Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Urban sustainability: Research, politics, policy and practice

Igor Vojnovic ⇑
Department of Geography, Michigan State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the world becoming urban and virtually all population growth over the next three decades expected
Available online 17 July 2014 in cities, it is certain that key pressures of government and governance will be urban in nature. In
addition, much of the global wealth and resource consumption is concentrated in urban regions, and
Keywords: particularly in high-income countries. Into the 21st century, these evolving urban socio-ecological con-
Urban sustainability ditions and pressures are reflected, in part, in the global interest in urban sustainability. This article
Politics explores the evolution of the concepts sustainability and urban sustainability and assesses where we
Policy
stand now with regard to research, politics, policy and practice. A particular interest in this analysis is
placed on what limits our advancement toward the sustainability condition, with a focus placed on
the interplay between two variables, the limited understanding of the science behind sustainability or
the lack of commitment and apprehension by governments in advancing urban sustainability.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Urban sustainability: Research, politics, policy and practice
Into the 21st century, global urban trends have taken human
civilization into unknown territory. For the first time in history,
more than half the world population lives in urban areas. If this
urbanization pattern continues, virtually all population growth
over the next three decades is projected to take place in cities.
By 2030, the world urban population is expected to be some
5 billion people (United Nations, 2012). With population increases
focused in urban areas, and with global wealth also concentrated in
cities—particularly in high-income countries—most world resource
stocks are directed to cities, making them the source of much of the
global environmental degradation (Odum, 1997; Wackernagel &
Rees, 1996; WI, 2013). In fact, while urban areas constitute some
2% of the land surface on Earth, more than 75% of the Earth
resources depleted in any one year are consumed by urban
inhabitants (Girardet, 2000). In addition, most of this urban
resource demand is disproportionately consumed in wealthy
countries, while the environmental impacts of these consumption
practices are global.
Compounding local population and natural resource pressures,
new development patterns have also emerged with some of the
largest cities in the world. Historically, the size of cities was closely
aligned with the wealth of nations, with the largest cities being
located in wealthy countries. Examples are provided with Rome
during the Roman Empire, or the populations of Peking (China)
⇑ Tel.: +1 (517)355 7718.
E-mail address: vojnovic@msu.edu
and Cairo (Egypt) during the Middle Ages. Reversing these histori-
cal trends, currently, some of the most populated cities in the
world are located in some of the poorest countries (Table 1). In
many cases, these are also countries where due to poverty, the
local population is experiencing acute urban, environmental and
health stresses.
It should be recognized, however, that while megacities receive
the media attention, it is cities of less than a million inhabitants
that make up the majority of the world’s urban population
(UNFPA, 2007). By 2005, cities with populations of less than a mil-
lion had accounted for more than 60% of the global urban popula-
tion. Furthermore, over the next decade, it is these cities where the
significant urban population growth is expected to occur.
In addition to these urbanization trends, the growing disparity
between wealthy and poor populations has emerged at the fore-
front of the debates on urban-environmental pressures and gover-
nance. With increasing economic globalization and the global
diffusion of neoliberalism have come deregulation, privatization
and the scaling-back of government in public service provision.
While these policies have benefitted some urban populations, they
have also increased socio-economic pressures on large population
segments, and particularly moderate- and lower-income groups.
By the mid-2000s, while the richest 20% of the world’s population
maintained about 75% of global income, the poorest 20% held only
some 5% of world income (UNDP, 2007). For the thirteen poorest
countries in the world, the real average income of its population
in 2010 was lower than in 1970 (UNDP, 2010). Moreover, into
the mid-2000s, over 80% of the world’s population lived in coun-
tries where income inequality was increasing (UNDP, 2007).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.002
0264-2751/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44 S31

Table 1
Twenty largest urban agglomerations, 1950 projected to 2025. Source: United Nations (2004) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. United Nations, New York; United
Nations (2012) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. United Nations, New York.

1950 1975
Urban agglomeration Population Urban agglomeration Population
1 New York 12,338,000 1 Tokyo 26,615,000
2 Tokyo 11,275,000 2 New York 15,880,000
3 London 8,361,000 3 Shanghai 11,443,000
4 Paris 5,424,000 4 Mexico City 10,690,000
5 Moscow 5,356,000 5 Osaka 9,844,000
6 Shanghai 5,333,000 6 São Paulo 9,614,000
7 Rhein-Ruhr Northa 5,295,000 7 Buenos Aires 9,143,000
8 Buenos Aires 5,041,000 8 Los Angeles 8,926,000
9 Chicago 4,999,000 9 Paris 8,630,000
10 Calcutta 4,446,000 10 Beijing 8,545,000
11 Osaka 4,147,000 11 Calcutta 7,888,000
12 Los Angeles 4,046,000 12 Moscow 7,623,000
13 Beijing 3,913,000 13 Rio de Janeiro 7,557,000
14 Milan 3,633,000 14 London 7,546,000
15 Berlin 3,337,000 15 Mumbai 7,347,000
16 Philadelphia 3,128,000 16 Chicago 7,160,000
17 Mumbai 2,981,000 17 Seoul 6,808,000
18 Rio de Janeiro 2,930,000 18 Rhein-Ruhr Northa 6,448,000
19 Saint Petersburg 2,903,000 19 Cairo 6,437,000
20 Mexico City 2,883,000 20 Tianjin 6,160,000
Average size of top 20 urban agglomerations 5,088,450 Average size of top 20 urban agglomerations 9,515,200

2011 Projected 2025

Urban agglomeration Population Urban agglomeration Population
1 Tokyo 37,200,000 1 Tokyo 38,700,000
2 Delhi 22,700,000 2 Delhi 32,900,000
3 Mexico City 20,400,000 3 Shanghai 28,400,000
4 New York-Newark 20,400,000 4 Mumbai 26,600,000
5 Shanghai 20,200,000 5 Mexico City 24,600,000
6 São Paulo 19,900,000 6 New York 23,600,000
7 Mumbai 19,700,000 7 São Paulo 23,200,000
8 Beijing 15,600,000 8 Dhaka 22,900,000
9 Dhaka 15,400,000 9 Beijing 22,600,000
10 Calcutta 14,400,000 10 Karachi 20,200,000
11 Karachi 13,900,000 11 Lagos 18,900,000
12 Buenos Aires 13,500,000 12 Calcutta 18,700,000
13 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 13,400,000 13 Manila 16,300,000
14 Rio de Janeiro 12,000,000 14 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 15,700,000
15 Manila 11,900,000 15 Shenzhen 15,500,000
16 Moscow 11,600,000 16 Buenos Aires 15,500,000
17 Osaka-Kobe 11,500,000 17 Guangzhou 15,500,000
18 Istanbul 11,300,000 18 Istanbul 14,900,000
19 Lagos 11,200,000 19 Cairo 14,700,000
20 Cairo 11,200,000 20 Kinshasa 14,500,000
Average size of top 20 urban agglomerations 16,370,000 Average size of top 20 urban agglomerations 21,195,000
a
The urban agglomeration around Essen, Germany.

