_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

07 March 2012 03:42

_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1

A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American, European and Indian cities
Smardon, Richard. Management of Environmental Quality 19.1 (2008): 118-137.

_______________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is the comparison of Local Agenda 21 - sustainability plan implementation and research activity between Europe, North America and India. Intensive literature and web search for European, North American and Indian Local Agenda 21 sustainability planning and implementation status. Close to 6,000 sustainability plans have been prepared for European communities versus about 100 for North American communities. A total of 20 Indian cities have started sustainability planning efforts. There is an extensive support network for European communities and much less so for North American and Indian communities. Most sustainability/biodiversity/urban ecosystems research is ongoing in Europe and North America and there is a beginning surge of activity in India. Knowledge of Local Agenda 21 implementation status between these three regions can hopefully spur more activity in North America and India. Comparisons of applicable planning innovations and approaches could be useful. There has not been a comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation that compares Europe, North America and India. There have been some reviews respective to each region.

_______________________________________________________________
Full Text
Urban ecosystems overview: definitions and principles Before there was sustainability planning, an earlier field of research was urban ecosystems research. The early work of the US Forest Service ([48] Santamour et al., 1976; Heisler and Herrington, 1977) and US Fish and Wildlife researchers in the 1970s was mostly focused on urban vegetation and urban wildlife. Active schools at this time were SUNY Syracuse ([27] Hopkins, 1980; [41] Miller, 1973) and University of Mass, Amherst ([43] Noyes and Progulske, 1973; [35] Little and Noyes, 1970). Later in the 1980s the emphasis shifted to more systems perspective as expressed by [28] Hough (1984) and [15] Douglas (1983). John T. [36] Lyle (1993) expresses this same systems perspective in his book Urban Ecosystems: Cities of the Futureand Anne [58] Spirn (1984) in her book The Granite Garden, embraces the ecology of the urban landscape and people - rather than set themselves apart. Also see Penny Firth (2002) Cities as Urban Ecosystemsfrom the Environmental Literacy Council (from Baltimore LTER Project) which also is a systems perspective treatment, as well as Paul [21] Gobster's (2003) Human Dimensions of the Urban Ecosystem. [55] Smardon (1988) also has reviewed the role of urban vegetation in cities from cultural and aesthetic perspectives. Historical antecedents to the environmental systems perspective include: Jay Forester: Urban Dynamics: interactive systems which has an inclusive treatment of both physical and

socio-economic systems. Richard N.L. Meyers: work on cities as information systems; and Howard Odum work on energetics and ecological theory; all derive from the general systems theory. The problem, before 1980, of applying natural systems ecological models to urban peopled systems is a radical idea. From the above cited work, it can be seen that urban ecology has four perspectives: human activity concentrated in an urban cluster; humans as species dominating earth's ecosystems; model of ecology must include human impact; and understanding such processes provides utility to problem solving. Demographic growth trends with attendant impact or humans are thought of as confounding variables. The ecology of urban ecosystems can be thought of from a systems perspective as: ecological effects of land use change, spatial distribution of resources (abiotic) or population (biotic), and whole system metabolism (energy flow). As urban ecologists, one needs a set of research protocols for three biophysical forces/drives, which are: flow of energy; cycling of matter; and flow of information (See [11] Decker et al.2000). These forces exert influence on five major patterns/processes, which are: primary production (energy by plants form photosynthesis); populations (growth and decline); organic matter (raw food); nutrients (available food); disturbance (human and natural). Socioeconomic drives which in turn affect the previous biophysical processes include: - information flow; - cultural values and institutions; - economic system; - power hierarchies; - land use and management; - demographic patterns; - designed or built environment. There is also a need of integration mechanisms for incorporating socio-economic drives into natural drivers within urban systems via Jay Forester or Howard Odum, e.g. diversity studies conducted in urban areas needs to accept human presence as part of the model. From this theoretical work - one can move to sustainability as a concept and its evolution. Short history of the sustainable cities movement Environmental consciousness began to increase after the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Urban environmental agendasthat evolved from this conference were named the "Brown Agenda" ([49] Serageldin,

1995) by the international development agencies such as the World Bank. The second UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and subsequent UN Habitat II Conference held in Istanbul in 1996, developed the concept of "Sustainable cities", leading to setting a number of international directions in making cities sustainable. The Rio conference developed the Green Agendaof deforestation, resource depletion, global warming, biodiversity and pollution. The Sustainable cities concept merged the Brown and Green agendasand attempts to implement Agenda 21in an urban context thus launching the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP). The Sustainable Cities Program (SCP) is a joint UNCHS/UNEP program. It works toward the development of a sustainable urban environment, building capacities in urban environment, building capacities in urban environmental planning and management, and promoting a board-based participatory process. At the moment the SCP is a locally focused program, in which there is some national, regional and global support for activities and programs at the city level. SCP provides a framework of linking local actions and innovations to activities at the national, regional and global levels. Global networks such as the UN programs and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which work in a coordinated fashion, are very important in this regard. The primary focus of SCP is at the city level where, the program applies more than 95 percent of its resources in the first five years. The SCP brings together all the stakeholders whose cooperation is required: - to clarify environmental issues; - agree on joint strategies and coordinate action plans; - implement technical support and capitol investment; and - institutionalize continuing environmental planning and management. The SCP is based on a development paradigm that: - cities make an important contribution to social and economic development at national and local levels; - cities are important engines of economic growth; - cities absorb two-thirds of the population growth in developing countries; - cities offer significant economies of scale in provision of jobs, housing and service; and - cities are important centers of productivity and social enhancement. It argues that full realization of cities potential contribution to development are often obstructed by severe environmental degradation in and around rapidly growing environmental centers. It further accepts that environmental degradation threatens: - economic efficiency in the use of scarce resources; - social equity in the distribution of development benefits and costs; - sustainability of hard won development achievements; and - productivity in the urban economy in provision of goods and services. From this general history of urban sustainability planning - one can now examine such planning in Asia with specific reference to Indian cities, which are undergoing tremendous rates of growth.

