Search results

Throughout the world, at one period or another in its history, it has been the practice to cultivate tree species and agricultural crops in intimate combination in most of the countries. The history of cultivating trees and crops in home gardens, social tree planting, protecting and managing forests, appreciating wildlife, and sustaining the beauties of nature in Sri Lanka go back to more than about 25 centuries. In chronicles, there are some references on social tree planting practices, and home gardens planted with flowering and fruit-bearing trees in Sri Lanka. Because of the traditions, influencing factors of the existing environment, and nature of agroforestry, the numerous examples of agroforestry practices are found in all agro climatic and ecological zones of Sri Lanka. Today, the traditional knowledge of agroforestry is being developed and expanded with the objective of improving living standards, especially the rural communities in Sri Lanka.

Over the last 30 years, despite immense and increasing expenditures by the federal government for disaster preparedness and relief, both catastrophic and chronic losses from natural hazards have continued to increase at an alarming pace. Although earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes account for the largest portion of these natural hazard losses, wildfire increasingly represents significant disaster losses of well over a billion dollars annually. There is considerable concern that losses from wildfires will only increase in the U.S. as some of the highest growth rates in the nation, both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan types of growth, are projected to continue in states with extensive wildland fire hazard areas. The land development patterns associated with that growth are problematic because so much of the development in the last 30 years (and that is still occurring) is not being steered away from the highest wildfire hazard settings, nor are adequate steps being taken to ensure that when development occurs in high wildfire hazard zones appropriate mitigation is used to reduce the vulnerability of people and property to loss. Fortunately, those anticipated future wildfire losses have a great potential to be reduced provided state and local governments take the initiative to create partnerships to ensure “safer” and “smarter” patterns of land development occur in and near wildland–urban interface areas. This chapter explores wildfire mitigation planning as an integral component of “safe smart growth” for wildland–urban interface communities.

Based on the 5th wave/tomorrow age theory, we are living in the world that is in necessity to change. Rapid urbanization causes global challenges such as economic problems and recessions, environmental challenges, climate change, social instability, health diseases, biological attached, and crisis caused by technological dominations. These challenges threaten the world, humanity, and human beings. Therefore, it is vital to tackle and struggle with them in order to maintain the world and improve quality of livability and quality of life to achieve sustainability. Generally, modern Blue-Green urban areas and smart cities with high quality of livability and life are proposed to deal with urbanization challenges to maintain the world and improve quality of human life. Based on Prof. Doost's 5th wave theory, related theories, concepts and models like Doost Risk Mitigation Method (DRMM), and also his experience on sustainability as best practice such as cooperating with Danish Sustainable Platforms Company, working as an academic leader at IoE/EQ EU Erasmus Plus project in Germany during 2017–2020, cooperating with former mayor of Copenhagen, consulting the German MV State Minister of Energy, Digitalization, and Infrastructure to cooperate with Iran in 2016, more than 15 years holding lecture and research internationally about risk and risk management on mobility in different universities like (TU Berlin) Technical University of Berlin (EUREF Campus, Sustainable Mobility Management and Sustainability Building) and also achieving a honorary doctorate in sustainable development management, a practical model concerned on risk management in mobility to provide comprehensive global Blue-Green clean sustainable urban mobility risk mitigation strategic plan is given. Therefore, in this chapter, impact of risk management on mobility to provide sustainable global urban mobility plan in order to create modern Blue-Green sustainable urban area and future smart cities through the 5th wave theory are explored. Fundamentally, the main goal of the research is to have an applied study about mobility risk mitigation and utilize it as a key to create comprehensive global urban mobility risk mitigation plan toward Blue-Green sustainable clean mobility technologies to create modern sustainable smart cities through the tomorrow age theory in order to create livable urban area with high quality of livability and life. In addition, the risks in mobility through the DRMM are measured to analyze the risk and to do risk mitigation and mobility project improvement to move to sustainable mobility and high sustainability in future smart cities.

This chapter discusses some issues of diversity in hazard mitigation when just recovery is considered or not. Justice in hazard mitigation becomes crucial considering unequal distribution of resources, systemic racism, and social vulnerability to hazards. While there has been research on just recovery, there is little or no evidence of research that examines the issue of equity and justice in hazard mitigation, This chapter discusses what hazard mitigation is, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 focusing on the planning process, public involvement in the planning process, some planning theories on vulnerability, and building the case for achieving and striving for justice and equity in promoting diversity in hazard mitigation. The chapter makes some recommendation on how to achieve diversity in hazard mitigation.

While concentration of population in urban areas continues, limited contact with ecological dynamics undermines awareness on human dependence on ecosystems. However, demands on ecosystems have never been higher than in today's urbanized planet, and cities make major contributions to global environmental problems. Enhancing green and blue infrastructure (GBI) in cities can reduce the ecological footprints of cities, while enhancing urban resilience and quality of life for their inhabitants. Urban GBIs provide multiple benefits to people in the form of ecosystem services (ES) and hold potential for providing nature-based solutions (NBS) to address urban challenges.