These income differentials translate directly into global con-
sumption patterns. By 2007, while the world’s wealthiest 20%
accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption, the world’s
poorest 20% accounted for only 1.5% of total private consumption
(World Bank, 2008). The global impacts of this resource distribu-
tion, and consumption, are substantial and fall on the world’s most
marginalized. In 2008 alone, due to poverty related causes, about
1004 children below the age of five died every hour worldwide
(UNICEF, 2009).
Into the 21st century, given the anticipated world population
concentrations, the on-going rise of mega-cities in poorer coun-
tries—along with the social and health stresses expected in these
cities—and the direct and indirect impacts of urban populations
on the natural environment, urban stresses will most likely be
the most significant pressures on world governments and
governance.
It is also apparent that there is an urban, socio-economic and
environmental coupling in dealing with urban stresses, and this
is encapsulated in the discourse on urban sustainability. By the
late-1980s, and particularly after the publication of Our Common
Future by the WCED (1987), the concepts ‘sustainable develop-
ment’ and ‘sustainable societies’ permeated the global discourse
on the pursuit of a socio-ecological condition that balanced the
needs of humankind while preserving the quality of the natural
environment and the functioning of its ecological systems over
time. Due to growing urban pressures, the interest in sustainability
also took on an urban focus. The recognition of the disproportion-
ate consumption and environmental degradation driven by urban
inhabitants gave rise to a new perspective on cities, captured effec-
tively by Odum (1997, p. 290) who argued that ‘‘cities are parasites
on the biosphere.’’ In addition, the newly emerging global urbani-
zation patterns, the rapid rise of megacities in poorer nations and a
series of local stresses with devastating regional, national and
transnational consequences—including the Bhopal gas tragedy,
Love Canal, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island—reinforced the inter-
dependence between the local (including urban and surrounding
regions) and global, and placed cities and their regions at the fore-
front of sustainability discussions by the late-20th century.
S32 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
In the context of the growing global interest in sustainability,
this article will explore the evolution of the concept ‘urban sustain-
ability’ and assesses where we stand now with regard to research,
politics, policy and practice. A particular emphasis is placed on
what limits our advancement toward the sustainability condition,
with a focus placed on the interplay between two variables—the
limited understanding of the science behind sustainability or the
lack of commitment by particular sub-groups in advancing urban
sustainability.
Sustainability: Shaping the current discourse
The present-day discussions of sustainability are largely attrib-
uted to the 18th and 19th century ‘‘sustainable yield’’ applications
in forest management (Worster, 1993, p. 144). While these man-
agement practices are assumed to have emerged out of Germany,
researchers in France have discovered written records of
approaches to sustainable forest management dating back to
1144, recorded on the walls of a monastery in Alsace (Krieger,
2001). The ‘spirit’ of sustainability, however, can be traced back
to even earlier periods of history, going back some 2000 years to
Aristotle’s work on ethics and politics (Daly & Cobb, 1994;
Vojnovic, 2013).
‘Sustainability’, as understood within the contemporary con-
text, begins to appear in environmental literature during the
1970s. The authors of The Limits to Growth (1972), a project focused
on modeling the dynamics of the human presence on earth, con-
clude that the world is ‘‘simply not ample enough nor generous
enough to accommodate much longer such egocentric and conflic-
tive behavior by its inhabitants’’ (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, &
Behrens, 1972, p. 192). The solution, as advanced by Meadows
et al. (1972, p. 24), was to pursue a society in a steady state of
socio-ecological equilibrium, which would allow a ‘‘condition of
ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the
future.’’ The idea of a global system characterized by long-term
socio-economic and ecological stability resonated strongly in the
world community in the midst of a global energy and economic
crisis.
Two years following the publication of The Limits to Growth, the
sustainability concept would again emerge in a transnational dis-
course and it would take on an important directional change. In
1974, at the World Council of Churches (WCC) conference in
Bucharest, the pursuit of social equity was introduced as a key
component of sustainability. The notion of a ‘‘sustainable society’’
was also coined at the conference. The Bucharest conference’s
Report called for a ‘‘long-term concept of a sustainable and just
society’’ based on four considerations:
First, social stability cannot be obtained without an equitable
distribution of what is in scarce supply or without common
opportunity to participate in social decisions. Second, a robust
global society will not be sustainable unless the need for food
is at any time well below the global capacity to supply it, and
unless the emissions of pollutants are well below the capacity
of the ecosystem to absorb them. Third, the new social organi-
zation will be sustainable only as long as the rate of use of non-
renewable resources does not outrun the increase in resources
made available through technological innovation. Finally, a sus-
tainable society requires a level of human activity which is not
adversely influenced by the never ending, large and frequent
natural variation in global climate.
[Abrecht & WCC, 1978, p. 3]
A clearer coupling between socio-economic and natural sys-
tems had been made, and from this point onward, sustainability
became closely aligned with the pursuit of social justice.
While the 1970s were important in developing the nascent dis-
cussion, it was during the 1980s that the notion of sustainability
emerged within a mainstream global discourse. In 1980, the term
sustainable development was first used in the International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ (IUCN) report
World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for
Sustainable Development. Similar to the concept of sustainable
development that would be advanced over the coming decades,
the IUCN (1980, p. 1) argued for ‘‘the management of human use
of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable
benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to
meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.’’ The IUCN
Report was important in setting the stage for future UN work on
the topic, and particularly, research by the World Commission on
the Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland
Commission.
One year after the IUCN publication, Lester Brown brought
attention back to the concept sustainability, in his book Building
a Sustainable Society (1981). He strengthened the importance of
ensuring intergenerational equity as a precondition for sustainabil-
ity, and he also recognized the difficulty in achieving this equity
principle, given that ‘‘generations yet to come are not represented
in the bargaining over resources’’ (Brown, 1981, p. 359). As a result,
he contends that ‘‘[a]ll too many of our generation have adopted
consumption patterns that reflect little concern for future genera-
tions’’ (Brown, 1981, p. 359).
While the concepts ‘sustainable societies’ and ‘sustainable
development’ were receiving increasing attention by the mid-
1980s, it was the publication Our Common Future (1987) by the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
that gave ‘sustainable development’ widespread global recogni-
tion. The WCED argued that industrialization and economic devel-
opment over the preceding 150 years had generated
unprecedented changes to our planet, threatening our social and
ecological stability. The Commission (1987, p. 343) stressed the
need for significant modifications ‘‘in attitudes and reorientation
of policies and institutions.’’ In achieving these major socio-ecolog-
ical transformations, the WCED (1987, p. 43) advocated the pursuit
of sustainable development, ‘‘development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.’’ The Commission also advanced the
notion of the equitable access to resources both within and
between generations. The WCED members argued that meeting
the needs of the world’s poor should be seen as a critical dimension
to sustainable development.
What the IUCN and the WCED had advanced was a broad con-
cept outlining a notion of development that advocated some form
of human activity that could maintain the quality of natural
resources and the environment over time while meeting the needs
of future generations. As noted by the members themselves,
‘‘[s]ustainable development has been described here in general
terms’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 47). In fact, this can be said for most works
on the topic of sustainable development and sustainable societies
to date. The definitions of these concepts have been extremely
broad and widely interpretable. In fact, by the early 1990s, approx-
imately a decade after the concept was first used by the IUCN, over
eighty different definitions of just the term ‘sustainable develop-
ment’ were already in existence (Hardoy, Mitlin, & Satterthwaite,
1992). As argued by Fowke and Prasad (1996, p. 61), sustainability
and sustainable development are ‘‘defined by various interest
groups in a manner which suits their own goals and agendas.’’
For example, distinctions are drawn between the concepts sustain-
able development and sustainable societies, with increasing criti-
cism cast on the advocacy of sustainable development. A
contradiction is seen between the term ‘development’, considered
synonymous with high-consumption levels and the protection of
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
material privileges, and the term ‘sustainability,’ interpreted as
being more concerned with the maintenance of natural environ-
mental quality and the robustness of ecological systems over time
(Sachs, 1992). In establishing this distinction, critics point to what
is perceived as far from sustainable WCED assumptions on
expected increases in global economic activity. Members of the
WCED (1987, p. 213) maintained that ‘‘[g]iven expected population
growth, a five- to ten-fold increase in world industrial output can
be anticipated by the time the world population stabilizes some-
time in the next century.’’ With the threat to planetary systems
outlined by the WCED, it was difficult to envision how a five- to
ten-fold increase in world industrial output was to be realized in
a sustainable society.
Global initiatives
In response to the WCED—and despite the vagueness of sustain-
ability advocates—considerable transnational political effort began
to be focused on pursuing sustainability. In 1992, at the UN Confer-
ence on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro
it was revealed that most of the world’s governments considered
the pursuit of sustainable development as desirable. UNCED, which
included 172 countries, became the largest environmental confer-
ence ever held. In addition to its symbolic and political importance,
five notable documents emerged from what became known as the
‘Earth Summit’, including Agenda 21, The Rio Declaration, The
Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity and The Forest Principles.
The realization of UNCED objectives was to be a difficult task. At
the 1995 UN Climate Change Convention in Berlin, the 1997 Kyoto
Conference and the 1997 UN General Assembly Session in New
York City, it was evident that not much progress was being made.
Despite all the apparent global support, no significant advance was
being made in implementing sustainability (Cerin & Karlson, 2002;
Dodds, 2000).
Ten years after the Earth Summit, at the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, the pursuit of
the Rio principles was again strongly reaffirmed. However, frustra-
tions continued to be expressed over the lack of progress in imple-
menting sustainability. By this point, two key impediments were
identified. First, while the relevance of the sustainability advocacy
was clearly apparent, it was evident that there was a general
absence of knowledge, and agreement, on exactly how to achieve
this condition. Second, in some national contexts, there was simply
no political will to pursue UNCED objectives.
With regard to defining pathways to sustainability, the Johan-
nesburg Summit had revealed what other conferences over the
previous decade demonstrated, namely the lack of knowledge
and ongoing contentions in the design of mechanisms for
advancing sustainability. In addition, given the widely different
interpretations of sustainable societies and sustainable develop-
ment, the proposals for advancing toward these conditions had
ranged extensively. On the one end, theoreticians such as Sachs
(1993, 2003) and Trainer (1995, 2002) advocated the pursuit of
sustainability through revolutionary social, economic and political
transformations, focused on achieving a balanced global human-
ecological system. In contrast, in what is viewed as a public
relations exercise with no fundamental impact on corporate
behavior, industrial and commercial interests—including the
chemical industry’s Responsible Care and the Business Council
for Sustainable Development—offer the view that the world needs
to pursue sustainable economic development, a simple combina-
tion of ongoing economic growth and resource conservation
(Morehouse, 1994; Rowell, 1996).
If the first hurdle to pursuing the Rio principles appeared large,
the second hurdle—the political will to advance sustainability—
S33
was just as daunting. This too became reinforced at the Johannes-
burg Summit, with George W. Bush boycotting the Summit and his
administration rejecting binding pollution and poverty reduction
targets, thus paralyzing the advancement of any meaningful global
agreements.
Perhaps the most obvious example of the lack of global political
support and the resulting inability to initiate any effective interna-
tional agreement supporting sustainability was evident with the
Kyoto Protocol, an addendum to the 1992 United Nations Frame-
work Convention on Climate Change, which was negotiated and
signed at UNCED in Rio. The Protocol was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto
with the detailed implementation rules adopted at COP 7 in Mar-
rakesh in 2001, setting mandatory limits on national greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. At COP 7, the US representatives were simply
present as observers, but there was hope that at some later time
that they too would ratify the Protocol.
During the 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg, and over the
next six years of the George W. Bush administration, the politics
of Kyoto and their role in hindering an international agreement
came to the forefront of the discussions. The President—who had
strong constituency support from the mining, oil, and natural gas
industries—had little interest in establishing mandatory climate
measures (Skodvin & Andresen, 2009). The Republican Party firmly
maintained during the Bush’ presidency that the US was simply not
going to agree to any binding emission limits. While the 2008 elec-
tion of Barack Obama gave new promise of change in the US cli-
mate policy agenda, the Congress never did ratify the Protocol.
In 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol came into force, the US and
Australia did not sign the agreement and newly industrializing
countries, including China and India, did not confront mandatory
limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, with the election of
a new government in Australia, Prime Minister Rudd immediately
proceeded to ratify the Protocol. While Australia’s ratification was
considered a major victory, within the next half decade, a major
