Chapter 14 Review Questions

F (see “Urban Sprawl”)

F (see “Urban Sprawl”)

T (see “Urban Sprawl”)

F (see “Introduction”)

F (see “Transportation”)

T (see “Recover)

T (see “Waste Management)

F (see “Stormwater, Drinking Water, and Wastewater”)

F (see “Natural and Human-Induced Hazards”)

A large share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is attributable to cities. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that urban areas currently account for more than 71 per cent of energy-related global greenhouse gases and this is expected to rise to 76 per cent by 2030. However, the amount of GHG emissions attributed to cities is likely higher than previously thought. A 2018 report by C40 Cities found that when city residents’ consumption of products manufactured in other places is taken into consideration, cities’ GHG emissions are 60 per cent higher. In fact, 10 per cent of global emissions can be attributed to consumption in 94 of the world’s biggest cities. Producer cities may generate high emissions, but the products manufactured are often sold and used in other regions, namely Europe and North America.

(see “Urban Form”)

Tomalty (2013: 2) argues that a sustainable city meets the social and economic needs of its residents without undermining its ecological continuity over time... [This] entails ensuring that economic opportunities are fairly distributed among the population, that all citizens have an adequate standard of living (e.g., in terms of education, housing, health care, and food), and that everyone has access to opportunities for participation in community and political life.

The question is whether meeting the social and economic needs of residents, while still maintaining ecological integrity, is possible. Cities such as Melbourne, Vancouver, and Vienna, identified as among the world’s most liveable for meeting the social and economic needs of residents, are also often highly ecologically unsustainable, even though local governments and citizens recognize the environment as a priority. This led James (2015: 5) to identify a key urban sustainability paradox: “the more the language of sustainability is used, the more it seems to be directed at rationalizing unsustainable development.”

(see “Sustainable and Resilient Urban Development”)

The OECD has developed a Framework for Resilient Cities that outlines common attributes of resilient systems:

• Adaptable. Resilient cities can learn and adapt, thereby allowing for evolving standards, norms, and solutions.
• Robust. Risks, pressures, and stresses are spread throughout the urban system, thereby increasing the ability to withstand impacts and continue operations.
• Redundant. A certain degree of overlapping functioning, through a combination of actions, services, or services providers, allows vital functions to continue in the event of stresses, shocks, and pressures.
• Flexible. Allows for behaviour adjustments within government, communities, businesses, households, and individuals, in order to respond to current conditions or changes.
• Resourceful. In the event of crisis, shock, or stress, resilient urban systems can quickly restore the functionality of essential services and systems, even under highly constrained conditions.
• Inclusive. Diverse actors and communities are fully consulted, engaged, and empowered in policy programming and local initiatives.
• Integrated. Cooperative operations, management, and policy programming allow for more efficient and effective responses, outcomes, and solutions within the urban system. (see “Sustainable and Resilient Urban Development”)

Urban form refers to the type and distribution of infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads) and is a key factor influencing sustainability, resilience, and environmental quality. Sustainable urban forms (SUFs) have a number of common characteristics:

• SUFs tend to be compact, with new buildings erected close to previously existing structures.
• Sustainable urban forms also tend to be diverse, both physically and socially. SUFs incorporate a diversity of land uses, meaning that residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportation land uses can be found in close proximity. It also includes diversity of housing styles, types of housing, and building densities, as well as diversity in household sizes, ages, cultures, and incomes.
• Finally, SUFs take advantage of passive solar design and greening opportunities. Building orientation, construction materials, and landscaping are taken into consideration in design and construction in order to reduce the energy needed for heating and cooling.
  (see “Urban Form”)

The External Advisory Committee reported various trends 15 years ago, which are still relevant:

• The average home in Canada is farther away from a city centre than it was a decade ago.
• The proportion of low-rise, low-density homes, except in major cities, is expanding steadily.
• While house sizes have increased, the number of people in households has decreased, resulting in space and energy use per person going up significantly.
• Commuting times have increased, with traffic congestion costs estimated at $2.3 to $3.7 billion each year, with obvious negative consequences for productivity.
• Sprawl causes higher servicing and infrastructure costs and less effective public transit service, displaces large tracts of habitat and prime agricultural land, and contributes to water quality degradation.

 The External Advisory Committee concluded that “the principal land use challenge is to reduce sprawl in our growing places.

(see “Urban Sprawl”)

Fragmentation of the urban territory brings both administrative inefficiency and environmental setbacks. The boundaries of the city’s administration rarely coincide with its actual area of influence. Without some sort of regional entity, the administration of key services, such as water and transport, which cut across different boundaries, is very difficult. By the same token, fragmentation breaks up the contiguity that natural processes require. Fragmentation also makes it difficult to protect ecologically fragile areas or regulate for environmental integrity. Boundaries of urban municipalities usually reflect administrative or political, not ecological, considerations.

