully aware and addressed when actual management options would be

considered.

Positive impact Negative impact

Poverty

Urban

population

Economic

activities

Transportation

Education

Waste Air pollution

Health

21

Figure 11: Primary Impacts Induced by Installing Urban Agriculture as a Management

Option

Introduction of urban agriculture brought several new inter-linkages and components. The

impacts of urban agriculture option would be a centre of attention here and therefore,

component of air pollution was changed to air. According to the review (section 2.2), it was

clearly shown that urban agriculture could bring beneficial (positive) impacts on (broken

arrows);

Air: Reduce the air pollution by increase direct absorption and dry deposition, as

well as raising awareness on the value of clean air

Climate change: Modify the flow of the food and agricultural products

significantly for example, minimising freight transport distance resulting in less

greenhouse gas emission

Culture: Preserve a living style and skills of the migrated people who were

originally engaged farming activities in the rural area

Economic activities: Stimulate local food market and trade, therefore

competition, resulting in „bottom up‟ the standard of quality and services

Education: Strengthen urban poor communities by giving an opportunity for

education. Raising awareness of urban dwellers (poor) on the issue of

environment, agriculture and sustainable development.

Poverty

Urban

agriculture

Urban

population

Health

Economic

activities

Water

Land

Education

Culture

Rural economy

Climate change

?

Waste

Air

Transportation

Urban green

Negative impact

Positive impact

New emerging component

Basic components (figure 10)

22

Health: Provide readily available fresh and nutritious food to urban dwellers

(poor) and reduce the use of agrochemicals during production, and post-harvest

stage

Poverty: Create job opportunities for urban poor, and both urban farmers and

consumers could enjoy economic benefit through avoiding exploitation by

middle men

Urban green: Enhance urban green means more aesthetic value and it also

provide a valuable niche for conserving urban biodiversity

Nevertheless, some negative impacts (dotted arrows) were also attached to the option;

Air: Increase open-air burning incidents, use of hazardous agrochemicals for

controlling pest and pathogens, and increase dust and particulate pollution

Land: Use of agrochemicals for agricultural productivity and soil fertility, and

their run-off to the environment

Waste: Generate agricultural waste, and risk on introduction of non-native

invasive species

Water: Increase competition of water resources and pollution by agro-chemical

run-off to the water bodies

In subsequent stage, these primary impacts derived from introducing urban agriculture

affected other components as a secondary impact (figure 12). The positive primary impacts

on the components had following secondary impacts were stated as follows (broken arrows);

Air: Improvement of air quality contributes better health of human and

ecosystem. (impacts to the components of health and urban agriculture, urban

green)

Climate change: Improve urban climate and reduce risk of climate change

enhances whole urban ecology and also minimises uncertain outcomes. (1to

biological diversity, culture, urban green and other components2)

Culture: Stimulation and development of culture brings good mental health for

human being and strengthens local community. (to health)

1 Hereafter the word „to‟ in the brackets literally means „impacts to the components of ‟.

2 There might be positive impacts on whole illustrated components but still generally uncertain and, therefore,

arrows are not indicated in the figure 12.

Urban

population

Health

Economic

activities Land

Education

Transportation Urban green

Urban

agriculture

Poverty

Knowledge

disparity

Aesthetic

value

23

Figure 12: Secondary Impacts Induced by Installing Urban Agriculture as a Management

Option

Education: Educated people stimulate economic development and thus alleviate

poverty and social knowledge disparity. Positive feedback might be raised to

urban agriculture to realise its importance. Environmental education introduces

awareness on sustainable urban development. (to economic activities, knowledge

disparity, poverty and urban agriculture)

Health: Improve on human health status is benefited as increasing urban

population and economic activities by enhancing the efficiency and productivity.

(to urban population and economic activity)

Poverty: Alleviation of poverty has multiple benefits on human health,

economic activities but it also increases urban population. (to human health,

economic activities and human population)

Urban green: Enhancement of urban green adds more aesthetic value and have

positive impacts on climate change, water retention, air purification, and

environmental education (to air, biological diversity, climate change, education

and water)

Again, negative secondary impacts are also deribed from primary impacts (dotted arrows);

Air: Increasing dust pollution leads adverse human health impact as well as

negative impacts on ecosystems such as plants and structures. (to health and

urban green)

24

Economic activities: Stimulation of economic activities promotes development

possibly leading to negative impacts on physical environmental media. (to air,

land, water, waste and others3)

Land: Deterioration of soil quality influences agricultural productivity and

induces contamination of other environmental media. (to health, urban

agriculture and urban green)

Waste: Generated additional waste from agriculture puts more pressure on

environmental media. (to air, land and water)

Water: Low quality and quantity of water for drinking and irrigation have

several implications on ecosystem health problems. (to health, urban agriculture

and urban green)

The process approach above showed several strengths. First of all, the approach sketched out

„processes‟ in the urban system. In terms of addressing trade-offs and inter-linkages, the

approach showed that arrows representing positive and negative impacts in the figure. It

could, therefore, be useful for policy makers to understand visually and provide a logical

reason for particular management options. Moreover, by using process approach,

stakeholders could be easily identified each process loop. This would be very important for

ecosystem approach that calls for holistic approach in the urban ecosystem.