loss was also confronted, as in 2011, Canada gave notice that it
would withdraw from the Protocol, becoming the first nation to
pull out of the treaty.
Critics have maintained that not having China, India, and the US
as part of the global commitment on greenhouse gas emission lim-
its makes any international agreement meaningless. In 2010, this
criticism was effectively voiced by Akira Yamada, Japan’s Deputy
Director General for Global Issues, who compared the US, China
and India as ‘‘spectators’’ at a soccer match that the rest of the
world was playing (Eilperin & Booth, 2010).
By the 2002 Johannesburg Summit, the promise of the previous
decade had waned. It was fully understood—and it would be rein-
forced over the next decade—that the pursuit of UNCED initiatives
was limited by both scientific and political barriers. The political
barriers were also potentially more significant than the scientific
barriers, given that three of the world’s major GHG emitters
showed little interest in committing to emission limits. There
was clearly considerable variability in the degree to which nations
embraced the pursuit of sustainability.
Inter-generational and intra-generational equity and the
pursuit of sustainability
The role of markets and social and racial justice
Sustainability reflects a socio-ecological condition that ensures
the basic needs of the global human population over time, in
balance with long-term ecological stability. In terms of policy,
analysts have recognized that pursuing sustainability requires
integration, the coupling of environmental, social and economic
dimensions of policy initiatives, which is achieved with the pursuit
S34 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
of two conditions, inter-generational and intra-generational equity
(Campbell, 1996; Padilla, 2002; Pearce and Turner, 1991; Pelletier,
2010; Vojnovic, 1995). The understanding of inter-generational and
intra-generational equity principles has been developing since the
early work by Meadows et al. (1972), taking on increasing
complexity over time, but these principles have remained the
foundational goals in pursuing sustainability.
Inter-generational equity
Inter-generational equity is concerned with maintaining the
quality of natural ecological systems and their services over time,
ensuring the survival of humankind. This requires the difficult task
by any one generation of leaving the next generation an inheri-
tance of resource wealth no less than what they inherited. For
some natural capital stocks, renewable resources being an exam-
ple, the requirements for pursuing sustainability are clear. With
renewable resources, as in the classic examples of forests and fish
stocks, the resources cannot be used or consumed at a rate that is
greater than their regeneration rate.
Another critical aspect of the natural ecological system is its
ability to act as a waste sink. For example, a Douglas fir is able to
absorb 39.6 lb of sulfur-dioxide from the atmosphere annually
without harming itself (Haughton & Hunter, 1996, p. 18). With
the natural system’s ability to convert waste discharges into envi-
ronmentally neutral or even useful products, advancement toward
sustainability would require waste discharges to be maintained at,
or below, the assimilative capacity of the natural environment
(Markandya, 2002).
With exhaustible resources, which include non-regenerating or
slowly-regenerating natural capital—such as minerals and fossil
fuels—guaranteeing their sustainability is more difficult (Hackett,
2001; Rees, 1992). With exhaustible resources, sustainability con-
fronts its first paradox. How can any one generation guarantee
future generations an inheritance of resource wealth no less than
what they inherited if they are consuming resources which are
exhaustible and in many cases cannot be reused or recycled?
The answer to this problem offered by environmental econo-
mists is based on pricing strategies (Moffatt, Hanley, & Wilson,
2001; Pearce & Atkinson, 1993). It is argued that if the depletion
of exhaustible resources is occurring at rates dangerously high,
then the price of these resources will be bid-up and the rate of their
consumption slowed or stopped. According to this view, the use of
exhaustible resources will be safeguarded by encouraging pricing
according to scarcity (Costanza, 2001). However, this pricing strat-
egy does not guarantee that vital natural resources will not be
depleted or that productive functions of the natural environment
will not be impaired. An economic agent (individual or corporate
entity) might be willing to pay the necessary price for the last of
a species or a territory with a unique ecosystem, leading to the
extinction of the species or irreversibly damaging the ecosystem.
Ultimately, legislation/regulation in such cases—as long as it is
enforceable—will be more effective in safeguarding sensitive eco-
logical systems.
In addition, correct pricing strategies face a critical dilemma.
For vast natural environmental services (renewable, non-renew-
able and the environmental assimilative capacity) no economic
markets exist. This is particularly evident for environmental
resources that have no defined ownership. This ‘absence of defined
property rights’ (Baumol & Oates, 1993) ultimately leads to
Hardins’ (1968) ‘tragedy of the commons.’ In cases where there
are no markets for natural environmental services and capital,
these resources are generally not accounted for in decision-making
processes, because the exhaustion of these resources, or their use,
is not considered a cost. As argued by Vojnovic (2013, p. 25):
the natural environment provides extensive services, such as
converting waste discharge into environmentally useful or neu-
tral products, climate stabilization, and photosynthesis, that are
not priced by markets. Natural lands, for instance, act as green
infrastructure—maintaining water pollution control, groundwa-
ter recharge, storm water management, and increasing the
capacity to support biodiversity—with no market being able to
assess the value and the price of these environmental services.
While these natural functions are essential for the survival of
humankind, since markets do not exist for these environmental
services they are provided for free, generating their overuse and
degradation.
The dangers associated with the absence of markets for
resources are two-fold. First, without environmental markets and
the resulting non-pricing or under-pricing of resources, economic
activities will encourage the overuse and degradation of natural
ecological systems. The second issue deals with the absence of
market signals indicating when the depletion of exhaustible
resources is occurring at excessive rates. Without markets for envi-
ronmental capital, the marketplace cannot provide a signal antic-
ipating the threat of complete degradation by excessive pollution
or over-consumption. As a result, species extinction, global warm-
ing and ozone depletion continue, and public life goes on with little
apparent disruption, yet Marissa Mayer (CEO of Yahoo) announces
that she is pregnant and large-scale global market fluctuations
ensue.
In addressing the vexing problem of guaranteeing a constant
stock of exhaustible resources over time—slow- or non-regenerat-
ing resources, including fossil fuels and minerals—a distinction is
proposed between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ sustainability (Mori &
Christodoulou, 2012; Neumayer, 2003). Whereas strong sustain-
ability would require keeping natural capital stocks intact over
time, weak sustainability would require keeping intact the envi-
ronmental functions of the natural capital, both human and natu-
ral. With weak sustainability, future generations would just need
to inherit the same productive functions of a particular exhaustible
resource, but not the resource itself. For example, the use of fossil
fuel by existing generations can be offset with increased produc-
tive capacity in solar, tidal and wind energy, which would replace
the productive functions of the depleted exhaustible fuel resource.
Given the importance of economic markets in guiding global
socio-economic and political structures, it is worthwhile recogniz-
ing that markets might be a mechanism to advance sustainability.
However, markets do not currently represent future generations in
negotiations over resources, an issue particularly relevant when
considering exhaustible resources. Even in cases where environ-
mental markets exist, there is a fundamental failure in their struc-
ture, since they do not reflect the preferences and willingness to
pay for resources by future generations; key economic agents
within the context of sustainability. By incorporating a ‘sustain-
ability’ tax—even rough estimates that can at least lead the pricing
of resources in the right direction—markets can be adjusted to bet-
ter capture the value of existing resources to those not yet born.
Intra-generational equity
Intra-generational equity is based on promoting the equitable
access to resources within current generations, providing human
populations with basic needs, such as shelter, water, sewage,
employment and adequate nutrition (Manderscheid, 2012;
Pelletier, 2010; Revesz, Sands, & Stewart, 2000; Vargas, 2000a,
2000b). As asserted by the Brundtland Commission, it would
encompass dealing with all local problems that would ensure the
elimination of ‘‘poverty, hunger, and disease’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 29).
Similarly argued by Mostafa Tolba, former Executive Director
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
of the United Nations Environment Program, ‘‘[t]he harsh fact
remains: conservation is incompatible with absolute poverty’’
(Tolba, 1990, p. 108).
Sustainability initiatives must pursue inter-generational and
intra-generational equity simultaneously, since it would be mean-
ingless to encourage policies that will satisfy human needs indefi-
nitely while people in the current generation starve. Some have
argued for inter-generational equity to be the overriding sustain-
ability principle, but it is difficult to see what makes the needs of
future generations any more important than the needs of existing
generations. For many leaders, discussions over ‘conservation’ are
meaningless when millions of their people are dying every year
from poverty related causes. The day-to-day priority for over a bil-
lion people worldwide remains basic survival (UNDP, 2010).
For decades, leaders in poorer countries have criticized wealthy
nations for not recognizing the sensitivity to fundamental intra-
generational equity issues. In fact, there are constant and ongoing
tensions in international discussions, with clear divisions between
wealthy and poor nations, over forgoing current consumption to
meet the needs of future generations. Fundamentally, therefore,
intra-generation equity will be necessary for governance, since
the cooperation that will be required at the local, national and
trans-national levels will not allow for tensions over meeting basic
survival needs of existing generations.
Research also continues to stress the importance of coupling
social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability
policies, noting the importance of intra-generational equity in
attaining inter-generational equity. For instance, Vojnovic and
Darden (2013) reinforce the coupling of intra- and inter-genera-
tional equity by showing that even extra-rational human behavior,
such as racism, can distort economic markets and urban processes,
encouraging excessive resource use and the degradation of natural
ecological systems.
The intra-generational equity requirement also raises important
aspects of policy trade-offs in equity conditions for sustainability.
An important consideration in addressing intra-generational equity
will be based on assumptions made about resource scarcity. If
resource stocks are scarce, but sufficient under specific consump-
tion conditions, to meet the basic needs of current and future gen-
erations, then current global stresses—including malnutrition and
poverty—are a socio-political condition that can be addressed with
the redistribution or resources among existing populations. Under
this circumstance, considerable effort needs to focus on resource
redistribution in order to advance intra-generational equity. If, on
the other hand, it is assumed that resource stocks cannot meet
the needs of current and future generations, then inter-genera-
tional and/or intra-generational equity trade-offs will have to be
made, in order to ensure at least movement toward sustainability.
Urban sustainability
As with ‘sustainable societies’ and ‘sustainable development’,
there is considerable ambiguity in defining ‘urban sustainability’.
It can be broadly interpreted as the economic, social, and physical
organization of cities and their populations in ways that accommo-
date the needs of current and future generations while preserving
the quality of the natural environment and its ecological functions
over time. While local in nature, urban sustainability must advance
global sustainability; ensuring links between interdependent eco-
system processes and conditions at different scales, from local to
global.
There are some benefits of not having a precise definition.
It allows communities to conceptualize urban sustainability
depending on their particular culture, values, circumstances and
unique urban stresses. Ultimately, local stresses and required
S35
sustainability initiatives will vary considerably between cities in
different countries, and even cities within the same country; as
evident between Naples and Milan, Hong Kong and Shenzhen, or
Miami and Detroit. However, as with the broader concept of
sustainability, current descriptions of urban sustainability are too
vague for developing and implementing policy. Little is known
about the specific role of governments in advancing urban
sustainability, how to develop and implement sustainability
programs, and the institutional structures, social relations and
socio-economic conditions needed to foster urban sustainability.
The first serious attempts to develop urban sustainability
programs emerged from the Rio Summit. The Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development outlined 27 principles to guide the
global pursuit of sustainability. Agenda 21 was adopted as the
action plan for advancing these principles and in Chapter 28 of
the Agenda, specific municipal expectations were outlined by local
government representatives (UNCED, 1992). Municipalities were
given four years to draw up a Local Agenda 21 program, outlining
local strategies in the pursuit of sustainable development. Within
three years, by 1995, the International Council for Local Environ-
mental Initiatives reported that approximately 2000 municipalities
in 26 countries had implemented Local Agenda 21 programs
(O’Riordan & Voisey, 1998, p. 232).
Based on this commitment to urban sustainability, at the 1996
Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlement in Istan-
bul, also known as Habitat II, the meeting focused on developing an
international consensus for the pursuit of sustainable settlements.
As in the case of the general discussions on sustainable develop-
ment, a critical issue that emerged during Habitat II was the impor-
tance of policy integration; the ability of sustainable urban policies
to address social, economic, and natural environmental stresses in
cities, their regions, and beyond, while ensuring the equitable
access to resources between generations (United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements, 1997). However, as noted by
Satterthwaite (1996, p. 28), even the ‘‘particularly important’’ out-
put resulting from Habitat II shows:
that we have quite a way to go before we can claim to have a
more rigorous general understanding of the links between the
urban environment and human well-being. More care needs
to be taken in distinguishing between environmental health
problems and problems of environmental degradation. The
question of who benefits and who suffers from environmental
health problems and how this fits into the understanding of
contemporary urban difficulties needs to be looked at more
closely.