An ecosystem approach is most commonly achieved through a “regional authority” based on landscape features. Managers are thus encouraged to consider the larger ecosystem within which a city is located. This is not a perfect solution but is a first step. For instance, many cities under a regional government are often reluctant to give up their authority or autonomy. This may lead to conflicts and requires a high level of capacity to facilitate cooperation and negotiation.

(see “Spatial Scale”)

Solutions to heat island effects depend on reductions in energy consumption, pollution, and urban sprawl, such as the following:

• Design buildings and neighbourhoods to balance building structures with the geometric shapes and characters of the areas between buildings to reduce the amount of energy hitting the surface of buildings and roadways and thus the amount of energy to be re-radiated. North–south street orientations reduce the amount of energy that will reach roads.
• Use light-coloured surfaces and less thermally-absorptive exterior facing on buildings. However, this initiative reduces the potential for solar-based heating systems.
• Provide vegetation surfaces in place of or to shade heat-absorbing surfaces. This can reduce the urban heat island effect by between 25–80 per cent; however, Negative effects can include obstructions to walking, hiding places for assailants, injuries from falling branches, and an increase in pollen and mould that trigger allergies.
  (see Box 14.6)

Urban areas affect the hydrological cycle in terms of both the quantity and quality of water. Regarding quantity, an obvious impact arises from urban infrastructure creating an impervious surface. The implications are twofold. First, expansion of roads and construction of parking lots and buildings results in stormwater running off more quickly, since the impervious surface prevents it from soaking into the soil. Second, consequences are (1) surface flooding and (2) reduced recharge of aquifers. Water quality is also negatively affected by pollutants and contaminants that get washed into surface streams and groundwater systems. The result is degraded water quality, with negative health consequences for humans and other species.

(see “Stormwater, Drinking Water, and Wastewater”)

Superstorm Sandy illustrates in more detail how hazards can be experienced by urban dwellers, and highlights some of the resilience responses taken in the aftermath of the disaster. This should help you to reflect on longer-term thinking about how to cope with natural hazards in urban centres. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, natural protection mechanisms were considered to enhance resilience in the face of storms and climate change. The approach represents a significant shift from structural protection measures (e.g., levees, flood walls, etc.) and acknowledges the importance of integrating socio-ecological systems to build resilience against future hazards and environmental changes. While Superstorm Sandy was an extreme natural disaster, it emphasizes that humans often are vulnerable because of where they live and work, sometimes by choice but more often because they have no alternatives or the means to relocate to a safer geographical area. The key message is that, as a species, humans have choices and often have not been attentive enough to the risks posed by natural hazards. Consideration of natural hazards also requires active individual responses. Urban citizens should be aware of the hazards in their community and how to respond when a major hazard threatens.

(see “Natural and Human-Induced Hazards”)

When seeking locations for such waste management facilities as incinerators or landfills, there is often opposition by residents to these locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), who take a not in my backyard (NIMBY) attitude. Historically, waste incineration facilities were associated with significant pollutants, including ash falls and heavy metals. Although technology has advanced significantly, the general public remains concerned about the waste gases produced through incineration.

(see “Recover”)

 Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focuses on making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Important targets set to meet this goal include (can list any 3):

• By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport
• Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage
• By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management
• By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities
• Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
• By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement holistic disaster risk management at all levels
• Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials
  (see Box 14.1)

The ten goals are as follows:

1. Goal 1. Eliminate dependence on fossil fuels
   Target: reduce GHG emissions 33 per cent from 2007 levels
   2018 progress: 7 per cent decrease in GHG emissions
   Challenges: Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

2. Goal 2. Lead the world in green building design and construction
   Target: all new construction to be carbon neutral: reduce energy use and GHG emissions in existing buildings by 20 per cent over 2007 levels
   2018 progress: 43 per cent decrease in GHG emissions from new buildings, 5 per cent reduction in total GHG emissions
   Challenges: refurbishing costs associated with reducing emissions in pre-existing buildings

3. Goal 3. Make walking, cycling, and public transit preferred transportation options
   Target: make over 50 per cent of trips on foot, bicycle, and public transit; reduce average distance driven per resident by 20 per cent from 2007 levels
   2018 progress: 48 per cent of trips involve walking, cycling, or public transit; total vehicle kms driven/person/year reduced by 36 per cent
   Challenges: overcrowding, traffic injuries/fatalities

4. Goal 4. Create zero waste
   Target: reduce solid waste going to landfill or incinerator by 50 per cent from 2008 levels
   2018 progress: 23 per cent decrease in solid waste sent to landfill
   Challenges: requires collaboration, shift in views, new habits

5. Goal 5. Provide incomparable access to green spaces, including the world’s most spectacular urban forest
   Target: every person lives within a 5 min walk of a natural space, plant 150,000 trees in the city; restore/enhance 25ha of natural areas; increase canopy cover to 22 per cent by 2050
   2018 progress: 92.7 per cent of residents live within a 5 min walk to greenspace; 102,000 trees planted; 26ha of natural areas restored or enhanced; 18 per cent of city’s land area covered by tree leaf canopy
   Challenges: density of buildings and underground infrastructure