Nevertheless, the approach had a number of limitations mainly due to its weakness on

simplicity and adaptability for actual field application. Although the latter could be improved

to some extent by giving weight on particular arrows of greater/less importance and by

selecting the components more relevant to the local situation, it would be unavoidable that

the complexity of the figures would increase substantially with a small increase of

components. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to consider tertiary and further

impacts in one figure because the number of arrows would increase exponentially. At glance,

3 Enhanced economic activities would have wide range of impacts and not all positive impacts were illustrated

in the figure 12.

25

the figure looks formidable to digest when figures 10, 11 and 12 were overlapped in one

figure such as figure 13.

Figure 13: Total Inter-linkages (Primary and Secondary Impacts) Induced by Installing Urban

Agriculture Management Option

The uncertainty would also be a problem in such detailed system approach. For example,

urban agriculture would create other market opportunities in urban premises and alter the

consumption pattern and material flows in the region. In this context, it was anticipated that

rural economy (figure 11) and some of socio-economic and environmental components

attached to it in rural area would be possibly affected, too. However the component was not

incorporated in the analysis because actually clear impacts were still unknown in this stage.

Another weakness might be expression of the influence of social systems, such as social

institutions, social order and social cycles. Some of them were found to be difficult to

consider in the approach. For example, the approach indicated that transportation has a

positive impact on air, showing that increase in transportation resulting in increase air

pollution (figure 10). However the arrow did not communicate that how one component

Positive impact Negative impact

Poverty

Urban

population

Health

Economic

activities

Water

Land

Education

Culture Climate change

Waste

Air

Transportation Urban green

Urban

agriculture

Aesthetic

value

Biological

diversity

Knowledge

disparity

26

affected the other. In reality, increase in transportation could cause deterioration of air

pollution through various reasons for example, increase in business freight transport (social

institutions: commerce), preference of private car use in particular day and time, e.g.

weekday morning (social cycles: physiological & individual) and trend of private car

ownership for people belong to particular class of society (social order: hierarchy) and so on.

The approach failed to address these „components‟ that would not be able to translate to

entity.

In conclusion, it was shown that process based approach attempted here had a possibility to

bring the ecosystem approach partially into practise. The usage of the approach could be

enhanced by careful categorisation and supplemental tools, for example, inventories or

descriptions of primary and secondary impacts shown above. It could be particularly useful in

the cases of comparing management options since it enables to describe the extent of impacts

resulted from each option visually, and thus facilitate the dialogue with stakeholders.

Despite the advantages, it was also apparent that process based approach shown here had a

number of limitations to apply for actual practise alone. Focusing on detailed system

components and their processes could easily lose holistic view over whole urban ecosystem.

Since this was one of the most important features of ecosystem approach, this shortcoming

had to be overcome. In another, many inter-linkages between those components were still not

fully understood and there was always risk of missing out key components in the approach.

Using best available knowledge should be always required but even though, a risk of

selecting wrong management option could not be fully excluded. Lastly the analysis showed

that the process approach had a particular weakness in addressing to the components in the

social system. This was a crucial aspect because it was seen that one of the advantage of

27

urban ecosystem approach would be the consideration of the social system that plays a

dominant role in the urban ecosystem.

3.3 What Kind of Approaches Can Possibly Bring the Idea of Ecosystem Approach into

Practise Effectively?

So far, it was shown that ecosystem frameworks were conceptually a powerful tool to

integrate social and biophysical systems comprehensively together but in turn, it was still at a

stage of acting as a background philosophy for urban ecosystem management (section 3.1).

Subsequently, simple process approach consisted of several social and biophysical

components gave some new prospect to practical managements but its limitations were

widely discussed and thus, there were still a considerable gap between the approach and

actual urban ecosystem management practise (section 3.2).

First two sections clearly showed that since human ecosystem framework clearly endorsed

that the social systems dominated largely in the urban ecosystem, how to treat urban social

systems would be a key issue when urban ecosystem approach was considered. Currently, it

was realised that a number of social components were unique and unpredictable and actually

most of the interaction between social and biophysical components has not been fully

understood yet. Moreover, social components varied substantially in their own characteristics,

for example some aspects in social order and social cycles could not be accurately expressed

as a component in the process approach. These factors and their influence were hidden within

the process approach as it was discussed by using the example of transport and air in section

2.2.