Satterthwaite contends that while the Istanbul Conference
was important in recognizing the need for global poverty reduc-
tion, it ultimately failed in achieving its key objective. As he
maintains (Satterthwaite, 2001, p. 101), the committee partici-
pants could not agree on the ‘‘national and international frame-
works that would ensure sustainable development goals are
addressed in cities.’’ Despite the ambiguity, by 2007, over
10,000 cities and towns in 113 countries had programs classified
as Local Agenda 21 (Brugmann, 2013). In evaluating these pro-
grams, Jeb Brugmann—who led the adoption of Local Agenda
21—states that:
What requires little assessment is the fact that few cities and
towns stand today as models of sustainability. Many have made
significant. . .progress in specific areas, such as reductions of air
pollutants, waste diversion, improved governance, or increased
sanitation services. However, these ‘best practices’ are not a suf-
ficient basis on which to claim success, particularly in the face
of continued negative global trends.
[Brugmann, 2000, p. 40]
S36 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
In addition to inadequate local policy, Brugmann recognizes
that the foundational maxim driving the environmental movement
into the 21st century, ‘‘think global, act local,’’ was itself shown to
be fundamentally deficient. As he maintains (2013, p. XIX):
the good news of these and other demonstrated links between
local action and global change are much tempered by other
trends over which localities have found it harder to gain real
leverage or control. By the late 1990s, for instance, the US
energy efficiency gains of the 1970–1980s were eliminated,
largely by the introduction and aggressive promotion of sport
utility vehicles. Decreases in the percentage of household waste
going to landfills were overshadowed by increased overall
waste volumes, in large part due to increased packaging in
the early 1990s, and then by overall increases in consumption
related to cheaper developing-country production. Improved
efficiencies in water consumption are overshadowed by the
worldwide trend toward lower density suburbanization on
urban peripheries, which compromises groundwater sources
and watersheds, reduces efficiencies of utility operations, and
increases water demand for landscaping.
Brugmann goes on to argue that what is needed if the sustain-
ability condition is to be realized is a private, public and corporate
commitment—from cultural and corporate practice to legislation—
that parallels the global commitment to the pursuit, implementa-
tion and acceptance of the neoliberal project.
Thus, as with broader sustainability, into the first decade of the
2000s, the central theme in the urban sustainability literature
continues to be the search for, and understanding of, mechanisms
for advancing sustainability (Button, 2002; Sneddon, Howarth, &
Norgaard, 2006). While there has been considerable global enthu-
siasm in implementing ‘sustainability policies’, the impact on envi-
ronmental quality from the various initiatives is limited, being
overwhelmed by ongoing consumption practices and resource
demands, a condition particularly driven by consumption practices
of urban populations in high-income countries (Vojnovic, 2013).
Urban sustainability and globalization
In the second half of the 20th century, the focus on global envi-
ronmental processes is accentuated by the emergence of a global
economy, rapidly expanding urban metabolisms (particularly in
wealthy countries), and the recognition of the growing transfer
of environmental burdens in a transnational context (Crutzen,
2002; Qi, Fan, & Xi, 2013; McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2002;
Tu, Sui, & Ma, 2013; Vojnovic, 2013; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996;
WCED, 1987). Two lines of research have served to reinforce the
interplay between the local and global, and both emphasized the
concentration of wealth and differential scales of global resource
consumption in defining stresses on ecological systems and urban
sustainability.
William Rees, in studying ecological footprints, gave insight into
global consumption and environmental burdens maintained by
wealthy urban regions. His 1992 study of the Lower Fraser Valley
(Canada), a region of some 1544 square miles that contains the city
of Vancouver, shows that the consumption patterns of the regional
population necessitate the import of resources that require an area
about 20 times greater than what the region occupies. The material
demands of this wealthy population extensively draw on resources
outside of the region, the province and even the nation, in meeting
local consumption (Rees, 1992). Work by Wackernagel and Rees
(1996) also provide global resource consumption comparisons,
showing that while the average ecological footprint of the human
population is some 4.5 acres per person, there is considerable
resource consumption variability between countries (Table 2).
Table 2
Comparing per capita consumption in the US, Canada, India, and the world. Source:
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: reducing human impact on the
earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.
Consumption per person in 1991 USA Canada India World
Purchasing power (in $ US) 22,130 19,320 1150 3800
Vehicles per 100 persons 57 46 0.2 10
Paper consumption (lb/yr) 699 545 4 97
Fossil energy use (GJ/yr) 287 250 5 56
Fresh water withdrawal (ft3/yr) 65,968 59,611 21,613 22,743
CO2 emission (in tons per year) 21.5 16.8 0.9 4.6
Ecological footprint (acres/person) 12.6 10.6 1.0 4.5
They illustrate the global impacts of these differential consumption
practices, noting that if everyone consumed at North American
standards, three Earths would be required to meet aggregate
material demand.1
McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2002) further developed the
distinction in consumption practices between urban populations
of different incomes and linked this distinction to the nature of
resulting environmental burdens and the scale of environmental
impacts. They argue that low-income populations, due to limited
industries and low resource consumption, have the least transfer
of environmental burdens. Within low-income cities, environ-
mental burdens remain largely localized (intra-urban) to their pop-
ulation, as evident with poor local air quality and inadequate
sanitation and clean water provision.
Middle-income cities, and especially industrial middle-income
cities, maintain a greater transfer of their environmental burdens;
associated, for instance, with pollutant emissions from fossil fuel
combustion. Middle-income cities tend to impact a wider spatial
scale when compared to poor cities, with environmental stresses
spreading across the city and the surrounding region.
Wealthy cities, with high consumption levels of their inhabit-
ants, maintain environmental burdens that are spatially the most
widespread. Wealthy cities have global environmental burdens
associated with heightened per capita and aggregate resource con-
sumption, pollutant emissions and waste generation. However,
while environmental burdens of wealthy cities are global and a
threat to planetary support systems, the shift to service economies
within high-income cities and their greater financial capacity to
adopt new technologies and strict control measures ensures that
the environmental quality within these cities is high.
In their analysis of the urban environment transition,
McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2002) illustrate that wealth and
the spatial scale of environmental burdens is directly related,
linked by the degree and nature of resource consumption. They
also recognize considerable variability within any of these urban
classifications. For instance, major cities across Africa and Asia
have high-income neighborhoods that maintain affluent urban life-
styles. These wealthy neighborhoods maintain high quality provi-
sion in water, sanitation, drainage and garbage collection, while
high incomes ensure high per capita consumption, greenhouse
gas emissions and waste generation. Despite being in a low-income
city, the environmental quality in these neighborhoods is high and
the transfer of environmental burdens is spatially extensive. The
opposite is also apparent, with high-income cities throughout
North America and Europe maintaining low-income neighbor-
hoods with poor environmental quality, low per capita consump-
tion and more localized environmental burdens.
Rees, Wackernagel, McGranahan and Satterthwaite illustrate
that the interplay between the local and global, the transfer of
environmental burdens and global environmental impacts are all
1
This assumes 35.8 billion acres of land on Earth, with 21.9 billion productive acres
and 13.8 billion marginally or un-productive acres.
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
closely tied to wealth concentrations and the degree of local con-
sumption. These are more explicitly developed arguments initially
established by the WCED and illustrate the integration of socio-
economic and environmental conditions. As noted by WCED
(1987, pp. 5–6) members:
developing countries must operate in a world in which the
resources gap between most developing and industrial nations
is widening, in which the industrial world dominates in the
rule-making of some key international bodies, and in which
the industrial world has already used much of the planet’s eco-
logical capital. This inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmen-
tal’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’ problem.
Global socio-economic indicators, cities and sustainability
UNDP’s Human Development Reports have recorded global
socio-economic indicators since 1990, with the focus on the
Human Development Index (HDI), as measured by achievements
in education, health and income. Their Reports have consistently
recognized global inequities across a variety of quality of life mea-
sures, including consumption (Table 3). The most basic impacts of
the income and consumption differentials are tied to life expec-
tancy, with the average person in a very high HDI country expected
to live some 20 year longer than the typical person in a low HDI
country (UNDP, 2013).
The 2013 UNDP Report, however, revealed important global
shifts taking place in the early-21st century, evident with reduc-
tions in poverty, increases in wealth and the expansion of the mid-
dle-class among some traditionally lower- and middle-income
countries. The most significant welfare improvements are recog-
nized within three countries. China reduced the proportion of the
population which is income-poor from 60.2% (1990) to 13.1%
(2008), Brazil from 17.2% (1990) to 6.1% (2009), and India from
49.4% (1990) to 32.7% (2010) (UNDP, 2013, p. 13). However, inequi-
ties in resource access persist and are perhaps best evident in differ-
ences in life expectancy between individual countries, with Sierra
Leone maintaining a life expectancy low of 48.1 years and Japan
sustaining a life expectancy high of 83.6 years (UNDP, 2013, p. 24).
The impact of the Great Recession (2007–2012) combined with
the improved economic performance of some traditionally lower-
and middle-income countries, has altered global power relations.
However, the UNDP recognizes that growing global inequality still
poses a threat to nations and political systems. As noted in the
2013 Report, these new economic shifts can be misleading, due
to persistent inequities within and between countries. In addition,
the new economic trajectories of China, India and Brazil have
added new stresses on natural ecological systems, both nationally
and globally (WI, 2013).
Global inequities are also evident in the annual collection of
World Bank indicators, which illustrate the significant differences
in national incomes and purchasing power. In 2012, the average
gross per capita income (based on purchasing power parity) was
$1375 for low-income countries, $7172 for middle-income coun-
tries and $38,325 for high-income countries (World Bank, 2013).
These national income differentials, and consumption, are also
reflected at the urban scale, Table 4 (Union Bank of Switzerland,
2012).
Pathways to sustainability
The Worldwatch Institute’s (WI) State of the World Reports and
the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF)2 annual Living Planet
2
Formerly World Wildlife Fund.
S37
Table 3
HDI group and socio-economic and demographic indicators (2012). Source: UNDP
(2013) Human Development Report 2013. United Nations, New York.
Human Life expectancy Mean years Gross national income
development at birth (years) of schooling per capita (2005 PPP $)
index group
Very high HDI 80.1 11.5 33,391
High HDI 73.4 8.8 11,501
Medium HDI 69.9 6.3 5428
Low HDI 59.1 4.2 1633
World 70.1 7.5 10,184
Reports have over the last decade made important links between
socio-economic conditions at the national level and sustainability.
These agencies have maintained that at either extreme, in the case
of high-income or low-income countries, the socio-ecological condi-
tions are not supportive of sustainability. While wealthy countries
maintain high socio-economic standards—as evident in incomes,
education and life expectancy—their extreme consumption levels
exceed Earth’s ecological capacity. The low-income countries, in con-
trast, maintain low-consumption levels and low impacts on natural
ecological systems, but also acute socio-economic and population
stresses, as evident with their low life expectancy. At both extremes,
the classification groupings offer little insight into sustainability.
It is the socio-ecological conditions in some middle-income
countries that have enabled them to achieve, during certain peri-
ods, broad sustainability criteria. For example, the WWF argues
that in 2007 Peru maintained consumption levels that fell within
Earth’s ecological capacity, while maintaining relatively high
socio-economic measures, such as income, education and life
expectancy (WWF, 2010). In 2006, Cuba also met the criteria for
a globally sustainable society, while Columbia and Ecuador were
close (WI, 2013; WWF, 2010).
It is recognized that while increasing levels of income and con-
sumption are necessary to improve socio-economic conditions—
including health, life expectancy and education—after a certain
income level, human well-being indicators hardly rise, even with
substantial increases in per capita income. Thus, beyond a certain
income, large increases in the per capita ecological footprint come
despite only small marginal gains in quality-of-life measures. This
socio-ecological condition is captured in the ‘Cuba Paradigm’.
Cuba is a country with very low incomes and consumption lev-
els, yet it has relatively high standards in education, literacy and
health care (Murphy & Morgan, 2013). The average Cuban has far
fewer material goods when compared to the average person in a
wealthy country. They have smaller homes, with the average in
Havana being some 150 sq. ft. per person, compared to the US aver-
age of 800 sq. ft. per person. They rarely engage in resource inten-
sive transportation, with few flying and few owning private
automobiles (only 10% of Cubans own a car, almost all of which pre-
date the Revolution). While the US life expectancy at birth is
78.4 years, the Cuban life expectancy is 77.7 years. In addition,
while the US infant mortality rate is 6.06 deaths per 1000 live
births, Cuba’s infant mortality rate is 4.8 deaths per 1000 live births
(Murphy & Morgan, 2013, p. 341). Cuba maintains low consump-
tion and low environmental burdens, while preserving relatively
high quality-of-life measures, at least on some indicators (Table 5).
Serious issues remain within the above-discussed countries that
ultimately lead one to reject their sustainability status, even during
the periods that they did achieve the broad national socio-ecolog-
ical criteria for sustainability. The above measures are national
indicators, and do not consider within-country variations in basic
socio-economic and political criteria, including democratic partic-
ipation, civic influence and income equality, all fundamental
aspects of sustainability. For instance, in 2007, Peru maintained a
S38 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44