Urban policies in India address two levels of policy making: the regional level which deals with urbanization and industrial location policies; and the local level that covers; urban land use planning, housing including slums, poverty alleviation, and urban governance which includes institutions of decision making and finance. The post-independence period in India is divided into two periods for understanding the major thrusts in urban policies over time ([37] Mahadevia, 2003) including pre-economic reforms and post-economic reforms. An in-depth treatment of these policies and reforms is presented by ([37] Mahadevia, 2003, pp. 22-66). For a review of India's national policies on sustainability and biodiversity conservation the reader should refer to the [60] United Nations (2002) Country Profile of India The author's purpose is merely to present the current scorecard of Agenda 21Chapter 28 implementation of sustainable city programs in Europe, North America and India in comparative fashion. By showing what has been done with such implementation - each region illustrates the interaction of international and national agencies as well as NGOs in support of such activities. As we compare and contrast European, North American and Indian cities, one should note that Asian cities and especially mega cities have much higher population densities ([57] Sorensen et al., 2004). This one factor presents unique challenges to sustainability planning implementation, which will be outlined. International programs International programs for biodiversity within Urban areas can divided into about three areas; those programs: focused on making cities more sustainable under Agenda 21; assessing urban biodiversity and urban biosphere reserves; and green space protection and function. Urban sustainability programs under the aegis of agenda 21include: - Best practices database in UN-Habitat at www.bestpractices.org.html - Caretakers of the Environment International - A global network of secondary school teachers and students active in environmental education at www.caretakers.boker.org - Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) a worldwide action agendafor reduction of greenhouse gases and energy conservation at www.iclei.org/ccp/ This program includes some 500 cities worldwide. - International Center for Sustainable Cities promotes sustainability in cities around the world through practical demonstration projects using Canadian expertise and technology at www.icac.ca/index.html - International Institute for the Urban Environment, which is a proposal to establish a network on MILU: Multifunctional Intensive Land Use in Cities in Europe 2004-2007 at www.urban.nl/ - Urban Environmental Forum - UN Human Settlements Program - A global coalition of cities and international support programs working on the urban environment at www.unchs.org/progammes/uef/ - The UN Habitat Human Settlements Program the Sustainable Cities Program at www.unesco.org/mab/urban/ This program includes at least 40 cities worldwide.

- The Virtual Library; Urban Environmental Management - Projects, features and themes addressing urban environmental management at www.gdrc.org/uem/ - The WHO Healthy Cites Program includes some 1,500 localities. International Biodiversity and Biosphere Reserve Programs There exists the UNEP Activities in Biodiversity and Global Biodiversity Assessment at www.unep.org/themes/biodiversity This program sets general assessment standards under the Convention on Biodiversity. There also is the MAB Program - Biosphere Reserves and urban issues. The MAB Urban group was created to stimulate discussion and information concerning the contribution of the Biosphere Reserve concept to sustainable development. There are four purposes or aims of this group: Identify contributions that the biosphere reserve concept have made or could make to urban planning and management, including in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity with its focus on the ecosystem approach. Examine if there is, or should be, a place for urban areas and cities in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, Explore alternative ways and means of recognizing selected cities, or parts thereof, as sites that exemplifies the Biosphere Reserve model. Stimulate a discussion within MAB and with relevant partner institutions and organizations, on the development of an agendafor possible MAB activities. See the paper [59] UNESCOMAB (1998) Application of Biosphere Reserve Concepts to Urban Areas and their hinterlands and www.unesco.org/mab/urban/urbangroup.htm for further information. Examples of biosphere reserves outside cities providing functions and benefits for urban areas (watershed protection, tourism and recreation) include: - Green belts around Rio de Janeiro and San Palo. - Cerrado Biosphere Reserve around Brasilia. - Cordillera Volconica Central Biosphere reserve near San Jose Costa Rica. - Alto Manzanaris Biosphere Reserve near Madrid. The Urban working group may look at the following scenarios for urban biosphere Reserves (See [59] UNESCO-MAB, 1998 and [1] Alfonsen-Norodom et al., 2004): city as biosphere reserve; greenbelt biosphere reserve around the city; mixture of (1) and (2) above. There are two ongoing urban study groups: the New York Urban Biosphere Group and the South Africa, Cape Town group at www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/cubes/groups/urbanbio/ Urban greenspace assessment The programs below stress protecting, maintaining or restoring urban green space for the functions that they provide (air quality, watershed protection, habitat) as well as for food and fiber production: - La Ciuda Necesita Espcios Verdes con Mayor Biodiversidad Autotona - the necessity of Urban Greenspace and Biodiversity at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html

- FAO's urban and periurban agriculture on the policy agenda, (see paper by [42] Nilsson and Randrop (1997)) "Urban and periurban forestry" at www.fao.org/urbanag). - RUAF - Resource Center on Urban Agriculture and Forestry is a global resource center initiated by the international support group on urban agriculture funded by DGIS (Netherlands) and IDRC (Canada) at www.ruaf.org/ruaf_inf_fr.html - FAO's Trees for the Urban Millennium: Urban Forestry Update at www.fao.org/docrep/x3989e/x3989e09.htm European urban ecosystem and biodiversity programs Within Europe there are several notable programs that address urban ecosystems and biodiversity. The MAB-ROME project was begun in the 1970s as part of the MABn.11 Projects on Urban Ecosystems. According to Francesco [14] Di Castro (1984), "the general aim (of the MABn.11 Projects) is to provide insights on how ecological research can contribute to improving urban and regional planning and thus to help to counter the sectoral and fragmented approach that has tended to dominate urban planning in the past". i.e. ... approaching environmental problems by "testing the ecological approach', with its emphasis on understanding the interactions within and between systems and long-term perspectives rather than short-term expediency". Although the initial work of the project focused on plant ecology - in 1978 a group of social and environmental psychologists worked on the "human dimension" or "environmental perception aspects "A good overview of the history of the Rome Project can be seen in the paper by Bonnes (2000). Another more recent development is the Aalborg Charter, which is the Charter of European Cities and Towns Toward Sustainability ([30] ICLEI, 1994). This is a consensus declaration (Part 1), the European Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign (Part II) and engaging in Local Agenda 21Processes toward local action plans (Part III). See www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER Part III processes is that part that includes the following specific steps: Recognition of the existing planning and financial frameworks as well as other plans and programs. The systematic identification, by means of extensive public consultation, of problems and their causes. The prioritization of tasks to address identified problems. Creation of a vision for sustainable community through a participation process involving all sectors of the community. Consideration and assessment of alternative strategic options. Establishment of a long-term local action plan towards sustainability which involves measurable targets. The programming of the implementation of the Plan including the preparation of a timetable and statement of allocation of responsibilities. The establishment of systems and procedures for monitoring and reporting on implementation of the plan.