Probably one of the reasons was that many components of human social system were strongly

associated with spatial and temporal distribution and the process approach failed to cover this

28

important aspect. In other words, distribution of the social system was spatially and

temporally unequal and this feature drove complex urban problems. The problem of spatial

heterogeneity were analysed by using geographical information system (GIS) (Grove and

Burch 1997) and expressed partially in human ecosystem framework (Picket et al. 1997).

Present process based approach, however, could unlikely to overcome the problem unless it

was applied every small patch of whole ecosystem in the city.

In this regard, considering material flow in the urban ecosystem might be useful. Focusing

flow of the materials that sustain activities within ecosystem was rather traditional idea

(Nilon et al. 1999). However what will be different between traditional approach and urban

ecosystem approach in terms of material flow might be the concerning elements. The urban

ecosystem approach would need basic elements for driving natural system such as energy,

temperature, nutrients and water (Kinzig and Grove 2001) as well as driving the social

system such as individuals, information, materials and money (Machilis et al., 1997).

The advantages for analysing materials flow might be that, by regarding the social system as

one of the biggest modifiers for the flows in the urban ecosystem, all social elements would

not be necessarily translated into components as it was attempted in the process based

approach. The material flow approach could be implemented easily with a tool such as GIS

compared to the process approach so that spatial heterogeneity might be considered

effectively. By doing so, the material flow approach could identify the spot where flows are

stagnant and/or breached to other system. In this way, causes was investigated and thus

appropriate management could be tailored and applied in order to ensure „sustainable‟ flow

by extracting, regulating and diversifying the flows. Even though material flow approach

29

might be an only urban ecosystem management tool, it is suggested that it might fill the

considerable gaps.

4 Conclusion

The discussion suggested several points;

Urban ecosystem approach was desirable for sustainable urban management.

The human ecosystem framework was the powerful tool that amalgamated

social and biophysical components under complex urban ecosystem but in

current stage, it generally worked well only as conceptual background when

policy makers were considering actual management.

The Urban ecosystem was where human influences, namely social system,

played significant role and therefore, when actual urban ecosystem approach

was considered, its integration was a key importance for implementation.

The simple process approach proved to be useful in some extent but there were

several limitations in application. The main difficulty was found on integration

of social system into the approach and dealt with spatial and temporal

heterogeneity of it.

Analysis on material flows in the urban ecosystem might overcome some

shortcomings of the process based approach. By considering materials closely

related to natural system (e.g. energy, nutrients, water, etc.) and social system

(individual, information, materials, money, etc.), and together with the tools like

GIS, it could be more robust to deal with spatial and temporal heterogeneity of

urban area.

Yet still, there was only a few experience of application of urban ecosystem approach in the

actual urban management (Force and Machlis 1997; Grove and Burch 1997; Pickett et al.

1997). Since it is clearly stated that no single application of approach was present for urban

ecosystem approach (UNU/IAS, 2003b), more research and experience should be

accumulated to establish robust urban ecosystem approach to deal with increasingly complex

urban problems.

30

References

Armar-Klemesu, M. “Urban Agriculture and Food Security, Nutrition and Health”. In

Growing Cities, Growing Food. Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, edited by

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Gündel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H: Feldafing:

Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), 2000.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) Asian Environment Outlook 2001; Executive Summary.

[On-line], 2000.

Available; http;//www.adb.org/environment/aeo/pub/pdf/summary.pdf

Access date; 21/04/2001.

Bai X. & Imura H. “A comparative study of urban environment in East Asia: stage model of

urban environmental evolution.” International Review for Environmental Strategies 1

(2000): 135-158.

Boubel, R.W., Fox, D.I., Turner, D.B. and Stern, A.C. Fundamentals of Air Pollution, New

York: Academic Press Inc., 1994.

Bourque, M. “Policy Options for Urban Agriculture”. In Growing Cities, Growing Food.

Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, edited by Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Gündel,

S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H:Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale

Entwicklung (DSE), 2000.

Committee on Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organisation (COAG/FAO).“Urban and

Peri-urban Agriculture” COAG/99/10. Presented at 15th

Session of the COAG, Fao, Rome,

25-29 January 1999. [On-line], 1999.

Available; http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/COAG/COAG15/X0076e.htm

Access date; 01/05/2001.

Deelstra, T. and Girardet, H. “Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities” In Growing Cities,

Growing Food. Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, edited by Bakker, N.,

Dubbeling, M., Gündel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H: Feldafing: Deutsche

Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), 2000.

Elsom, D.M. Atmospheric Pollution: A Global Problem Second Edition. Oxford: Brackwell

Publishers, 1992.

Faiz, A., Weaver, C.S., Walsh, M.P. Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles; Standards and

Technologies for Controlling Emissions. Washington D.C.: The Worldbank, 1996.

31

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The World Food Summit Plant for Action [On-

line], 1996.

Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

Access date: 3/2/2003.