Table 4
Net incomes, rent and public transit cost for selected cities, 2012 (US$). Source: Union Bank of Switzerland (2012) Price and earnings: A comparison of purchasing power around the
globe. UBS, Zurich.

City Net hourly pay Net yearly income Gross monthly rent, Public transport-single ticket
unfurnished 3-room (bus, tram or subway)
Skilled industrial workers Primary school teachers Engineers
apartment (med. rent)
Central and Eastern Europe
Bratislava 6.90 12,600 8900 17,100 840 1.08
Bucharest 3.40 5100 4000 8200 530 0.75
Budapest 4.60 8300 7100 15,400 1170 1.43
Istanbul 7.10 16,600 11,000 26,300 1480 0.95
Kiev 2.80 5700 3500 5400 850 0.25
Ljubljana 8.10 13,500 20,500 23,700 1020 2.03
Moscow 8.50 13,900 10,500 22,400 2780 0.85
Prague 6.30 12,600 10,700 17,100 870 1.37
Sofia 3.40 7300 3500 7800 450 0.66
Tallinn 7.10 14,000 9200 21,200 710 1.81
Warsaw 5.50 9500 8500 12,700 1200 3.15
Western Europe
Amsterdam 17.50 37,000 32,600 41,800 1580 3.19
Athens 10.10 18,500 19,400 25,100 650 1.81
Barcelona 14.80 24,900 31,300 33,000 1090 2.59
Berlin 17.70 32,400 39,800 47,400 1180 2.98
Brussels 15.00 29,800 26,700 35,600 1840 2.42
Copenhagen 23.50 40,500 52,200 51,800 1740 4.88
Dublin 19.80 35,200 45,700 42,300 1590 2.74
Frankfurt 19.70 36,300 46,100 51,700 1640 3.24
Geneva 30.00 59,200 66,700 67,500 2430 3.67
Helsinki 18.70 29,800 33,800 44,900 1440 3.28
Lisbon 10.70 19,400 23,100 24,300 1180 1.83
London 19.00 37,900 39,800 48,200 2010 3.70
Luxembourg 27.60 39,000 88,200 57,000 1840 1.94
Lyon 16.30 23,200 26,700 34,200 1220 2.07
Madrid 14.60 21,200 22,800 38,300 1060 1.94
Milan 15.50 26,000 21,800 37,400 1810 1.94
Munich 19.20 35,600 38,500 50,900 1810 3.24
Oslo 24.50 46,900 39,500 51,000 2210 5.12
Paris 18.50 24,900 29,500 47,800 2280 2.16
Rome 12.10 23,200 22,100 21,100 2030 1.94
Stockholm 19.70 33,300 34,800 50,600 1830 4.52
Vienna 17.80 33,800 31,900 43,800 1420 2.59
Zurich 33.40 64,600 81,600 91,700 2500 4.66
Africa
Cairo 3.00 5700 1300 8000 490 0.19
Johannesburg 9.80 29,000 14,400 46,200 1300 1.25
Nairobi 2.60 3200 3200 16,400 1230 0.54
Middle East
Dubai 16.20 38,300 35,900 64,800 3480 0.54
Tel Aviv 11.00 21,400 17,700 40,400 1710 1.72
Latin America
Bogotá 5.50 6600 10,200 17,200 840 0.84
Buenos Aires 6.40 9500 7100 15,700 740 0.28
Lima 5.80 13,000 5300 19,700 540 0.47
Rio de Janeiro 6.90 15,500 12,200 23,100 1320 1.56
São Paulo 7.70 10,400 9500 20,700 1580 1.53
North America
Chicago 20.30 44,900 38,500 65,400 2210 2.25
Los Angeles 20.40 49,600 46,600 64,000 1880 1.50
Mexico City 3.80 4500 7400 11,500 980 0.37
Miami 20.10 42,300 51,700 66,200 1930 1.83
Montreal 16.70 29,000 38,500 40,300 1740 2.87
New York 25.20 61,900 50,400 80,300 4300 2.42
Toronto 17.30 29,900 49,900 51,700 2020 3.08
Southeast Asia/Pacific Rim
Auckland 16.00 33,900 30,300 44,200 1330 2.57
Bangkok 4.40 10,200 8000 21,500 930 0.75
Beijing 4.50 5700 9100 8800 660 0.26
Delhi 2.10 4100 3900 7900 560 0.25
Hong Kong 12.50 22,500 47,800 39,900 4220 1.33
Jakarta 2.30 9200 2600 9800 1090 0.38
Kuala Lampur 5.50 10,500 8700 18,000 620 0.68
Manila 2.00 2500 2300 7300 510 0.34
Mumbai 2.30 2700 3500 14,000 800 0.13
Seoul 12.70 29,400 44,300 47,100 2640 0.90
Shanghai 5.40 7900 10,100 13,000 920 0.58
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44 S39