6. Goal 6. Enjoy the best drinking water of any major city in the world
   Target: always meet/beat strongest drinking water standards; reduce water consumption by 33 per cent
   2018 progress: water quality standards always met; 18 per cent decrease in total water consumption
   Challenges: temperature increases in the summer, reduced snowmelt

7. Goal 7. Become a global leader in urban food systems
   Target: Increase city-wide and neighbourhood food assets by a minimum of 50 per cent over 2010 levels
   2018 progress: 53 per cent increase in neighbourhood food assets since 2010
   Challenges: balancing densification of urban areas and providing options for affordable housing

8. Goal 8. Breathe the cleanest air of any major city in the world
   Target: Always meet or beat WHO air quality guidelines
   2018 progress: 324 instances where air quality standards not met
   Challenges: record-breaking wildfires in 2017

9. Goal 9. Gain international recognition as a mecca of green enterprise
   Target: Double the number of green jobs over 2010 levels; double the number of companies actively engaged in greening their operations over 2011 levels
   2018 progress: 35 per cent increase in the number of green jobs, 9 per cent of businesses engaged in greening of their operations in 2017
   Challenges: balancing densification of urban areas and providing options for affordable housing

10. Goal 10. Achieve a one-planet ecological footprint
    Target: Reduce per capita ecological footprint by 33 per cent over 2006 levels
    2018 progress: 20 per cent decrease in ecological footprint
    Challenges: lack of data(see “Vancouver: Greenest City 2020”)

The waste management hierarchy is a more complex way of thinking about the 3Rs: source reduction, followed by reuse, and recycling.

• Prevent and Reduce. Many ways exist to prevent and reduce waste from occurring in the first place. Consider whether you need to purchase a product at all, try to avoid purchasing single-use products or products with excessive packaging, use reusable products. Waste can be reduced if manufacturers are required to use less product packaging, by establishing deposit refunds for glass bottles, or banning certain product Reducing food waste is a key area for waste reduction. At the production and marketing levels, unmarketable crops can be donated and food date-labelling practices can be clarified. Educational programs, including the use of social media, can encourage consumers to implement strategies that can reduce food waste, including using shopping lists, appropriately storing food stuffs, planning meals, and using up food before it spoils.
• Reuse. Reusing involves the “redistribution of previously owned material goods, in their original form, from one agent to another through a transfer of ownership (sale, swap, barter, gift) or temporary use agreement (borrow, rental, lease, share, loan). Reusing emphasizes higher-quality, durable goods that last longer and reduce the need for raw materials. This can be through yard sales, thrift stores, flea markets, consignment shops, second-hand stores, and a “library of things.”
• Recycle. Municipal governments can enhance reduction of the waste stream by expanding the types of items that can be placed in blue recycling boxes and by providing blue box services to apartments and office buildings. Individuals can become more disciplined in using blue and green boxes and composting organic wastes. While recycling can be an effective approach for recovering certain materials, it is an energy- and water-intensive process.
• Recove In energy recovery, or energy-from-waste (EFW) approaches, waste is incinerated to produce electricity for surrounding areas. Nevertheless, energy recovery is challenging; establishing an incinerator facility is usually controversial, since most people are not enthusiastic about having one nearby.
• Dispose. Around the world, using landfills and open dumping is the most common approach to managing waste. Landfills have often been viewed as the cheapest and most efficient way to dispose of waste. However, this view is changing due to environmental concerns associated with landfills and lack of options for expanding existing or building new landfills. As seen in the waste management hierarchy (Figure 14.2), landfills and land treatments should be the final option for dealing with waste, once all other options have been exhausted.
  (see “Waste Management”)

Various other strategies can reduce energy use by transportation within cities, including:

1. facilitating teleworking and teleservices to reduce travel time
2. ensuring parking arrangements encourage reduced car travel (providing ample parking adjacent to public transit departure nodes; setting appropriate [higher] charges for parking cars near workplaces)
3. encouraging development of ride-sharing programs
4. initiating transit pass programs to provide a seamless public transit system
5. facilitating use of bicycles and other means with a small ecological footprint
   (see “Transportation”)

Along with more efficient and sustainable wastewater treatment, municipal governments can also protect water supplies and sources through ecological methods. In addition to creating or enhancing parks, they can facilitate community gardens, ban “cosmetic” use of pesticides, and protect or restore wetlands and other natural areas.

At the household level, residents can plant more trees and shrubs, which take up rainwater and help keep buildings cooler. Using native species for home gardens instead of lawns and imported plants is beneficial because native species are adapted to local climate conditions and therefore need less watering or fertilizing. Another option is to grow vegetables at home or in an allotment garden, since locally grown vegetables contribute less to energy use and emissions than those grown farther away. These options all help connect water management practices with other relevant urban environmental management issues.

(see “Stormwater, Drinking Water, and Wastewater”)