Local Agenda 21from UNCED 1992 is a locally tailored program for sustainable development. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21articulates the process by which sustainable development plans must be developed and implemented. Chapter 28 does not specify what local plans should include, but is process oriented. Development of local plans should address local needs and concerns through education and mobilization of local citizens. Some 5,292 local authorities from 36 countries in Europe have Agenda 21action plans and a good percentage of these have biodiversity assessment components. Other regional European programs include: - Cities Environment Reports on the Internet/Urban Environment Info Gateway at www.ceral.net - European Academy of the Urban Environment including conferences, seminars, workshops, publications and SURBAN database on urban development at www.eaue.de - The European Commission including the DG Environment page on Urban Issues at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/htm - European Environment Agency including Europe's Environment - the Dubois Assessment 37 Urban Stress and Environment in EU at the Turn of the century at www.bcdcold.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban - ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) - European program includes news and information, local government associations, campaigns and programs, training and exchange and European Secretariat at www.iclei.org/europe This includes the Local Agenda 21campaign plus Cities for Climate Protection, Sustainable Transportation plus Water Campaigns. As an example of Greenspace planning in Europe there is URGE - Development of Urban Green Spaces to Improve the Quality of Life in Cities and Urban Regions. The European Union-funded project is developing an integration toolkit of criteria and indicators to be used by urban planners to assess ecological, social and economic sustainability of urban green areas. URGE has two levels: whole city scale and urban green areas. Whole city scale indicators include: - fragmentation of urban green (indicators: size, shape, isolation, connectivity); - level of nature protection (indicator: preparation for protected urban green); - biodiversity - both species diversity and habitat(indicators: diversity of breeding birds and vascular plants, biotype diversity). On site scale: - fragmentation (can be used for single site as well); - biodiversity -species diversity (indicators: diversity of birds, vascular plants, carbid beetles, butterflies and biotypes); - naturalness (indicator: degree of disturbance/wear, exotica and rare species) at www.urgeproject.org/reports.htm An example of support systems for sustainability planning in Europe include the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe at www.rec.org/REC/Programs/ and the UNEP-European Regional Portal - Urban areas which contains State of Environment

reports, policy/strategy documents and data sets and can be seen at http://europe.unep.net/index.php?struct_id=urbarea Some of the European Urban Biodiversity action plans, especially Brussels ([25] Gosiun, 2001), Moscow, and Devon are very good examples of locally-based action plans (also see [16] European Commission, 1990). North American urban ecosystems and biodiversity programs In North America (Canada and USA) there is a much different texture in terms of biodiversity research and implementation. In the USA there is urban ecosystems research movement but little implementation of Biodiversity plans. In Canada - there is less research but more implementation of wildlife habitat protection programs and green space programs in larger cities. The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was charged with developing and recommending a national sustainable development strategy in 1993 but disbanded in 1999. There was a Gore-Clinton Livable Communities Initiative in 1999 but the Bush Administration eclipsed this. A Smart Growth Network, a partnership of government, business and civic organizations, was established in 1996. The Sustainable Communities network was established in 1993, which is a partnership of 15 non-profit organizations. Then there is the joint Center for Sustainable Communities established in 1996 and sponsored by several US Federal agencies such as US Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Agriculture and National Oceanographic Administration to support these activities. Dozens of Non-governmental organizations, states and cities are supporting LA21 activities, In North America there are 101 local authorities in two countries that have Agenda 21like plans but only a few have biodiversity themes or components. In the USA there is a major urban ecosystems research program called Urban LTER (Long Term Ecological Research Program) which is funded by the National Science Program. Initially there were two major sites: Baltimore metropolitan area and Phoenix, Arizona. The NSF official abstracts are presented below. Urban LTER: Human Settlement as Ecosystems: Metropolitan Baltimore from 1997-2001, Stewart T.A. Picketts, Primary investigator, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY. Objectives for the project included: - How do the spatial structure of socio-economic, ecological and physical factors in an urban area relate to one another and how do they change over time? - What are the fluxes of energy, matter, capitol and population in urban systems, and how they change over time? - How can people develop and use an understanding of the metropolis as an ecological system to improve their understanding? Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showard?awards=9714835 Other links to this project include: - www.sceincenetslinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=276