To adequately evaluate the ES provided by GBI, researchers have recently advocated integrated valuations. Integrated valuations aim at overcoming the limitations of the traditional single discipline and narrow approaches, by considering the multiple ways in which humans benefit from nature across the economic social and cultural domains.

In this chapter, we present examples of integrated valuations of ES in two Spanish cities, Barcelona and Bilbao. Both examples combine different valuation techniques and metrics, both monetary and nonmonetary, to account for the ES provided by urban GBIs and to assess their potential as NBS.

Our case examples show that urban GBIs provide many valuable benefits to urban dwellers. One of the clearest outcomes from these infrastructures is cultural ES, especially the multiple recreation and leisure opportunities they provide, which in turn has a remarkable positive effect on human health and well-being.

The fact that the world is becoming increasingly urbanized is recognized by the United Nations (UNFPA, 2007) in the State of the World Population Report as the “The Urban Millennium.” In year 1950, 30% of the world's population lived in cities and as of recently, the population has reached up to 50%, making year 2007 a turning point in the history of urban population growth (Bigio, 2003; Kreimer, Arnold, & Caitlin, 2003; UN-HABITAT, 2007). By year 2030, the United Nations expects more than 60% of population to be living in cities (Munich Re, 2005). And as shown by Surjan and Shaw (2009), by year 2050, the world's urban population is expected to grow by 3 billion people. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries, with the urban population in cities and towns doubling. As it has been summarized, from 1991 to 2005, more than 3.5 billion people were affected by disasters; more than 950,000 people have taken their lives unwillingly and damages have reached nearly 1,193 billion US dollars. Developing countries will suffer the most from climate change, since they are disproportionally affected and have intrinsic vulnerabilities to hazards and so far have struggled in increasing the capacity for risk reduction measures (Wahlström, 2009). Nevertheless, by contrast, even in the largest and wealthiest countries, which have diversified economies and risk transfer mechanisms, the loss has topped an amount of billions of US dollars, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina in USA in 2005. It has been confirmed with facts over the last two decades (1988–2007) that 76% of all disaster events were hydrological, meteorological, or climatological in nature, whether it occurred in urban or in rural areas.

How are our cities confronting the challenges posed by a warming climate, the loss of biodiversity, and the increasing urban heat island effect? ― This chapter discusses the opportunities and benefits of applying the concepts of renaturalization and rewilding of cities. It introduces nature-based solutions (NBS) in urban planning that are integrated with the aim to enhance urban resilience and to slow down the biodiversity decline, which can be applied in two areas: through the conception of new green neighborhoods and through the regeneration and regreening of existing but neglected parts of the city, such as postindustrial brownfields or economically weak districts.

Contact to nature is essential for human existence, urban well-being, and a good quality of life. Green spaces in cities – big or small – all contribute to health and well-being. However, many cities do not offer residents easy access to green space within the city. Improving better access and extending gardens and parks will deliver a large number of benefits, such as ecosystem services, better water management for enhanced urban flood control, and slowing down the biodiversity loss, with the potential to restore damaged ecosystems. Furthermore, additional green space and NBS help to keep cities cool during heat waves and improve the urban microclimate.

In this context, NBS and regreening can generate significant benefits for citizens, improve urban health and well-being, and offer an opportunity to effectively deploy nature to resolve major societal challenges ― such as social inclusion, food security, and disaster risk reduction. However, it is essential that the design of NBS is fully integrated with other complementary planning interventions and seeks synergies across all sectors.

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to review the relationship of urban climate governance against the background of sustainability and to identify driving forces in a set of leading cities in the United States and Europe.

Design/methodology/approach – Case-study research indicates that efficient, creative and participatory urban governance is key for the quest for sustainability. It is theorized that dynamic governance is composed of high levels of both institutional and social capital or capacity. Each capacity category is composed of different indicators or ‘success factors’ taken from qualitative data in overall 84 cities in the United States and Europe. By triangulating desktop research, mail surveys and review of existing studies, the role and influence of these success factors is evaluated and compared.

Findings – In both the United States and in Europe, the key driving forces are those related to institutional capacity. Yet, cities tend to be more successful in sustainable development if levels of institutional and social capacity are high. Linkages between institutional and social dimensions can be successfully strengthened by capacity building measures.

Research limitations/implications – As the comparison is based on existing studies on leading cities in sustainability, driving factors likely to play a stronger role in the early phase of urban sustainability measures are underrepresented.

Practical implications – Local authorities are advised to encourage social capacities in order to help them pursue local sustainability over time.

Originality/value – This chapter compares and evaluates underlying success factors going beyond a case-study approach across the Atlantic in order to draw broader conclusions.

The pace of urbanization in the developing world is led by Asia. Over the next 25 years, Asia's urban population will grow by around 70% to more than 2.6 billion people. An additional billion people will have urban habitats (ADB, 2006).

The “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and communities to disasters” (HFA) was adopted at the UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction (January 2005, Kobe, Japan). The HFA specifies that disaster risk is compounded by increasing vulnerabilities related to various elements including unplanned urbanization. Across the HFA, important elements on urban risk reduction are mentioned as one of crucial areas of work to implement the HFA. In particular incorporating disaster risk reduction into urban planning is specified to reduce the underlying risk factors (Priority 4).