Table 4 (continued)

City Net hourly pay Net yearly income Gross monthly rent, Public transport-single ticket
unfurnished 3-room (bus, tram or subway)
Skilled industrial workers Primary school teachers Engineers
apartment (med. rent)
Sydney 24.70 55,800 46,200 60,400 2180 3.43
Taipei 9.90 22,500 23,100 26,400 1700 0.68
Tokyo 22.80 61,000 59,800 58,500 2490 2.46

construction of urban built environments that meet the needs of

Table 5
all residents—regardless of income, gender or ethnicity—encourage
Annual energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per person, Cuba and the
rest of the world. Source: International Energy Agency (2011) Key Energy Statistics. IEA,
community cohesion and accommodate the cultural heritage of all
Paris. population sub-groups (Hayden, 1982, 2002; Thomas, 2013). Four,
building cities that facilitate increased harmony with natural
Region, Population Energy use (tons of oil Carbon dioxide
country of (millions) equivalent per emissions (tons per
ecological systems, from local to global, encouraging the preserva-
economy person) person) tion of environmental quality over time (Beatley, 2000; Calthorpe,
OECD 1225 4.28 9.83
1993; McHarg, 1969; Pickett et al., 2013). Five, minimizing
countries resource use, and particularly non-renewable resource use, in the
Middle East 195 3.03 7.76 building and maintenance of cities (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999;
Non-OECD 335 3.14 7.46 Roseland, 2012; Tiwari, Cervero, & Schipper, 2011; Vojnovic,
Europe and
1999; 2000). Six, maintaining urban environments that avoid and
Eurasia
China 1338 1.70 5.14 eliminate health risks, locally, nationally and/or globally (Bryant
Asia 2208 0.66 1.43 & Mohai, 1992; Bullard, 1993, 2007).
Latin America 451 1.20 2.16 In an urban world—that is one where populations continue to
Africa 1009 0.67 0.92 concentrate largely in cities—research has shown that the pursuit
World 6761 1.80 4.29
Cuba 11 1.03 2.40
of these core objectives would minimize socio-economic and natu-
United States 307 7.03 16.90 ral ecological stresses, including in cases of rapid urban growth.
Pursuing these objectives would allow urban regions to maintain
the well-being of their residents while minimizing their impact
on the natural environment, thereby advancing toward sustainabil-
Gini coefficient of 49.8, a highly unequal income distribution ity. Pursuing these objectives, however, will not necessarily ensure
(WWF, 2010, p. 74). sustainability itself, but would accommodate non-trivial improve-
This discussion ultimately reveals the complexity of achieving ments in socio-economic and natural environmental conditions.
sustainability and the extensive set of socio-economic, political Segments of the urban population—due to their affluent life-
and ecological criteria that need to be met in the pursuit of this styles and associated consumption—will ensure that some regions
condition. In part, because of this complexity, the specific continue to fall outside of Earth’s ecological capacity, even though
objectives and initiatives promoting sustainability—the policy tar- these cities might meet some of the core objectives. This, again,
gets—will vary nationally and regionally. The objectives will differ establishes the duality of achieving sustainability, with on the
based on specific local socio-ecological stresses, circumstances and one hand understanding the necessary policy mechanisms, and
values, as well as the local, regional and national political and on the other addressing specific socio-economic and political con-
administrative structures. The one shared condition, however, will ditions, in particular, the high levels of consumption by certain
ultimately be the pursuit of equity, both inter-generational and populations.
intra-generational, and these equity principles can be realized
locally through six core urban objectives.
The new human condition is urban in nature