- www.beslter.org/frame5-page_2f.html - www.enviroliteacy.org/article.php/530.html There is also a new book based on this LTER project entitled Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education([6] Berkowitz et al., 2001) at www.ecostudies.org/cary8/cc8book_toc.html The second LTER Project is Central Arizona-Phoenix LTER. Investigators: Nancy Grim, Jiange Luv, Stuart Fisher, Charles Redman and Alfredo de los Santo of Arizona State University. Objectives of the project include: - generate and test general ecological theory in an urban assessment; - enhance understandability of the ecology of cities; - identify feedback between ecological and socio-economic factors; and - involve K-12 students in the enterprise of scientific discovery. Source: www.fastlane.nsf.gov/seulet/showawd?award=14833 Similar research projects can be found in both Canada and the USA. Effects of urbanization on biodiversity in Canada from Biodiversity in Canada: A Science Assessment for Environment Canada. Recommendations include: - Native biodiversity in a city can be enhanced if the biologically rich areas, such as ravines, are linked to each other and to wild habitats outside. - Need Information on the effect of increased human diversity and cultural diversity on nature diversity within urban areas. - Need to determine the exposure to urban biodiversity on the attitudes of citizens and decision-makers. Source: www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/biodiv-sci-assess/biodiversity/ Other projects in North America include: Sustainable Forest Management Research Group at the University of British Columbia has a research theme on Urban Ecology within forested parks in Vancouver, British Columbia. Center for Urban Ecology (CUE) in Washington, DC has a team of multidisciplinary scientists dedicated to developing a better understanding of the ecology of landscapes influenced by human activities with the National Park Service. Source: www.nps.gov/cue/cuento Center for Urban and Regional Ecology (CURE) is a multi-university and multidisciplinary program to explore and promote options in sustainable human health and prosperity while improving air, water, land use and biodiversity at the scale of regional ecosystems. This group includes University of Georgia, Georgia State, Emory, and Morehouse at www.cure.gatech.edu The Ecological Cities Project is a quasi-independent program of research and outreach at the department of Geosciences and the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This project seeks to promote sharing of knowledge and experience among disciplines, sectors and urban regions regarding new approaches to urban green space creation and management. See www.umass.edu/ecologicalcities and [44] Platt (1994).

The Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College studies the merging field of urban ecology to help residents understand natural resources in their communities in the Boston metro area. Urban Eco the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory at the University of Washington Seattle has three ongoing projects: - NSF Biocomplexity Program - modeling the interactions among urban development, land coverage and bird diversity. - Impact of urban patterns on ecosystem dynamics through physical changes on an urban to rural gradient. - Analysis of the behavior of landscape metrics along urban to rural gradients (see www.urbaneco.washington.edu/biocomplexity.htm) The US Forest Service Urban Forestry Research program is involved with the Baltimore LTER and the Houston Texas Urban Forestry Study which is the largest in the USA. See http://cswgcin.nbii.gov/ecoregion/urban/urbanforests/index.htm The US Environmental Protection Agency is also linked to the Baltimore LTER at EPA region 3 and has a green communities program at www.epa.gov/maia/html/urban.hmtl The Metropolitan DC Urban Biodiversity Mode provides tools and makes them available to decision-makers and stakeholders in the Washington DC Region. This node includes US Geological Survey and Virginia Technological and State University plus others. See www.dourbanbiodiversity.nbii.gov Actual biodiversity-related implementation support programs include: - sustainability and food production; - urban green space; and - urban wildlife programs. The following includes a few examples of each. Sustainability and Food Security programs include: - Cities Feeding People Program IDRC, Canada. Trying to bridge the gap in supporting research and development activities that increase the food security and incomes of the poor while maintaining public health and a clean urban environment. Source: www.bcdcbd/naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/urban - New Jersey Urban Ecology Program at Rutgers. To ensure that all New Jersey communities are food secure and that residents should have access to safe, nutritious and culturally acceptable food that is procured by socially acceptable means. Source: http://acscp.rutgers.edu/-niep/ Urban Greenspace Program examples include: - Evergreen registered national charity in Canada has a mandate to bring nature to cities through naturalization projects. See www.evergreen.ca/cn/about/about.htm - Greenlinks Project: Restoring Habitat at Douglas College, its purpose is to increase the ecological value and biodiversity of urban wildlife habitats ands green spaces in the lower mainland - connecting or linking fragmented urban habitats. See www.douglas.bc.ca/ine/restoring/connections.htm

- Audubon Society of Portland Oregon. Wild in the Citypublication emphasizes ecological linkages among natural areas and offers 100 sites guide with detailed maps to natural spaces, trails, waterways, parks, golf courses and cemeteries. At www.audubon.portland.org/index.htm - Open Lands Project: Urban Greening supports community and school based greening with the City of Chicago with programs such as Neighborhood open space planning, tree keepers and teaching for school gardens. See www.openlands.org/ - Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature preserve that includes more than 20,000 acres of protected natural lands in the metro Chicago region. There is also a Biodiversity Recovery Plan for this program, which is very detailed and is accessible at www.chicagowilderness.org/ More urban ecosystem conservation and biodiversity related programs. As we look to more pragmatic means of incorporating biodiversity within Urbanizing areas in both Europe and North America there may be some axioms that approach principles or trends of activity. For Europe Agenda 21and the Aalborg Charter provide promising means of incorporation of both participatory processes and pragmatic biodiversity assessment and action plans. For North America Agenda 21does not have the same currency. For the USA the current wave is "Smart growth" and in Canada the catchword is sustainability. For Canada and USA there is strong interest in both multiple purpose urban greenway, private acquisition of open space and ecosystem restoration. Greenways are very popular for connecting opens pace and habitat, multimodal recreation (bicycle and pedestrian), aesthetics and recreation benefits, air and water quality maintenance. A book by [17] Fabos and Ahern (1996) assesses the international greenway development. What is critical in the states as well as Canada is the growth of private land trusts, which are actually acquiring pieces of real estate, which then can be subsumed into Greenways. An excellent support network is the Land Trust Alliance, which is a national support for hundreds of land trusts throughout the USA (see www.lta.org) Other such organizations include: America Trails (see [47] Ryan, 1993): www.americatrails.org, Treebranch Network in New York City www.treebranch.com and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy www.railstrails.org The second area of activity is urban river restoration work in Canada and USA. There is a recent Urban River Restoration initiative sponsored by US EPA, which focuses on urban stream sediment remediation (Deason, 2001). Other major factors affecting urban river restoration are flood damage reduction and riverine ecology restoration ([56] Smardon et al., 1995, [18] Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 2001) and citizen activated planning ([46] Riley, 1998). There are many NGO groups who support this movement and examples can found in [40] Meier (2002) and [46] Riley (1998). It should be noted that there are European examples as well, especially in the UK and mainland Europe. Many of these projects are documented in the river restoration news at www.quest.demon.co.uk/rrc/rrc.htm Probably the most noted river restoration projects in the USA are the San Antonio River In San Antonio Texas followed by The South Platte River in downtown Denver.

