Sustainable urban development: challenges, issues, strategies, examples

Resources → Subject Notes → Geography → Lesson Plan

Sustainable Urban Development (Topic 6.3 – Cambridge 9696)

6.3.1 Definition, Measuring Sustainability & Stakeholder Priorities

Definition – Sustainable urban development is the planning, design, construction and management of cities so that today’s economic, social and environmental needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

Scale & systems – Urban sustainability must be understood at two scales: the local city (place‑specific conditions, governance, culture) and the global system (climate change, migration, resource flows). Each city can be viewed as a system of inputs (energy, water, materials, people), processes (transport, waste‑treatment, building), and outputs (emissions, waste, services).

Measuring sustainability – Indicators are grouped under the three sustainability pillars and, where relevant, linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

  • Environmental pillar (SDG 13, 11, 6, 12)
    • CO₂ emissions per capita (kg person⁻¹ yr⁻¹) – SDG 13
    • Green‑space provision (m² person⁻¹) – SDG 11
    • Waste‑diversion rate (% of total waste recycled/composted) – SDG 12
    • Renewable‑energy share of city electricity (%) – SDG 7
  • Social pillar (SDG 1, 3, 4, 5, 11)
    • Housing affordability index (median rent ÷ median household income) – SDG 1
    • Access to safe water (% of households with piped water) – SDG 6
    • Public‑transport modal share (% of all trips) – SDG 11
    • Access to health & education services (percentage of population within 5 km) – SDG 3, 4
  • Economic pillar (SDG 8, 9, 11)
    • Local‑government revenue per capita (USD person⁻¹) – SDG 8
    • Employment rate in green‑economy sectors (%) – SDG 9
    • Business‑investment density (USD km⁻²) – SDG 11

Stakeholder groups and their sustainability priorities (exam‑friendly table):

Stakeholder Economic priority Social priority Environmental priority
Residents (low‑income) Affordable jobs & housing Secure tenure, basic services, safety Clean air, safe water, accessible green space
Residents (middle/high‑income) Property value, quality of life Education, health, recreation Low traffic, aesthetic environment
Businesses & land‑owners Profit, market access, infrastructure Skilled workforce, stable regulations Regulatory certainty, low‑cost energy
Local government Revenue generation, economic growth Social equity, public health Compliance with national/environmental policy
National government National GDP, tax base Regional development, poverty reduction International climate commitments
NGOs / community groups Funding for projects Participatory decision‑making Conservation, climate resilience

6.3.2 Challenges of Sustainability in Urban Development

Rapid urbanisation creates a set of inter‑linked challenges that must be addressed simultaneously:

  • Population growth – an estimated 2.5 billion more people will live in cities by 2050, intensifying demand for housing, water, energy and transport.
  • Housing shortage & unaffordable rents – pushes low‑income households into informal settlements with inadequate services.
  • Transport congestion & emissions – private‑car dominance raises travel times, air‑pollution and CO₂ output.
  • Air, water & soil pollution – industrial discharges, traffic exhaust and poor waste‑treatment affect public health.
  • Climate‑change impacts – sea‑level rise, urban heat‑island effect and more frequent extreme events increase vulnerability.
  • Social inequality – unequal access to jobs, education, health and green space undermines social cohesion.
  • Measuring progress – data gaps, inconsistent indicator definitions and the need to balance short‑term economic gains with long‑term environmental goals.

Link to stakeholder priorities – each challenge maps onto the concerns of the stakeholder groups identified above. For example, unaffordable housing directly threatens the economic and social priorities of low‑income residents, while transport congestion affects the environmental priority of clean air for all groups and the economic priority of productivity for businesses.

6.3.3 Sustainability Issues in Urban Areas

  1. Solid‑waste disposal
    • Limited landfill space and methane emissions.
    • Economic link – high collection costs versus informal recycling economies.
    • Social link – health risks in low‑income neighbourhoods.
    • Environmental link – loss of resources, water contamination.
  2. Transport
    • High private‑car use → congestion, air‑quality decline.
    • Economic impact – productivity loss.
    • Social impact – reduced mobility for non‑car owners.
    • Environmental impact – CO₂ and NOx emissions.
  3. Housing quality & density
    • Over‑crowding strains water, sanitation and energy supplies.
    • High‑density can be efficient if paired with adequate green space.
    • Social equity – safe, adequate dwellings for all income groups.
  4. Green space & water features
    • Insufficient parks increase heat‑island effect and limit recreation.
    • Loss of natural floodplains heightens flood risk.
    • Environmental benefits – biodiversity, carbon sequestration, storm‑water retention.

6.3.4 Strategies for Sustainable Management

Each strategy is evaluated on (i) engineering type (hard, soft or mixed), (ii) policy vs. incentive tools, (iii) key actions, (iv) intended outcomes, and (v) pros/cons/constraints.