Translating equity criteria into local action
Given the distinct and complex set of local pressures, experi-
enced globally, the design of local sustainability policy will vary
considerably within and between countries. The inter-generational
and intra-generational equity criteria, however, remain the com-
mon overarching principles—the shared global pursuit—regardless
of spatial or temporal contexts. In defining sustainability policy,
the pursuit of inter-generational and intra-generational equity will
ensure the coupling of environmental, social and economic dimen-
sions in local initiatives, and research has shown that these equity
criteria can be operationalized through six core urban objectives.
One, satisfying basic equity criteria in cities, which includes
providing essential economic, social and health resources for its
residents, regardless of gender, ethnicity or income (LeDoux &
Vojnovic, 2013; Oloukoi, Bob, & Jaggernath, 2014). Two,
maintaining political structures that enable political representa-
tion, democratic participation, and political, personal and religious
freedoms (Godfrey, 2013; Salamey, 2013). Three, ensuring the
The human population has become urban and cities have
become the center of global resource consumption; a condition
not expected to change anytime soon. Cities are also the centers
of innovation, science and culture. Culture has historically, and into
the present, thrived in cities, from music to literature and from arts
to science. In certain urban contexts, cultural heritage alone has
become the driver of local economies. Some cities have themselves
become cultural artifacts, with the great religious centers of Lhasa,
Jerusalem, Rome, Mecca, Kyoto and Varanasi providing examples.
It should also be recognized that the function of such urban
centers, and the preservation of the cultural heritage—similar to
the preservation of the natural heritage—is seen as fostering
sustainability, although it also does have potential costs (Afreen,
2007; Barthel-Bouchier, 2012; Cullen-Unsworth, Hill, Butler, &
Wallace, 2012).
Cities also have a role in fostering social economies, including
informal socio-economic infrastructure, which function beyond
the existence of traditional markets, yet provide opportunity-
enhancing and coping resources for the vulnerable (Daniels,
Table 6

S40
Global urban comparison of densities, travel behavior, gasoline use, CO2 emissions and infrastructure provision. Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999) An International Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities 1960–1990. University
Press of Colorado, Boulder; Newman and Kenworthy (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

City Population density Employment density Total annual Annual travel Annual travel Gasoline use Total transportation CO2 emissions Road supply CBD parking spaces
(Pop/Acre) (Pop/Acre) travel in private cars in public transit per capita energy per capita per capita
Metro Inner-area Metro Inner-area Passenger mi. Passenger mi. Passenger mi. Private Public and Total Feet per person Per 1000 jobs
per capita per capita per capita transportation private (MJ) transportation
(MJ) (lb)
Sacramento 5.1 7.9 2.8 5.1 12,027 11,955 73 65,351 76,673 12,178 28.9 777
Houston 3.9 7.5 2.3 8.7 11,942 11,809 134 63,800 71,624 11,449 38.4 612
San Diego 5.3 13.0 2.8 7.9 11,816 11,655 161 61,004 67,248 10,684 18.0 688
Phoenix 4.3 6.6 2.1 12.6 9958 9882 77 59,832 64,641 10,260 31.5 906
San Francisco 6.5 24.2 3.4 19.6 10,643 10,084 559 58,493 65,890 11,292 15.1 137
Portland 4.7 9.6 3.4 9.5 9290 9112 178 57,699 70,698 11,230 34.8 403
Denver 5.2 6.6 3.5 5.9 8522 8398 124 56,132 68,286 10,937 24.9 606
Los Angeles 9.7 11.6 5.0 6.3 10,586 10,368 219 55,246 62,167 9868 12.5 520
Detroit 5.2 11.6 2.5 4.4 9953 9846 106 54,817 62,744 9960 19.7 706
Boston 4.9 17.5 2.9 13.8 11,185 10,795 390 50,617 58,391 9343 22.0 285
Washington 5.5 15.4 3.8 18.3 10,556 10,075 481 49,593 60,454 9707 17.1 253
Chicago 6.7 19.2 3.5 9.6 9260 8759 500 46,498 56,121 8971 17.1 128
New York 7.8 37.0 4.5 21.2 7703 6874 829 46,409 51,626 8331 15.1 60
American Avg. 5.7 14.4 3.3 11.0 10,264 9970 295 55,807 64,351 10,324 22.6 468

I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44

Calgary 8.4 9.2 4.9 9.6 7365 6884 482 35,684 47,133 7480 16.1 522
Winnipeg 8.6 16.7 3.6 11.8 6372 5978 395 32,018 39,366 6248 13.8 546
Edmonton 12.1 10.9 6.4 – 6684 6231 452 31,848 44,060 6993 15.7 593
Vancouver 8.4 16.8 4.3 12.1 8334 7793 541 31,544 37,211 5893 16.7 443
Toronto 16.8 24.3 9.4 17.9 5717 4366 1,350 30,746 33,613 5366 8.5 176
Montreal 13.7 25.6 6.0 17.3 4632 4040 592 27,706 – 5331 14.8 347
Ottawa 12.7 19.9 6.4 39.6 5646 5118 528 26,705 33,562 5342 23.3 230
Canadian Avg. 11.5 17.7 5.8 18.1 6393 5773 620 30,893 39,173 6094 15.4 408

Canberra 3.8 3.5 2.0 5.5 7366 6956 410 40,699 44,995 7143 28.9 842
Perth 4.3 6.6 1.8 6.4 7813 7474 338 34,579 41,395 6570 35.1 631
Brisbane 4.0 8.2 1.6 8.4 7511 6952 559 31,290 39,277 6391 26.9 322
Melbourne 6.0 11.0 2.4 17.4 6603 6078 524 33,527 38,890 6429 25.3 337
Adelaide 4.8 7.6 2.1 10.5 7298 6946 355 31,784 37,103 5891 26.2 580
Sydney 6.8 15.9 2.9 15.4 6951 5851 1099 29,491 35,074 5706 20.3 222
Australian Avg. 4.9 8.8 2.2 10.6 7257 6709 548 33,562 39,456 6356 27.2 489

Frankfurt 18.9 24.7 17.5 37.9 5877 5163 714 24,779 38,293 6202 6.6 246
Brussels 30.3 36.8 18.9 33.4 5118 4231 887 21,080 28,895 4661 6.9 314
Hamburg 16.1 34.7 9.6 38.5 5572 4717 854 20,344 36,716 5908 8.5 177
Zurich 19.1 29.8 14.3 29.5 6308 4780 1528 19,947 25,244 3889 13.1 137
Stockholm 21.5 37.1 15.9 51.2 5351 3890 1461 18,362 26,817 4396 7.2 193
Vienna 27.7 52.1 15.1 44.7 4786 3276 1510 14,990 20,603 3318 5.9 186
Copenhagen 11.6 21.8 6.5 14.3 5814 4815 999 14,609 20,385 3404 15.1 223
Paris 18.7 39.2 8.9 22.7 4327 3009 1318 14,269 24,241 3799 3.0 199
Munich 21.7 43.3 15.1 60.8 5212 3682 1530 14,224 18,197 3177 5.9 266
Amsterdam 19.8 36.2 9.0 17.5 4712 4053 659 13,915 19,843 3252 8.5 354
London 17.1 31.6 9.6 25.8 5001 3507 1494 12,884 23,374 3757 6.6 –
European Avg. 20.2 35.2 12.8 34.2 5279 4102 1178 17,218 25,692 4160 7.9 230

Kuala Lumpur 23.8 27.9 9.1 14.5 4893 3914 980 11,643 20,017 3139 4.9 297
Singapore 35.1 50.3 20.0 53.8 3693 1969 1724 11,383 18,079 2903 3.6 164
Tokyo 28.7 53.5 29.6 43.8 5391 1973 3418 8015 18,243 3080 12.8 43
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44 S41

2004; Mullings, 2013). This is evident with non-profit-oriented

economic activities supported by cooperatives and communities,
which focus on improving the economic condition of the marginal-
ized and socially excluded. The global diffusion of local exchange
trading networks, barter systems that allow for the trade of goods
and services without currency, provides an example (Seyfang,
–

–
397

144
49

27

33

2006; Williams, 1996). There are other forms of informal social

economies, which like local exchanges, create local wealth and
enhance the well-being of the vulnerable outside of formal
markets or official public policy. For instance, extensive local net-
works of urban volunteers provide educational support services
2.6
1.6

3.6
2.0

2.0
1.0
1.0

and support for the youth, the elderly and those with special needs.
In addition, particularly within the context of high-income cit-
ies, the concentration of people, which facilitates the use of less
land in development, has been shown to reduce material and
energy use in the building and the maintenance of cities, when
891
2875
1554

1166

1676
1440

2081

compared to scattered urban settlement patterns. Inefficiencies

in the dispersal of urban developments—a particular stress in the
US, Canada and Australia, but increasingly becoming an urban
issue within continental Europe and Asia—increases the spatial
separation between daily destinations (including shopping, leisure
and work) generating increased miles of travel, higher energy con-
9615

7335
5611
9612
18,176

9072

12,862

sumption and pollution emissions associated with transport and

greater infrastructure requirements. This is effectively illustrated
by Rio de Janeiro, where average per capita emissions in the city
are only 28% of average per capita emissions for Brazil as a whole
(Dodman, 2009, p. 69). The nature of these relationships have been
extensively studied by Cervero (1998, 2013), Southworth (1997,
2406
7742
5293
4787
2896
2633

6311

2005), Handy (1996), Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian (2005),

Newman and Kenworthy (1989, 1999), Table 6.
It should be cautioned, however, as Newman and Kenworthy
(2013) note, that to minimize automobile use and resource
consumption, and to promote sustainability, urban development
needs to go beyond simply the density and land use mix
822

345

1608
1437
1796

1596

2351

dimension. They argue that for advancing sustainability, POD

(pedestrian-oriented development) needs to be combined strategi-
cally with TOD (transit-oriented development) and GOD (green-
oriented development). For instance, compact designs with
2879
1531

1722
961
796
974
505

street-oriented building configurations—incorporating high-

complexity micro-design elements in the built form (appropriate
building color and materials, and building and streetscape tex-
ture)—can both encourage non-motorized travel and minimize
energy and material use in the construction and maintenance of
4317
3327
1783
2392
1319
2856
3330

buildings. Energy advantages are realized in reduced heating and

cooling demands with building designs that minimize surface
exposure to outside elements and benefit from proximate shading
(Hastings & Wall, 2007). In other words, an essentially new
approach to urban design is desirable, and particularly to conven-
48.4
84.9
54.7
45.1

82.4
313.8

tional urban design practiced in much of the Anglo-American

–

world.
25.3
41.1
23.8
27.4
31.5
56.7
29.4

Conclusion

As urban-environmental planners, policymakers and research-

116.8

325.5
117.9
150.8
107.3
121.0
108.0

ers navigate into the new urban world, it is certain that the key
stresses of government and governance will be urban in nature.
This, in part, reflects the global interest in urban sustainability. In
60.5

80.2

121.7
99.1
69.2

71.6

65.5

addition, despite the critique of sustainability policies, there are

initiatives—evident globally—which have improved the condition
of some cities and some urban residents. However, many urban
dwellers continue to remain under acute stress and duress. For
Hong Kong
Asian Avg.