From the European and North American sustainability planning activity - one can shift to the Indian experience, which is detailed in the following sections. Sustainability and biodiversity programs in India The cities of Chennai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Delhi and Kolkatta have been directly connected with the Sustainable Cities Program (SCP). While Chennai was the only Indian partner for SCP activities, other cities joined the Urban Environmental Forum (UEF mentioned earlier) set up as the primary partner. Some cities have received UN-Habitat best practice Awards and three belong to the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA). All these efforts, according to [38] Mahadevia (2004) are initiatives of city governments as there is no national program in terms of written policy. The first city in India to join the UN habitat/UNEP SCP was Madras (now Chennai) in 1995. The program aims to promote local initiatives for environmental management, and to improve the ability of individuals and organizations to identify, understand and analyze environmental issues, and integrate them into sectoral programs. This effort resulted in the preparation of the 1997 Environmental Profile (of Chennai) based on city level consultation, and the framing of Madras Vision 2000. The resulting consensus for improving the infrastructural situation was produced in collaboration with the World Bank. In Hyderabad City, while the Master Plan 2011 was being designed, an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) exercise was carried out to identify urban environmental issues for incorporation into the Plan. The Plan proposed the spread of urbanization throughout the state by decentralizing economic development of small ports and improvement in the financial position of local bodies was proposed, to be funded via an Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation. Two SCP's in India have concluded that more funds should be sought for city-level infrastructure, but of the 23 metropolises, only Chennai and Hyderabad have carried out EPM exercises. According to the [31] ICLEI (1997) Local Agenda 21Survey and Spiros (2006) there are 20 Indian Cities that are actively engaged in some form for Agenda 21Implementation. According to back issues of ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Monitor India - initial cities to join ICLEI's Cites for Climate Protection Program (CCP) include Calcutta, Ludhiana, Sangli, Baroda, Jabalpur and Hyderabad ([32] ICLEI, 2001). Indian Cities joining phase II of the Climate Protection Campaign include Agra, Gwalior, Shimla, Dehradun, Bhubaneswar, Udaipur, Madural, Coimbatore and Guwahati ([70] ICLEI, 2004) Infrastructure projects in Indian cities Infrastructure development is considered to be crucial to improving urban environmental conditions ([26] Gupta, 2006; [50] Shah, 2003; [53] Singh, 2006). For example the construction of flyovers and widening of roads are expected to ease congestion and reduce air pollution. Water supply and sanitation infrastructure are designed to reduce air pollution. These projects are usually funded by international loans; however, only large cities have been able to prove that they are credit worthy, and so they have been made recipients of these loans.

The internationally-funded Healthy Cities Program (HCP) supported by World Health Organization (WHO) was initiated in the 1990s to build the local capacity required for integrating environmental health concerns into all major urban policies and programs. There are five HCP pilot projects in the mega cities of Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai. The estimated cost of the entire project is $125 million and its benefits will accrue only to these cities ([38] Mahadevia, 2004). There are a number of cities active with ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Program (see section above [32], [70] and ICLEI, 2001, 2004). Most of these projects include documenting current levels of green house gas production and energy consumption from buildings, transportation, waste treatment and other municipal services. Utilizing these base data for specific measures to reduce green house gas and energy consumption are anticipated next steps. Environmental management Solid Waste Management (SWM) projects dominate among environmental management efforts dominate among environmental management efforts in India. Some local governments have tried to elicit the support of communities, NGOs and private agencies in this regard. In both Ahmedabad and Mumbai a private company is contracted to compost part of the city waste. In Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai NGOs are involved in the collection and disposal of waste on behalf of the city government. In Pune the local government has encouraged housing colonies to decompose their organic waste and in Rajkat the city government is efficiently collecting solid waste ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996). All these projects began in the early 1990s In Ahmedabad, the World Bank donated Rs. 38 million to modernize SWM, and collection consequently increased three or four times, documented by case studies where the NGO's and community groups participate in composting garbage over only a few hundred households ([29] HSMI/WMC, 1996). In Andhra Pradesh, the municipal administration has contracted out solid waste collection to women's groups formed under the government of India's Golden Jubilee Urban Employment Program (SJSRY) ([45] Rao, 2000). This is a holistic approach whereby local communities and government are participating to address environment and poverty issues together. According to [38] Mahadevia (2004) such initiatives are rare. In Kolkatta, created wetland lagoons are used to treat east Calcutta's sewage and pisciculture is used to raise fish at one end of the system. The local association also runs a composting operation and produces crops adjacent to the wetlands sewage treatment system (see [22], [23], [24] Ghosh, 1990, 1993a, b). Legal initiatives Numerous Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been filed by individual citizens or citizen groups seeking legal remedies for industrial pollution ([37] Mahadevia, 2003). The relocation of 9.038 of the 100,000 industries in Delhi, ordered by the Supreme Court, is a landmark judgment in response to a PIL ([51] Shrivastava, 1995). The Ganga Action Plan to the clean the River Ganga is the result of a PIL filed in the 1980s.