Strategy Engineering type Policy / Incentive tool Key actions Intended outcomes Evaluation (pros / cons / constraints)
Compact City Design Soft (land‑use planning) Zoning regulations, density bonuses (policy) Higher‑density housing, mixed‑use developments, vertical growth Reduced travel distances, efficient land use, lower per‑capita emissions Pros: saves greenfield land, supports public transport.
Cons: may increase housing prices if supply lags.
Constraints: cultural preference for detached houses, planning‑permission delays.
Green Infrastructure Soft (nature‑based solutions) Green‑space levies, developer incentives (incentive) Urban parks, green roofs, permeable pavements, river restoration Improved air quality, flood mitigation, biodiversity gains Pros: multi‑benefit (climate, health).
Cons: higher upfront cost, ongoing maintenance.
Constraints: limited land in dense cores, competing development pressures.
Sustainable Transport Mixed – hard (BRT lanes, tram tracks) & soft (travel‑demand management) Congestion charging, public‑transit subsidies (policy & incentive) Bus rapid transit, cycling networks, pedestrian zones, low‑emission zones Reduced congestion, lower CO₂, healthier lifestyles Pros: measurable modal shift, job creation.
Cons: requires behavioural change, possible opposition from car users.
Constraints: funding for infrastructure, topography.
Renewable Energy Integration Mixed – hard (district heating pipes, solar farms) & soft (energy‑efficiency standards) Feed‑in tariffs, building‑code mandates (policy & incentive) Solar PV on roofs, district heating, small‑scale wind turbines Reduced fossil‑fuel dependence, lower urban carbon footprint Pros: long‑term cost savings, local jobs.
Cons: intermittency, visual impact.
Constraints: grid capacity, financing.
Zero‑Waste Management Soft (source separation, circular‑economy schemes) Pay‑as‑you‑throw, tax rebates for recycling businesses (incentive) Recycling programmes, organic‑waste composting, circular‑economy incentives Reduced landfill use, resource efficiency, new green‑sector jobs Pros: clear economic benefits, community engagement.
Cons: requires robust collection system.
Constraints: informal waste‑picker livelihoods, public awareness.
Community Participation Soft (social‑process tools) Participatory budgeting, legal rights to consultation (policy) Public workshops, local stewardship groups, citizen science Greater social equity, stronger local identity, policies that reflect lived experience Pros: higher acceptance of projects.
Cons: time‑consuming, may be dominated by vocal groups.
Constraints: capacity of local authorities to manage participation.
Policy & Governance Integration Soft (institutional framework) Integrated planning frameworks, sustainability targets, fiscal incentives (policy) Cross‑departmental coordination, monitoring dashboards, enforcement mechanisms Coordinated action across sectors, measurable progress, accountability Pros: ensures coherence.
Cons: risk of bureaucratic inertia.
Constraints: political turnover, inter‑governmental conflicts.

6.3.5 Detailed Example – Curitiba (Brazil) – Bus Rapid Transit & Waste‑to‑Energy

Cause of the problem – Rapid population growth in the 1970s created severe traffic congestion, deteriorating air quality and a mounting solid‑waste stream.

Impacts

  • Average travel time > 45 min per trip.
  • Vehicle fleet rose to 0.9 cars household⁻¹, raising CO₂ emissions.
  • Landfill capacity reached 70 % of design, leading to illegal dumping.

Management actions

  • Hard‑engineering: Dedicated BRT corridors with median‑aligned stations and signal priority.
  • Soft‑engineering: Integrated land‑use zoning concentrating high‑density development around BRT stations.
  • City‑wide waste‑to‑energy plant that incinerates non‑recyclable waste to generate electricity.
  • Incentive: “Green tax” on waste generation; revenue subsidises BRT fares.

Evaluation

  • Successes: Car ownership fell to 0.5 cars household⁻¹; 70 % of municipal waste now provides energy; BRT carries 2.3 million passengers day⁻¹ (≈30 % of trips).
  • Limitations: BRT capacity approaching saturation; informal settlements on the city fringe still lack reliable transport.
  • Constraints: Funding for further corridor extensions depends on national economic cycles; sustained political commitment needed to keep fares low.

6.3.6 Monitoring & Evaluation – Key Indicators

  • CO₂ emissions per capita (kg person⁻¹ yr⁻¹) – Environmental
  • Public‑transport modal share (% of total trips) – Social
  • Green‑space provision (m² person⁻¹) – Environmental
  • Renewable‑energy share of total city electricity (%) – Environmental
  • Waste‑diversion rate (% of total waste recycled/composted) – Environmental
  • Housing affordability index (median rent ÷ median household income) – Social/Economic
  • Access to safe water (% of households with piped water) – Social
  • Local‑government revenue per capita (USD person⁻¹) – Economic

6.3.7 Illustrative Case Studies (Contrasting Income Levels & Place‑Specific Contexts)

City (Income tier) Place‑specific sustainable initiatives Quantitative results (selected indicators)
Copenhagen, Denmark (High‑income) Extensive bike‑lane network, carbon‑neutral by 2025 target, district heating from waste‑heat 42 % of trips by bicycle; 42 % reduction in CO₂ since 1990; 95 % of households connected to district heating
Singapore (High‑income) Vertical gardens, NEWater (recycled water), integrated land‑use planning, congestion pricing 80 % of water demand met by recycling; 30 % increase in urban green cover since 2000; 90 % public‑transport modal share
Portland, USA (High‑income) Urban growth boundary, bike‑lane network, LEED building standards, community‑led climate action plans Urban sprawl limited to <1 % annual increase; 30 % of new buildings LEED‑certified; 12 % of trips by bike
Curitiba, Brazil (Upper‑middle‑income) BRT system, waste‑to‑energy plant, green corridors, land‑use zoning around transit 0.5 cars household⁻¹; 70 % of waste used for energy; BRT carries 2.3 million passengers day⁻¹
Lagos, Nigeria (Low‑income) Informal‑settlement upgrading, bus‑lane pilots, community‑managed waste‑recycling cooperatives, flood‑plain restoration 15 % increase in formal waste‑recycling; 10 % reduction in flood‑related damages (2018‑2022); public‑transport share rose from 12 % to 18 %
Nairobi, Kenya (Low‑income) Bus Rapid Transit pilot, peri‑urban tree‑planting, rain‑water harvesting schemes, slum‑area micro‑enterprise support CO₂ per capita fell by 8 % (2020‑2024); 25 % of new housing units include rain‑water tanks; 5 % increase in green‑space per capita

Create an account or Login to take a Quiz

34 views
0 improvement suggestions

Log in to suggest improvements to this note.