example, in terms of quality of life, it is evident that life expectancy

Surabaya
Bangkok

Jakarta
Manila

has been improving over the last two decades, but only slightly.
Seoul

New environmentally-benign technologies have also been

changing how we live and build cities. For instance, the new
S42 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
titanium dioxide (TiO2) cement, called TXActive, has self-cleaning
properties and is a photocatalyst that oxidizes air pollutants,
removing NOx, SOx and VOCs from the air. Richard Meier’s Miseri-
cordia Church in Rome, inaugurated in 2003, was first to use TXAc-
tive in construction. The three sail-like roof panels used the cement
to retain their bright-white appearance, with the cement also
decreasing organic and inorganic pollutants.
Similarly, Pavegen slabs, which harness the kinetic energy from
pedestrians walking across the tiles, allow new methods of
harvesting energy (Pacione, 2013). Walking on the tile converts
the kinetic energy into electricity, which can then be stored in a
battery or directly utilized to power uses such as lighting. Pavegen
tiles were used at the 2012 London Olympics Games, which were
supposed to be ‘‘the first sustainable Olympics’’ (Engelman,
2013). But as noted by Engelman (2013, p. 4), president of the
Worldwatch Institute, ‘‘if environmental impact is indeed the oper-
able standard, the Olympics games in classical Greece or even dur-
ing the twentieth century were far more sustainable than today’s.’’
Despite new scientific advancements, the scale of human con-
sumption, and particularly among urban dwellers in wealthy coun-
tries, overwhelms human impacts on the natural environment.
More optimistically, one might argue that the nature of
environmental stresses has become globally recognized, and that
policies continue to shape efforts in reducing human-induced bur-
dens, such as greenhouse gas emissions, over-fishing and/or defor-
estation (Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003; Goldman & Gorham, 2006).
Critics, however, contend that it is difficult to view these policies as
a success. In fact, in recognizing the fundamental alterations and
degradation of global natural systems by humans, Crutzen (2002)
has argued that we have moved into a new, human-dominated
geological epoch, the ‘Anthropocene’, which has supplanted the
Holocene, the warm period of the past ten-to-twelve millennia.
The impact on the planet’s ecological systems of the 25% of the
world’s wealthiest, the sub-group almost exclusively responsible
for all ecosystem degradation, is immense. Fossil-fuel based carbon
dioxide emissions continue to increase (Peters et al., 2012). The
world continues to lose habitats, animals and plant species
(Krauss et al., 2010; Pearce, 2007). Every major stock of food fish
is experiencing stress, decline and in some cases collapse
(Costello, Gaines, & Lynham, 2008). The world coral reefs are in
decline and under threat from accelerated human impacts
(Carpenter et al., 2008). During the 20th century alone, humans
have increased their energy use 16-fold, generating the release of
some 176 million tons of sulfur dioxide emissions per year, more
than twice the sum of natural emissions (Crutzen, 2002). Due to
this human influence, Barnosky et al. (2012) have warned of an
approaching planetary-scale critical transition, which they con-
sider irreversible. They predict a planetary ‘tipping-point’, caused
by human-induced biological changes that threaten Earth’s ability
to sustain humans and other species.
It becomes evident that as a result of global urban consumption
differences, urban sustainability needs to be explored through a
socio-economic lens, with three urban socio-ecological conditions
evident, shaped partly by existing globalization processes. First,
are the socio-ecological conditions of cities in traditionally indus-
trial economies, in many cases the high concentration-centers of
global wealth. These cities have long reached economic maturity
and this is reflected in their slower growth, and on occasion, even
decline. Some of the significant local pressures are associated with
managing the extensive and potentially decaying urban infrastruc-
ture, as well as, in certain instances, addressing rapid economic
and population decline. This is evident in cities like Detroit
(USA), Dortmund (Germany), or Manchester (UK).
The most economically dominant of the wealthy cities have
developed specialized-service and high-tech economies. While
these centers have large populations of poor residents living in
underclass neighborhoods, these cities, overall, maintain high
incomes, high consumption, and high pollution and waste genera-
tion. The environmental burdens associated with consumption
within these cities are spatially the most wide-spread, with a high
per capita and absolute ecological footprint. In addition, the afflu-
ent lifestyles of populations within these cities are global and a
considerable threat to natural ecological systems, despite the fact
that the local technological means—their wealth and strict local
pollution enforcement—maintain high local environmental quality,
and particularly for the wealthy. Cities like New York, Paris and
London provide classic examples. It can be even argued that in
some cases, as evident in southern Scandinavia’s Øresund Region
(centered on Copenhagen and Malmö), these wealthy centers have
been able to appropriate the sustainability movement—through
active and effective local marketing—to commercially exploit their
position in the global economy while continuing to exert wide-
spread pressures on global ecological systems (Anderberg &
Clark, 2013).
Second, in newly industrializing countries we find another
urban grouping, whose members are experiencing accelerated eco-
nomic and population growth—in some instances at unprece-
dented rates—with rapidly increasing incomes and consumption.
However, within these cities, the new economic opportunities
are not being shared equally, generating severe stresses, including
socio-political instability, as evident in Bangkok and Buenos Aires.
The overall increases in income and consumption within the
newly-industrializing cities have resulted in a heightened per
capita and aggregate ecological footprint, and along with the
increased degradation of natural ecological systems, more spatially
widespread environmental burdens.
While cities in traditionally industrial countries have also
experienced parallel population and economic expansions, the
unprecedented scales of growth experienced within cities in newly
industrializing countries—and resulting urban pressures—have
forced these centers to pursue their own development paths. Fur-
thermore, the unprecedented expansion of these cities has been
shaped by heightened uncertainties associated with the
accelerated pace of technological innovation and open economic
competition in a rapidly changing globalizing economy. Added to
expanding industrial activities, many of these cities are also
developing service economies. They are also confronting growing
political pressures to strengthen local control measures and adopt
new technologies to reduce pollution. Cities like Shanghai and
Beijing (China), Mumbai and Delhi (India), and Rio de Janeiro and
São Paulo (Brazil) provide examples.
The final urban socio-ecological grouping is found within non-
or slowly-industrializing, low-income countries. Some of these
low-income urban centers are in national economies that—while
poor overall—have experienced increasing economic growth rates
over the last half decade. However, there are also cities within this
grouping that not only fall within a low-income urban classifica-
tion, but are in economies that are confronting slow, stagnant or
declining economic activity, while experiencing rapid population
growth. Because of the extreme local scales of poverty, and the
absence of basic infrastructure within these cities, the populations
of these urban centers are facing acute environmental and health
stresses. With limited manufacturing, low per capita income and
low rates of consumption, the populations of these cities maintain
a relatively low per capita and aggregate ecological footprint. Thus,
while these urban concentrations face severe and acute local
stresses, they also maintain limited environmental burden trans-
fers. Lagos (Nigeria), Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Harare (Zimbabwe)
provide examples of such cities.
The importance of this distinction in urban socio-ecological
conditions is two-fold. First, it reveals that there is much to be
learned from middle-income countries and their cities, which are
 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
in some cases able to maintain a relatively high quality of life—in
socio-economic conditions, such as health, life expectancy and
education—while maintaining a relatively limited ecological foot-
print, and particularly when compared to high-income cities. We
can, in fact, go beyond calling it the ‘Cuba Paradigm’. While Havana
residents offer insight into sustainability, more relevant urban
models might be San Jose (Costa Rica), Budapest and Debrecen
(Hungary), Makarska and Zagreb (Croatia), Santiago and Valparaiso
(Chile), Bratislava and Kosice (Slovakia), Belgrade and Novi Sad
(Serbia) and Puebla, Morelia and Mérida (Mexico).
Second, the understanding of these urban socio-ecological con-
ditions places the importance of political disinterest in pursuing
urban sustainability as a more critical dimension of policy inaction.
While it has been argued that the lack of science limits effective
sustainability policies, given the lack of interest by wealthy and
high-polluting countries to commit to just binding emission limits,
it becomes more reasonable to conclude that it is political unease
by many governments to commit to sustainability that has been
key to the existing passivity. For instance, despite widespread rec-
ognition of the absence of markets for various natural environmen-
tal resources—and despite initiatives by some countries and
regions to establish more-appropriate pricing strategies, which
have extensively curtailed resource consumption within these
markets—there is very little interest in many countries to intro-
duce a charge for the consumption of environmental resources
now treated as free.
To further extend the argument, imagine that it becomes scien-
tifically undisputed that living standards and consumption prac-
tices in Budapest, Merida or Zagreb are the models for advancing
toward urban sustainability. . .and there is reasonable evidence
that these urban socio-ecological and consumption profiles reflect
possible sustainability pathways. For billions of the world poor,
this quality of life and standard of living would be hailed as
unimaginable progress. One receives a relatively high quality of life
within these cities partly because local socio-economic infrastruc-
ture is adjusted to the lower incomes. However, how many of the
wealthy in London, Tokyo, New York City, Copenhagen or
Toronto—or how many of the 25% of the globally wealthiest causing
the disproportionate degradation to the natural environment—
would be willing to give up their standard of living, and be willing
to accept average annual incomes of $12,000 in order to achieve
urban sustainability? Simply from the lack of interest in the global
commitment to binding GHG emissions and/or charges on
resources currently free, the answer is relatively clear. It is politics
and not science that hinders the pursuit of urban sustainability.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Andrew Kirby for the great comments and
criticism on the draft that helped improve the quality of the article.
References
Abrecht, P., & WCC (1978). Faith, science, and the future. Geneva: World Council of
Churches.
Afreen, S. (2007). Towards effective conservation and use of natural resources:
Learning from Indigenous sustainable practices. International Journal of
Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3, 1–7.
Anderberg, S., & Clark, E. (2013). Green sustainable Øresund region: Or eco-
branding Copenhagen and Malmö. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A
global perspective (pp. 591–610). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Barnosky, A., Hadly, E., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E., Brown, J., Fortelius, M., et al. (2012).
Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486, 52–58.
Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2012). Cultural heritage and the challenge of sustainability.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Baumol, W., & Oates, W. (1993). The theory of environmental policy (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Covelo: Island
Press.
Brown, L. (1981). Building a sustainable society. New York: W.W. Norton.
S43
Brugmann, J. (2000). Agenda 21 and the role of Local Government. In F. Dodds (Ed.),
Earth Summit 2002 (pp. 40–48). London: Earthscan.
Brugmann, J. (2013). Overview. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global
perspective (pp. XIX–XXVII). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Bryant, B., & Mohai, P. (Eds.). (1992). Race and the incidence of environmental hazards:
A time for discourse. Boulder: Westview Press.
Bullard, R. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots.
Boston: South End Press.
Bullard, R. (2007). Dumping on Houston’s Black neighborhoods. In M. Melosi & J.
Pratt (Eds.), Energy metropolis: An environmental history of Houston and the Gulf
Coast (pp. 207–223). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental indicators. Ecological
Economics, 40, 217–233.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the
American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62, 296–312.
Carpenter, K., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., et al. (2008).
One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate
change and local impacts. Science, 321, 560–563.
Cerin, P., & Karlson, L. (2002). Business incentives for sustainability: A property
rights approach. Ecological Economics, 40, 13–22.
Cervero, R. (1998). Transit metropolis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Cervero, R. (2013). Suburban gridlock. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Costanza, R. (2001). Institutions, ecosystems, and sustainability. Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers.
Costello, C., Gaines, S., & Lynham, J. (2008). Can catch shares prevent fisheries
collapse? Science, 321, 1678–1681.
Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.
Cullen-Unsworth, L., Hill, R., Butler, J., & Wallace, M. (2012). A research process for
integrating Indigenous and scientific knowledge in cultural landscapes. The
Geographical Journal, 178, 351–365.
Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. B. (1994). For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward
community, the environment, and a sustainable future (updated ed.). Boston:
Beacon Press.
Daniels, P. W. (2004). Urban challenges: The formal and informal economies in
mega-cities. Cities, 21, 501–511.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science,
302, 1907–1912.
Dodds, F. (Ed.). (2000). Earth summit 2002: A new deal. London: Earthscan
Publications Ltd.
Dodman, D. (2009). Urban form, greenhouse gas emissions and climate vulnerability.
In J. Guzmán, G. Martine, G. McGranahan, D. Schensul, & C. Tacoli (Eds.), Population
dynamics and climate change (pp. 64–79). New York: UNFPA.
Eilperin, J., & Booth, W. (2010). Cancun agreements put 193 nations on track to deal
with climate change. The Washington Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.
com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102308.html?wprss=rss_
nation>.
Engelman, R. (2013). Beyond sustainababble. In WI (Ed.), State of the world 2013: Is
sustainability still possible? (pp 3–16). London: Island Press.
Fowke, R., & Prasad, D. (1996). Sustainable development, cities, and local
government. Australian Planner, 33, 61–66.
Girardet, H. (2000). Cities and the culture of sustainability. In F. Dodds (Ed.), Earth
summit 2002 (pp. 202–211). London: Earthscan.
Godfrey, B. (2013). Urban renewal, Favelas, and Guanabara Bay: Environmental justice
and sustainability in Rio de Janeiro. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A
global perspective (pp. 591–610). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Goldman, T., & Gorham, R. (2006). Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative
directions. Technology in Society, 28, 261–273.
Hackett, S. (2001). Environmental and natural resource economics: Theory, policy, and
the sustainable society. Armonk, NY: M.E Sharpe.
Handy, S. (1996). Understanding the link between urban form and non-work travel
behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 183–198.
Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. (2005). Correlation or causality between the
built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California.
Transportation Research Part D, 10, 427–444.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Hardoy, J., Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1992). Environmental problems in third
world cities. London: Earthscan.
Hastings, R., & Wall, M. (2007). Sustainable solar housing (Vol. 1). London: Earthscan.
Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (1996). Sustainable cities. London: Jessica Kinglsey.
Hayden, D. (1982). The grand domestic revolution. M.I.T. Cambridge Press.
Hayden, D. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: Gender, housing, and family life.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
International Energy Agency (2011). Key energy statistics. Paris: IEA.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources)
(1980). World conservation strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable
development. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, United Nations Environmental Protection Programme, and World
Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland.
Kenworthy, J., & Laube, F. (1999). An international sourcebook of automobile
dependence in cities 1960–1990. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Krauss, J., Bommarco, R., Guardiola, M., Heikkinen, R., Helm, A., Kuussaari, M., et al.
(2010). Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity
loss at different trophic levels. Ecology Letters, 13, 597–605.
S44 I. Vojnovic / Cities 41 (2014) S30–S44
Krieger, J. (Ed.). (2001). The Oxford companion to politics of the world (2nd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press.
LeDoux, T., & Vojnovic, I. (2013). Going outside the neighborhood: The shopping
patterns and adaptations of disadvantaged consumers living in the lower
eastside neighborhoods of Detroit, Michigan. Health & Place, 19, 1–14.
Manderscheid, K. (2012). Planning sustainability: Intergenerational and
intragenerational justice in spatial planning strategies. Antipode, 44, 197–216.
Markandya, A. (2002). Environmental economics for sustainable growth.
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
McGranahan, G., & Satterthwaite, D. (2002). The Environmental Dimensions of
Sustainable Development for Cities. Geography, 87, 213–226.
McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth.
New York: Universe Books.
Moffatt, I., Hanley, N., & Wilson, M. (2001). Measuring and modeling sustainable
development. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group.
Morehouse, W. (1994). Accountability, Regulation, and Control of Multinational
Corporations. London: Permanent People’s Tribunal on Environmental Hazards
and Human Rights.
Mori, K., & Christodoulou, A. (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators:
Towards a new city sustainability index. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 32, 94–106.
Mullings, B. (2013). Neoliberal restructuring, poverty, and urban sustainability in
Kingston, Jamaica. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global context
(pp. 387–405). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Murphy, P., & Morgan, F. (2013). Cuba: Lessons from a forced decline. In WI (Ed.),
State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp 332–342). London:
Island Press.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two
opposing paradigms. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1989). Gasoline consumption and cities: A
comparison of US cities with a global survey. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 55, 22–37.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile
dependence. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2013). Urban sustainability and automobile
dependence in an Australian context. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability:
A global perspective (pp. 227–253). East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press.
Odum, E. (1997). Ecology: A bridge between science and society. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates.
Oloukoi, G., Bob, U., & Jaggernath, J. (2014). Perceptions and trends of associated
health risks with seasonal climate variation in Oke-Ogun region, Nigeria. Health
& Place, 25, 47–55.
O’Riordan, T., & Voisey, H. (1998). Agenda 21: The transition to sustainability. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Pacione, M. (2013). Urban sustainability in the United Kingdom. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.),
Urban sustainability: A global context (pp. 611–631). East Lansing: Michigan
State University Press.
Padilla, E. (2002). Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecological Economics,
41, 69–83.
Pearce, D. (2007). Do we really care about Biodiversity? Environmental and Resource
Economics, 37, 313–333.
Pearce, D., & Atkinson, G. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of
sustainable development: An indicator of weak sustainability. Ecological
Economics, 8, 103–108.
Pearce, D., & Turner, K. R. (1991). Economics of natural resources and the environment.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pelletier, N. (2010). Environmental sustainability as the first principle of distributive
justice: Towards an ecological communitarian normative foundation for
ecological economics. Ecological economics, 69, 1887–1894.
Peters, G., Marland, G., Le Quéré, C., Boden, T., Canadell, J., & Raupach, M. (2012).
Rapid growth of CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis.
Nature Climate Change, 2, 2–4.
Pickett, S., Boone, C., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M., Childers, D., Ogden, L., et al. (2013).
Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city. Cities, 32,
S10–S20.
Qi, J., Fan, P., & Xi, C. (2013). The urban expansion and sustainability challenge of
cities in China’s West: The case of Urumqi. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban
sustainability: A global context (pp. 69–100). East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press.
Rees, W. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What
urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.
Revesz, L., Sands, P., & Stewart, R. (2000). Environmental law, the economy, and
sustainable development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roseland, M. (2012). Toward sustainable communities: Solutions for citizens and the
governments. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Rowell, A. (1996). Green backlash: global subversion of the environment movement.
New York: Routledge.
Sachs, W. (Ed.). (1992). The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge and power.
London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (Ed.). (1993). Global ecology. London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (2003). Fair wealth: Eight shifts towards a light economy. In E. Menzini
(Ed.), Sustainable everyday: Scenarios of urban life (pp. 41–44). Milan: Edizioni
Ambiente.
Salamey, I. (2013). The government and politics of Lebanon. London: Routledge.
Satterthwaite, D. (1996). Revisiting urban habitats: The human face of the urban
environment. Environment, 38, 25–28.
Satterthwaite, D. (2001). Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable
development? In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), Sustainable Cities (pp. 80–106). London:
Earthscan.
Seyfang, G. (2006). Sustainable consumption, the new economics and community
currencies: Developing new institutions for environmental governance.
Regional Studies, 40, 781–791.
Skodvin, T., & Andresen, S. (2009). An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies?:
Presidential ambitions and congressional powers. International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 9, 263–280.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R. B., & Norgaard, R. (2006). Sustainable development in a
post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 56, 253–268.
Southworth, M. (1997). Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional
communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association,
63, 28–44.
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 131, 246–257.
Thomas, J. (2013). The role of ethnicity and race in supporting sustainable urban
environments. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global context
(pp. 475–508). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Tiwari, R., Cervero, R., & Schipper, S. (2011). Driving CO2 reduction by integrating
transport and urban design strategies. Cities, 28, 394–405.
Tolba, M. (1990). Building an environmental institutional framework for the future.
Environmental Conservation, 17, 105–110.
Trainer, T. (1995). The conserver society: Alternatives for sustainability. London: Zed
Books.
Trainer, T. (2002). Development, charity, and poverty: The appropriate development
perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 29, 54–72.
Tu, W., Sui, D., & Ma, W. (2013). Urban environmental management in Shanghai: A
multiscale perspective. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global context
(pp. 35–68). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Union Bank of Switzerland (2012). Price and earnings: A comparison of purchasing
power around the globe. Zurich: UBS.
United Nations (2004). World urbanization prospects: The 2003 revision. New York:
United Nations.
United Nations. (2012). World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision. New York:
United Nations.
UNCED (1992). Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable development. New
York: United Nations Department of Information.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. (1997). The Istanbul declaration.
Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements.
UNDP. (2007). Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New
York: UNDP.
UNDP. (2010). The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. New
York: UNDP.
UNDP. (2013). Human development report 2013. New York: United Nations.
UNFPA. (2007). State of the world population 2007: Unleashing the potential of urban
growth. New York: United Nations Population Fund.
UNICEF. (2009). The state of world’s children. New York: UNICEF.
Vargas, C. (2000a). Community development and microenterprises: Fostering
sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 8, 11–26.
Vargas, C. (2000b). Sustainable development education: Averting or mitigating
cultural collision. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 377–396.
Vojnovic, I. (1995). Inter-generational and intra-generational equity requirements
for sustainable development. Environmental Conservation, 22, 223–228.
Vojnovic, I. (1999). The environmental costs of modernism. Cities, 16, 301–313.
Vojnovic, I. (2000). Shaping metropolitan Toronto: A study of linear infrastructure
subsidies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 197–230.
Vojnovic, I., & Darden, J. (2013). Racial conflict, intolerance, and distortions in urban
form: Lessons for sustainability from the Detroit region. Ecological Economics,
96, 88–98.
Vojnovic, I. (2013). Advancing toward urban sustainability: The pursuit of equity. In
I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Urban sustainability: A global context (pp. 1–34). East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact
on the earth. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
WI. (2013). State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? London: Island
Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, C. (1996). The new barter economy: An appraisal of local exchange and
trading systems. Journal of Public Policy, 16, 85–101.
WWF. (2010). Living planet report 2010: Biodiversity, biocapacity and development.
Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature.
World Bank (2008). World development indicators 2008. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
World Bank (2013). World development indicators 2008. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
Worster, D. (1993). The wealth of nature: Environmental history and the ecological
imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.