In Kolkatta, a fishing cooperative, that has managed wetlands that recycle the city's waste since 1961, filed and won a PIL to halt construction that was diminishing the size of the wetlands - which also provide fish for the local population ([12] Development Associates, 1996). In addition, individual citizens have filed suits in the State High Courts and Supreme Court of India against local urban bodies for neglecting mandatory responsibilities - such as ensuring that industrial land use does not increase the incidence of pollution in city master plans. Environmental groups in Mumbai obtained an eviction order against squatters living in the Borivali National Park, in an effort to protect the ecosystem. Having recourse to the law has become a way of protecting the urban environment when government systems fail. Biodiversity conservation in India Approximately 5.3 percent of the total geographic area of the country has been earmarked for extensive in situ conservation of habitats and ecosystems through a protection area network of 89 national parks and 496 wildlife sanctuaries. The Central and State governments together run and manage 33 botanical gardens. In addition, universities have their own Botanical gardens. There are 275 centers of ex-situ wildlife preservation in the form of zoos, deer parks, safari zoos, aquaria, etc. The government has set up a central zoo authority to oversee, monitor and coordinate these centers. The Ministry of Forestry in charged with implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) to manage biodiversity in India including the forestlands and biosphere reserves. It is known that shortage of land and resources have resulted in man-forestland conflicts in some areas of the country ([60] United Nations, 2002) such as Borivali National park mentioned above. It is not known whether any biosphere reserves are within or adjacent to any of the five Indian mega cities. Community-based efforts There has been a long history of community-based efforts in India to manage the urban environment. One successful NGO experiment to manage solid waste disposal is Exnora in Chennai. This started in 1989 when citizens, concerned with deteriorating environmental conditions, drew up an action plan to collect garbage. New containers were placed in the street and an awareness campaign was organized. The rag pickers, renamed city-beautifiers, were given loans by Exnora to purchase tricycles for door-to-door garbage collection and street cleaning. They received monthly salaries from the residents, from which they repaid the loans. Today the city has 1,500 Exnora units, each serving 75,000 families or 450,000 people. Many Exnoras have now branched into other environmental activities, such as monitoring waterways, desilting canals, planting trees and harvesting rainwater. They also run environmental education programs in schools and public information campaigns on the environmental impacts of industrial development, upgrading slums and converting degradable waste into compost. Exnora projects are multisectorial and address a wide range of issues ([3] Anand, 1999).

Other cities have started similar activities. In Vadodara City in Gujarat, Baroda Citizens Council, a local NGO, started garbage collection in 1992, engaging local unemployed young people and rag pickers in garbage collection at a monthly salary of Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 ($710) paid by the residents. Recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal, etc) is carried away by rag pickers and sold. Degradable waste is composted and the rest is dumped as landfill. With the support of USAID, this project has been extended to cover 20,000 households or 100,000 people ([9] Cherail, 1994). Similar experiments are being carried out in some areas of Delhi with input from local NGO's such as Aatavarn (Environment) ([39] Malik, 1998) Public participation process In almost all successful cases mentioned above - whether that is Biodiversity Action Plans, Biosphere Reserves, greenways restoration projects - the key in many cases is local activism or leadership, which causes local NGO's to work with local government units to accomplish mutual goals. Therefore a key to any process is a mutual visioning, goal setting which continues through fact finding, action planning, implementation and monitoring. Such a process can be found in successful Agenda 21plans, the Aalborg Charter Part III and the greenway and river restoration plans mentioned above. Such a process is outlined in [56] Smardon et al.(1995) for Protecting riparian resources and is outlined in a recent [64] US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) compendium of public participation techniques. Summary and conclusions From an international perspective, the Convention on Biodiversity and Local Agenda 21have been the two major driving forces for biodiversity within urban areas. In Europe, the Aalborg Charter is providing a framework for combing the Convention plus Agenda 21for local implementation. In many cases NGO's are working with local government in collaboration on both sustainability and biodiversity planning efforts Such biodiversity reports posted on the biodiversity web site: http://bch-cbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/links/themes/urban.htm In North America there is not as much activity on biodiversity assessment, but more research activity in urban ecosystems including the two LTER sites in Baltimore and Phoenix as well as other university research centers as previously outlined. There is considerable local grass roots organizing activity by NGO's in Greenway development and river/stream restoration. There is also activity in private natural area protection via local land trusts but little of this is within urban areas. India has a long history of grass roots participatory processes applied to poverty reduction, water resource management, waste management and now energy/GHG management. There is much to be learned from Asian cities, which have much denser urban populations and more growth pressure. Innovative programs to elicit local cooperation have been developed by Indian community based organizations for waste management ([52], [51] Shrivastava, 1990, 1995), aquaculture/agriculture (Ghate et al., 2001; [65] Verma and Singh, 1990; [66] Vettivel, 1993), water management ([2] Ahmed, 2005) housing ([4], [5] Banerjee, 2002a, b) and poverty reduction ([8] Chopra, 2000; [13] Devasia and Devasia, 1994; [33] Jain, 2006; [67] Vivian, 1992).

In terms of urban ecosystem biodiversity research: protocols are being developed for regional scale and sit scale assessment in Europe. LTER research in the USA is focused on gradient and spatial analysis of biodiversity (among other variables) within urban metropolitan areas (Baltimore, Phoenix, Houston and Seattle). There is assessment of the role of urban biosphere Reserves at UNESCO and the Urban Working group (New York City and Capetown, South Africa) There is continuing research on the role of urban vegetation functions or urban/periurban forestry in the USA and northern Europe. In the USA and UK current research is focused on ecological restoration techniques concurrent with environmental cleanup. In India there is valuable research on participation process and equity issues applied to sustainability implementation. In short, much is still to be done, but there is some notable progress on the biodiversity action planning and research fronts. ad hoc A Symposium on Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes; Proceedings of the Symposium Originally prepared as a keynote presentation for "Urban planning and environment: strategies and challenges", 30-31 January, Elphinestone College, Mumbai, India References 1. Alfonsen-Norodom, S., Lane, B.D. and Corry, M. (Eds) (2004), "Urban biosphere and society: partnership for cities", Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1023. 2. Ahmed, S. (Ed.) (2005), Flowing Upstream Empowering Women through Water Management Initiatives in India, Centre for Environmental Education, Ahmedabad and Foundation Books, New Delhi. 3. Anand, P.B. (1999), "Waste management and Madras revisited", Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-76. 4. Banerjee, B. (2002a), "Security and tenure in Indian cities", in Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 37-58. 5. Banerjee, B. (2002b), "Security of tenure of irregular settlements in Visakhaptnam", in Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royalston, L. (Eds), Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, pp. 86-97. 6. Berkowitz, A.R., Hollweg, K.S. and Nilon, C.H. (2001), Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 7. Bonnes, M. (2000), "The 'ecosystem approach' to urban settlements: 20 Years of the 'MAB-Rome Project'", paper presented at the first meeting of the MAB Working Group to Explore the Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Urban Areas and their