Force, J.E. and Machilis, G.E. “The Human Ecosystem Part II: Social Indicators in

Ecosystem Management.” Society & Natural Resources 10 (1997): 369-382.

Grove, J.M. and Burch, W.R., Jr. “A Social Approach and Applications of Urban Ecosystem

and Landscape Analysis: A Case Study of Baltimore, Maryland.” Urban Ecosystems 1

(1997): 259-275.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Strategies and Tools for

Urban Environmental Improvement, Briefing paper 12, Series on Urban Environmental

Improvement and Poverty Reduction, London, IIED, 2001.

Available at: http://www.iied.org/pdf/urb_povBP12.pdf


Kinzig, A. P. and Grove, J. M. “Urban-Suburban Ecology.” Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 5

(2001): 733-745.

Luzadis, V.A., Goslee, K.M., Greenfield, E.J. and Schaeffer, T.D. “Toward a More Integrated

Ecosystem Model.” Society of Natural Resources 15 (2002): 89-94.

Mage, D., Ozolins, G., Peterson, P., Webster, A., Orthofer, R., Vandeweerd, V. and Gwynne,

M. “Urban Air Pollution in Megacities of the World.” Atmospheric Environment 30(5)

(1996): 681-686.

Machlis, G.E., Force, J.E., Burch, W.R.,Jr. “The Human Ecosystem Part I: The Human

Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem Management.” Society & Natural

Resources 10 (1997): 347-367.

Marcotullio, P.J. and Lee, Y-S. “Urban Environmental Transitions and Urban Transportation

Systems: A Comparison of the North American and Asian Experiences.” International

Development Planning Review 25 (2003): 325-354

McGranahan, G., Jacobi, P., Songsore, J., Surgadi, C. and Kjellen, M. The Citizens at Risk,

from Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities, London: Earthscan, 2001.

Mougeot, L.J.A. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.” In Growing

Cities, Growing Food. Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. edited by Bakker, N.,

Dubbeling, M., Gündel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H: Feldafing: Deutsche

Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), 2000.

32

Moustier, P. “Section 1: Feeding Asian Cities: Food Production and Processing Issues,

Workshop A1 The response to urbanisation of food production in rural, periurban and

urban areas”. Discussion (Workshop) Papers in FAO Regional Seminar Feeding Asian

Cities. Bankok. Thailand, 27-30 Nov. 2000 [On-line], 2000.

Available: http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/agsm/sada/asia/pages/papers.htm


Nilon, C.H., Berkowitz, A.R. and Hollweg, K.S. “Editorial: Understanding Urban

Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education.” Urban Ecosystems 3 (1999): 3-

4.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Motor Vehicle pollution:

Reduction Strategies Beyond 2020, Paris: OECD, 1995.

Pickett, S.T.A., Burch, W.R.,Jr., Foresman, T.W., Grove, J.M. and Rowntree, R. “A

Conceptual Framework for the Study of Human Ecosystems”, Urban Ecosystem 1 (1997):

185-199.

Population Reference Bureau (PRB) World Population Data Sheet. [On-line], 2000.

Available: http;//www.prb.org/pubs/wpds2000/


Reid, W., Ash, N., Bennett, E., Kumar, P., Lee, M., Lucas, N., Simons, H., Thompson, V.

and Zurek, M. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Methods, 2002.

Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/publications /methods.pdf


United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Agenda 21 [On-

line], 1992.

Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm


United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Environment Assessment Programme

for Asia and the Pacific (EAPAP). Asia-Pacific Environment Outlook. [On-line], 1997.

Available at: http://www.eapap.unep.org/apeo/index.html


United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP). Global Environment Outlook 2000. [On-

line], 1999.

Available at: http://www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/0062.htm


33

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook 3: Past,

Present and the Future Perspectives, [On-line], 2002.

Available at: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/


UN-HABITAT (UNCHS). The Habitat Agenda. [On-line], 1996

Available at: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/toolkits/women/un-doku/un-

conf/habitat.htm

Access date: 3/2/2003

UN-HABITAT(UNCHS) and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The

Sustainable Cities Programme Homepage, [On-line], 2003

Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/sustainablecities/eng_home.asp


United Nations (UN). United Nations Millennium Declaration. [On-line], 2000

Available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf


United Nations University Institute of Advanced Study (UNU/IAS). Defining an Ecosystem

Approach to Urban Management and Policy Development, UNU/IAS Report, 2003a

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Study (UNU/IAS). Urban Ecosystems

Analysis: Identifying Tools and Methods, UNU/IAS Report, 2003b

World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO Healthy City: A Programme Framework, [On-

line], 1995

Available at: http://www.who.int/hpr/archive/cities/docs/hc_framework.pdf


Urban Air Pollution Management: Applicability of Urban...

Documents

Transcript of Urban Air Pollution Management: Applicability of Urban...