Urbanisation, Sustainable Growth and Poverty Reduction in Asia

Almost 3 billion people live in urban areas across the world – equivalent to 48 per cent of the world’s total population. Asia accounts for almost half of these, with an urban population of between 1.3 and 1.5 billion people, accounting for approximately 37 per cent of Asia’s total population (UN-Habitat 2003a; ACHR 2005). These statistics for Asia are perhaps conservative, as different countries define ‘urban centres ’ differently, based upon both population size and other criteria. If either India or China were to redefine their criteria to include some smaller settlements as ‘urban’, then an even greater proportion of Asia’s population would be considered ‘urban’ (Satterthwaite 2005). Asia has a fast growing urban population. The urban population in the region as a whole is projected to grow to 1.8 billion by 2010 (see Figure 1), and as a result Asia is expected to account for a growing proportion of the world’s urban population – just over 50 per cent by 2010 (see Figures 2 and 3). The UN expects this number to increase to between 53 per cent and 55 per cent of the world’s urban population by 2030 (UN-Habitat 2004). In addition to a growing urban population, Asia is also urbanising – that is a growing proportion of its total population live in urban areas (see Figure 4). There are three potential factors contributin

Remodelling Urban Planning Education for Sustainable Development: The case of Serbia

Purpose – The paper aims to present a pedagogical model tailored to the development of key competences in the urban planning profession in post-socialist transitional countries that is based on the creation of an integrated platform for dialogue and the development of professional competences as part of the process, whereby students produce their final projects. Design/methodology/approach – The pedagogical model is based on the principles of education for sustainable development and focuses on the establishment of a repeatable platform for dialogue between students and mentors, members of the mentoring team, the local community, external members of the consulting team of experts and foreign master’s degree programmes, in the process of producing students’ projects. The proposed method addresses several dimensions, including: the education of students, teachers, professionals and local experts, the establishment of a network for cooperation and collaboration and the delivery of practical and usable results. Findings – The paper provides a comparative overview of the pedagogical model’s application in producing the final master’s degree projects of three generations of students, as well as its alignment with the needs of redefining the role and reach of the profession of urban planner in an environment of post-socialist transition. The model was improved, enhanced and optimised through this process and then corroborated with its practical implementation. Originality/value – The innovative pedagogical model comprises an instrument to enhance the professional capacities of all participants in the production of final master’s projects: academics, practitioners and future professionals/students, through discussions of topical issues, innovative modes of work and new professional responses grounded in the local context and tested by a broad range of stakeholders. It is of particular importance for countries in transition experiencing a shift in the paradigm of professional action, especially as the proposed pedagogical model establishes a problem-solving platform that surpasses academia

A Multi-Country Capacity Assessment of National Statistical Offices Preparedness to Report on SDG Indicator 1.4.2: Global status on land tenure security data collection, analysis and on comparable indicators in the SDGs

This report presents the results of the multi-country assessment carried out in 17 countries across the world. The findings of this assessment is expected to directly inform the work of the co-custodian agencies for land Indicator 1.4.2 (UN-Habitat and World Bank) in formulating a coherent capacity development strategy for NSOs at country level, and strengthen their collaboration with land agencies for enhanced data infrastructure needed to regularly report on this indicator. In addition, the findings will also inform capacity development initiatives for other custodians’ agencies working on land related indicators in the SDGs including 5.a.1; and the overall monitoring of tenure related issues in line with other land governance frameworks at global, regional levels and national levels

The nature and extent of healthy architecture: the current state of progress

© 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited. Purpose: The design of the built environment is a determinant of health. Accordingly, there is an increasing need for greater harmonization of the architectural profession and public health. However, there is a lack of knowledge on whether designers of the built environment are changing their practices to deliver healthier urban habitats. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: The research uses a multi-method approach to data analysis, including: systematic mapping study, structured review and thematic analysis. Findings: The research finds that there are almost no requirements for the compulsory inclusion of health across institutions and agencies that have the power to execute and mandate the scope of architectural profession, training, education, practice or knowledge. Despite the urgent need for action and the myriad entreatments for greater integration between architecture and health, there is very little evidence progress. Practical implications: The research has implications for the architectural profession and architectural education. Health and well-being is not currently an integral part of the educational or professional training requirements for architects. University educational curriculum and Continuing Professional Development criteria need to better integrate health and well-being into their knowledge-base. Social implications: The design of the built environment is currently undertaken by an architectural profession that lacks specialized knowledge of health and well-being. There is a risk to society of environments that fail to adequately protect and promote the health and well-being of its inhabitants. Originality/value: The research evidences, for the first time, the lack of integration of “health and wellbeing” within the architecture profession training or education systems

Global Land Indicator Initiative: Sourcebook for Operationalisation of Global Land Indicators

GLTN and the Natural Resources Institute at the University of Greenwich are pleased to share this sourcebook, as a working paper, to assist with the operationalisation of GLII indicators at the country level. This sourcebook provides material for developing a handbook for implementing the land indicators at country level. The aim of the sourcebook is to set out material for further development, discussion and compilation into one or more operational handbooks that provide guidance on the steps required and approaches that can be applied for national stakeholders and collaborating partners to establish practical arrangements for data gathering, analysis and reporting against a harmonised set of land indicators. These indicators have been broadly agreed amongst multilateral, governmental and civil society agencies and with the GLII stakeholder platform, and include headline indicators (including 1.4.2) now agreed and incorporated in the framework for implementing the globally agreed Sustainable Development Goals by the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC)

Tackling Women's Vulnerabilities through Integrating a Gender Perspective into Disaster Risk Reduction in the Built Environment

The majority of human and direct economic losses from natural hazards occur as a result of damage to the built environment due to the vital role that the built environment performs in serving human endeavours. One of the key reasons for people in developing countries to be more vulnerable to natural disasters than their wealthier counterparts is the limited capacities in their construction industries. Among the people in developing countries, women are evidently even more vulnerable to natural disasters. Due to higher disaster vulnerability of women, recognising the different roles, capacities, vulnerabilities and needs of women, and considering them in disaster risk reduction in the built environment is significant to reduce women’s disaster vulnerabilities. Gender mainstreaming as a way of bringing a gender perspective into disaster risk reduction can be applied to recognise the varying needs and capacities of women, and integrate them into disaster risk reduction in the built environment. The paper in this context aims to demonstrate how gender mainstreaming helps to bring a women’s perspective into disaster risk reduction in the built environment. It identifies two main steps which involve in the process, identification of women’s DRR knowledge and needs, and integration of the identified DRR knowledge and needs into DRR in the built environment. The paper provides an account of the process that the study established to incorporate a gender perspective into disaster risk reduction in the built environment based on a case study conducted in Sri Lanka. It further discusses how the social, economic, political and environmental context influences the process of gender mainstreaming in disaster risk reduction in the built environmen

Sanitation: What's the Real Problem?

The vast number of people without sanitation raises the question why this is so. It cannot be a lack of adequate sanitation technologies as these exist for all situations from dispersed rural communities to high?density low?income urban areas. Nor cannot it be money as development banks will readily fund a well?prepared sanitation proposal. The real sanitation problem must surely lie with those developing?country governments who have shown little commitment in practice to sanitation despite international sanitation advocacy since 1980. Their lack of commitment is clearly shown in the number of ‘open defecators’ in the world today. There are fortunately some countries that have done well: Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, for example, but they are a clear minority