Hinterlands at the 16th MAB International Coordinating Council, UNESCO, Paris. 8. Chopra, G. (2000), India: Policies to Reduce Poverty and Accelerate Sustainable Development: Executive Summary, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC. 9. Cherail, K. (1994), "Haul your own garbage", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 8, p. 10. 10. Deason, J.P. (2001), "Passaic River restoration initiative: a new model for cleaning up our nations contaminated urban rivers", in EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites, Alexandria, Virginia, May 30, 2001, Environmental and Energy Management program, George Washington University. 11. Decker, E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R. and Rowland, F.S. (2000), "Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem", Annual Review Energy and Environment, Vol. 25, pp. 685-740. 12. Development Associates (1996), "NGOs/civic societies and urban environmental advocacy", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam. 13. Devasia, L. and Devasia, V.V. (1994), Empowering Women for Sustainable Development, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi. 14. Di Castro, F. (1984), MAB, Rome, F. MABn. 11 Projects. 15. Douglas, I. (1983), The Urban Environment, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London. 16. European Commission (1990), "Windows on Europe. The spatial dimension", Green Book on the Urban Environment, European Commission, Brussels, Chapter 12. 17. Fabos, J.G. and Ahern, J. (1996), Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam. 18. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (2001), Stream Corridor Restoration; Principles. Processes and Practices, GPO Item No, 120-A, Sup Docs No. A57.6/2 EN 3 PT.653 ISBN-0-934213-09-3. 19. Firth, P. (2002), Urban Ecosystem 1: Cities are Urban Ecosystems available at: www.sciencellinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=273.

20. Ghate, U., Nalawade, S. and Bhatt, S. (2001), "Urban havens: Nero's fiddle", Earthscapes; The Hindu Folio, 20 May, 7 pp. 21. Gobster, P.H. (2003), "Human dimensions of urban ecosystems", USDA Forest Service Research Station, Chicago available at: www.ecostudies.org/cary8/gobster/gobster/html. 22. Ghosh, A.K. (1990), "Biological resources of wetlands of East Calcutta, India", Journal of Landscape and Ecological Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 10-23. 23. Ghosh, D. (1993a), "Uncertainty over Mudialy Nature Park in CPT wetlands near Brace Bridge Railway Station", Environment, Vol. 1, p. 45. 24. Ghosh, D. (1993b), "Towards sustainable development of Calcutta wetlands, India", in Davis, T.J. (Ed.), Towards Wise Use of Wetlands, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, pp. 107-12. 25. Gosiun, D.3. (2001), 3. The Brussels Capitol Region First National Report of Belgium to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brussels Institute of the Environment, Brussels, available at: www.bcdcbd.naturalsciences.be/belgium/contribution/natiorep1/brussels.htm. 26. Gupta, R.C. (2006), "Environmental and infrastructural sustainability: major challenges facing Indian metropolitan cities", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.), Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 3-11. 27. Hopkins, G. (1980), Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, 13-16 November, 1978, Washington DC, USDA Forest Service, Forestry Research, State and Private Forestry, plus SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. ESF Publication 80-003,Vols I and II. 28. Hough, M. (1984), City Form and Natural Processes; Towards a New Urban Vernacular, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 29. Housing Settlement Management Institute (HSMI)/Waste Management Collection (WMC) (1996), "City-wide best practices in solid waste management in collection, transportation and disposal", in Singh, B.N., Maitra, S. and Sharma, R. (Eds), Urban Environmental Management - The Indian Experience, Housing Settlement Management Institute, New Delhi and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Rotterdam. 30. ICLEI (1994), Charter of European Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability (The Aalborg Charter) as approved by the participants of the European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns (Aalborg, Denmark, May 27, 1994), available at: www.iclei.org/europe/ECHARTER.htm.

31. ICLEI (1997), Local Agenda 21Survey; A Study of Response by Local Authorities and Their National and International Associations with Agenda 21, ICLEI World Secretariat, Toronto, available at: www.iclei.org. 32. ICLEI (2001), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 1. 33. Jain, A.K. (2006), "Urban issues and an agendafor the next century", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.), Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 12-18. 35. Little, S. and Noyes, J.H. (1970), Trees and Forestry on Urbanizing Environment (August 18-21, 1970 University of Massachusetts), Planning and Resource Development Series No. 17, Holdsworth Natural Resource Center, Massachusetts Cooperative Extension. 36. Lyle, J.T. (1993), "Urban ecosystems; cities of the future", Designing a Sustainable Future, available at: www.context.org/ICLIB/K35/Lyle.htm. 37. Mahadevia, D. (2003), Globalization, Urban Reforms and Metropolitan Response: India, School of Planning, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad with Manak Publications Ltd, New Delhi. 38. Mahadevia, D. (2004), "Sustainable urban development in India: an inclusive perspective", in Westendorff, D. (Ed.), Unsustainable to Inclusive Cities, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, pp. 57-85. 39. Malik, I. (1998), "Waste management in Delhi", Shelter, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 59-60. 40. Meier, B. (2002), City Streams: Trout Unlimited Urban Rivers Success Stories, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA. 41. Miller, H.C. (Ed.) (1973), Proceedings Urban Forestry Conference, (March 12-15, 1973 SUNY/ESF), SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. 42. Nilsson, K. and Randrop, T.R. (1997), "Urban and periurban forestry", in World Forestry Congress, Antalya, Turkey 13-22 October 1997, Orman Bakanligi, pp. 97-113, available at: www.fao.org/monyes/foda/wforcong/PUBLI/VI/T3E/1.htm. 43. Noyes, J.H. and Progulske, D.R. (1973), (27-29 November, 1973, Springfield, MA) Planning and Resource Development Series No, 28, Holdsworth Natural Resources Center, Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service.

