Cities

Lima (Peru), Java (Indonesia), Sinos Valley (Brazil), Torren (Mexico) and Tiruppur (India), it is shown that usually there is a high rate of employment growth among mature clusters drawing the poor from rural areas. Alongside an increase in employment, this study also showed that wage levels in clusters were higher than average regional wage levels but with longer working hours.

While urbanisation has helped to reduce absolute poverty, the number of people classified as urban poor is on the rise (Ravallion et al. 2007). Between 1993 and 2002, there was an addition of 50 million poor in urban areas while the number of rural poor declined by 150 million (Ravallion et al. 2007). Urban growth puts pressure on the quality of the local environment, which disproportionately affects poorer people, such as the lack of adequate access to clean water and sanitation. This results in a huge disease burden that further affects their livelihood options. Moreover, a large proportion of the urban population is in the informal sector with: a) inadequate access to social security, including health insurance; b) homes in informal settlements in disaster-prone areas – both of which make them more vulnerable to crises. With climate change posing its own threat, the urban poor are likely to be more affected as most live in non-durable structures and in more vulnerable locations such as riverbanks and drainage systems. More generally, the poor have little if no means to reduce potential risks and prepare for the consequences of or be insured against natural disasters.

Innovative approaches to urban planning and management can make urbanisation inclusive, pro- poor and responsive to threats posed by environmental degradation

and global warming. For example,

enhancing public transport use can reduce inequality in access to public services and other amenities, on top of reducing carbon emissions (Litman 2002). It can also play a part in improving poorer neighbourhoods by relieving vehicle congestion (Pucher 2004). Switching to cleaner fuels for cooking, transport and power generation can minimise local pollution and reduce health inequality (Haines et al. 2007). Poor urban households in low- income nations have to spend a large proportion of their income on energy needs including food and cooking fuel (Karekezi and Majoro 2002). Introducing cleaner and more efficient sources of energy offers the potential to both reduce direct expenditure and to lower health costs connected to indoor-air pollution (Bruce et al. 2002). In Brazil, for example, an initiative in the City of Bentim to install solar heaters in housing estates for low income families resulted in 20 per cent savings in energy consumption and up to 57 per cent savings in the energy bill for the average 3 to 4 member family (ICLEI 2010b). 9

9. The significant reduction in the energy bill can be explained through the fact that low energy consumption is rewarded by tax benefits. The installation of solar heaters helped the families to reach the threshold of < 90khW/month.

Rank 2010 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

City

Vienna Zurich

Geneva

Vancouver Auckland Dusseldorf Frankfurt Munich Bern

Sydney

Copenhagen Wellington Amsterdam Ottawa Brussels Toronto Berlin

Melbourne Luxembourg Stockholm

Country Austria

Switzerland Switzerland Canada

New Zealand Germany Germany Germany

Switzerland Australia Denmark

New Zealand Netherlands Canada Belgium Canada

Germany Australia

Luxembourg Sweden

Qol index 2010 108.6 108

107.9 107.4 107.4 107.2 107 107

106.5 106.3 106.2 105.9 105.7 105.5 105.4 105.3 105

104.8 104.6 104.5

Table 5: Mercer quality of living city ranking 2010 Source: Mercer (2010)

There are other examples of how greening cities can address poverty and equity concerns. Improving sanitation and fresh water supply can reduce persistent poverty and the adverse impacts of water-borne disease (Sanctuary et al. 2005). Retrofitting older buildings in lower-income neighbourhoods

can improve energy energy prices rise (Jenkins efficiency and

resilience, reducing the vulnerability of poorer communities when

2010). Upgrading

infrastructure in slum areas offers both health benefits and fewer adverse impacts on the environment (WHO 2009).

Improvement in quality of life Community cohesion is one aspect of quality of life and affects individuals, families and social groups at the neighbourhood and district level. Social relationships not only have particularly positive impacts on physical and mental health but also on economic resilience and productivity (Putnam et al. 1993; Putnam 2004). This is especially the case for disadvantaged people, as community cohesion and social inclusion are linked (O’Connor and Sauer 2006; Litman 2006).

Improving the urban environment by measures such as traffic calming and promoting walkability can help

471