Local Responses to Development Pressures : Conflictual Politics of Sprawl and Environmental Conservation

There is an increasing opposition to the absorption of farmland and natural habitats by housing subdivisions and infrastructure, a symptom of urban sprawl. Through an analysis of these challenges at a regional scale, we address the contradictions and tensions in the politics of sprawl and environmental conservation. This article compares environmental conservation on the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill and Caledon (two towns in the Greater Toronto Area) and argues that local political cultures, geography, and the density and political influence of citizens and social movements can have an impact on local responses to pressures of development. In the end, however, environmental activism in both towns is subjected to and shaped by an overall growth agenda.L’envahissement des terres agricoles et des milieux naturels par des lotissements et des infrastructures résidentiels suscite de plus en plus d’opposition. Il en résulte des tensions et des contradictions entre les pratiques d’urbanisation et les politiques de conservation de l’environnement. Cet article compare la gestion à des fins de conservation de la moraine Oak Ridges à Richmond Hill et Caledon (deux municipalités de la région métropolitaine de Toronto). Il est constaté que la culture politique locale, la géographie, la densité et l’influence politique des mouvements sociaux peuvent avoir à l’échelle locale un impact sur les pratiques d’urbanisation. Il reste que les mobilisations environnementales dans les deux municipalités deviennent, malgré tout, subjugées par des objectifs de croissance

Safe cities : guidelines for planning, design and management

xi, 206 hlm., gamb., index, 28.5 c

Safe cities : Guidelines for planning design, and management

New Yorkxi, 206 p.; 26 c

Could Toronto Provide 10% of its Fresh Vegetable Requirements from Within its Own Boundaries? Part II, Policy Supports and Program Design

Urban agriculture in Toronto largely focuses on self-provisioning, but it could be scaled up significantly. Our findings in an earlier paper indicate that the supply of land is not an insurmountable barrier. Rather, other more subtle impediments exist, including taxation systems and structures that assume agriculture is a strictly rural activity; inadequate sharing of knowledge among urban producers; limited access to soil, water, and seeds; and the lack of incentives to attract landowners and foundations to provide financial or in-kind support. The potential exists to develop urban agriculture so that it supplies 10% of the city's commercial demand for fresh vegetables. Scaling up to this level requires significant policy and program initiatives in five key areas: Increasing urban growers' access to spaces for production; putting in place the physical infrastructure and resources for agriculture; integrating local food production into the food supply chain; creating systems for sharing knowledge; and creating new models for governance, coordination, and financing. Our recommendations, while focusing on Toronto, offer lessons for those currently attempting to strengthen urban agriculture in other cities