44. Platt, R. (Ed.) (1994), The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Diversity, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 45. Rao, K.R. (2000), "Clean and green cities: participation of communities/neighborhood committees", Shelter, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 50-3. 46. Riley, A.L. (1998), Restoring Streams in Cities; A Guide to Planners, Policy Makers and Citizens, Island Press, Washington, DC. 47. Ryan, K.L. (1993), Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design and Management Manual for Multiple Use Trails, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Island Press, Washington, DC. 48. Santamour, F.S. Jr, Gerhold, H.D. and Little, S. (1976), , held on 4-6 November at the US National Arboretum, Washington DC. Northeast Fr. Exp. Stn, Upper Darby PA. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-22. 49. Serageldin, I. (1995), "The human face of the urban environment", in Serageldin, I., Cohen, M.A. and Sivaramkrishnan, K.C. (Eds), The Human Face of the Urban Environment, Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 16-20. 50. Shah, K. (2003), "Agenda 21for sustainable construction in developing countries: The Indian case", in Girard, L.F., Forte, B., Cerreta, M., de Torro, P. and Forte, F. (Eds), The Human Sustainable City: Challenges and Perspectives from the Habitat Agenda, Ashgate, Hants UK and Burlington, VT, pp. 261-95. 51. Shrivastava, R. (1995), "A question of industry", Down to Earth, Vol. 3 No. 23, pp. 18-19. 52. Shrivastava, R.C. (1990), "Wasteland development and people's participation: a case study of the Patha area of Bundelkhand, U.P.", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 441-56. 53. Singh, R.B. (Ed.) (2006), Sustainable Urban Development, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. 54. Spiros, Z.A. (2006), Local to Global Links to Implement Agenda 21- the Local Agenda 21 Process, Sustainable Developments International, Division for Sustainable development (DSD), UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, New York, NY, pp. 9-12.

55. Smardon, R.C. (1988), "Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: the role of vegetation", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 16 No. 1988, pp. 85-106. 56. Smardon, R.C., Felleman, J. and Senecah, S. (1995), Protecting Floodplain Resources: A Guidebook for Communities, The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, US Gov. Print. Office FEMA 68. 57. Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (2004), "Towards sustainable cities", in Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. and Grant, J. (Eds), Towards Sustainable Cities East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, Ashgate Publishers, Burlington VT and Hampshire, pp. 3-23. 58. Spirn, A.W. (1984), The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design, Basic Books Inc, New York, NY. 59. UNESCO-MAB (1998), Application of the Biosphere Reserve concept to Urban Areas and their Hinterlands, UNESCO-MAB, Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves Fifth Meeting, 7-10 July 1998, UNESCO HQ Room XIV. 60. United Nations (2002), Johannesburg Summit 2002: India Country Profile, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 64. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002), Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place, US EPA (EPA 842-B-01-003), Office of Water, Washington DC. 65. Verma, S.S. and Singh, J.B. (1990), "Social forestry: a strategy for wasteland development: a case study of Gorakhpur District", in Sharma, S.C., Chaturvedi, R.B. and Mishra, O.P. (Eds), Utilization of Wastelands for Sustainable Development in India, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 431-40. 66. Vettivel, S.K. (1993), "Community involvement in managing natural resources - the case of Chilika Lagoon", in Vettivel, S.K. (Ed.), Participation in Sustainable Development; Theory and Practice in Government and NGO's, Vol. Chapter 6, Vetri Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 83105. 67. Vivian, J.M. (1992), "Foundations for sustainable development: participation, empowerment and local resource management", in Ghai, D. and Vivian, J. (Eds), Grassroots Environmental Action - Peoples Participation in Sustainable Development, Routledge, London.

70. ICLEI (2004), "Cities for climate protection monitor India", ICLEI Monitor, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 1. 100. Heisler, G. and Herrington, L. (Eds) (1977), Proceedings of the Conference on Metropolitan Physical Environment, Northeastern Fr. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Report, Upper Darby, PA. Further Reading 1. Krishna, S. (1996), "The business of sustainable development", in Kishna, S. (Ed.), Environmental Politics: Peoples Lives and Development Choices, Chapter 12, Sage Publications India Printing Ltd, New Delhi, pp. 233-53. 2. UNU-IAS (2004), "Cities as drivers of sustainable development", World Urban Forum 2004 Networking Event Discussion Paper (17 September, 2004, Barcelona, Spain) UNU-IAS, 7pp. 3. UNU/IAS UNESCO/MAB (2002), "Urban ecosystem research and the millennium ecosystem assessment: exploring the interlinkages", WHO Urban Ecosystems meeting 1215 March 2002 Salle XVI Bonum Building UNESCO 1, rue Miolles, Paris. 4. UN World Urban Forum (2002), Sustainable Urbanization: Achieving Agenda 21, United Nations Habitat, Nairobi. Appendix About the author Richard C. Smardon, PhD, Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, and Director, Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210 USA. Richard can be contacted at: rsmardon@esf.edu AuthorAffiliation Richard C. Smardon, Department of Environmental Studies, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, USA

_______________________________________________________________
Indexing (details)
Subject Community support; Comparative analysis; Biological diversity; Sustainable development; Studies; Urban areas North America, Europe, India 9172: Canada, 9190: United States, 9130: Experimental/theoretical,

Location Classification

9179: Asia&the Pacific, 1540: Pollution control, 9175: Western Europe Title Author Publication title Volume Issue Pages Publication year Publication date Year Publisher Publisher Place of publication Country of publication Journal subject ISSN CODEN Source type Language of publication Document type Document feature Subfile DOI ProQuest document ID Document URL Copyright Last updated Database A comparison of Local Agenda 21 implementation in North American, European and Indian cities Smardon, Richard C Management of Environmental Quality 19 1 118-137 2008 2008 2008 Bradford Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Bradford United Kingdom Occupational Health And Safety 14777835 EMHEEB Scholarly Journals English Literature Review References Studies, Comparative analysis, Sustainable development, Biological diversity, Community support, Urban areas 10.1108/14777830810840408 204609797 http://210.48.222.80/proxy.pac/docview/204609797?accountid=44024 Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2008 2010-06-07 2 databases -ProQuest Health&Medical Complete -ProQuest Social Science Journals

<< Link to document in ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
2011 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions