Inequality also contributes to environmental degradation within cities and beyond, affecting the potential or success rate of environmentally sustainable responses to urbanization (see also chapter 3). GEO-6 notes that the current unsustainable pattern of urban growth is “the result of population growth happening with the current consumption and production patterns”, where “unsustainable consumption and production are each largely fuelled by heightened inequality” (UNEP 2019a). Inequality within and between cities remains one of the highest barriers to achieving environmental sustainability globally (Chancel and Piketty 2015; Oxfam 2015; UNEP 2019a) and is a key concern of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2020a) and the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017).


The consequences of inequality are particularly obvious in regions that are at high risk of natural hazards like earthquakes and cyclones and the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and increasing severity of flooding and droughts. These risks, alongside the capacities for mitigating or adapting to them, are not equally distributed across cities. For example, half a million people


Figure 2.3: Where rapid growth faces vulnerability 6.0 Uganda


Burundi Niger


4.0


Malawi Nepal


Bangladesh Papua New Guinea 2.0 Cambodia Tajikistan Sri Lanka 0.0 Kyrgyzstan Guyana Uzbekistan


India Myanmar


Rwanda Yemen Afghanistan Mali Madagascar Benin Liberia Guatemala Equatorial Guinea Mauritania Pakistan Nigeria Cote d`lvoire


Honduras Syria


Central African Republic Egypt


Albania Costa Rica


Ireland


South Africa Portugal


Jamaica Paraguay Bolivia Suriname El Salvador Greece Slovenia Macedonia


Moldova Romania Georgia


0 20 40


Kazakhstan Serbia Croatia


Estonia Poland Lithuania


United Kingdom Germany


Bulgaria Latvia Malaysia Mongolia


Dominican Rep. Turkey


Oman Libya


Colombia Peru


Sweden Jordan Venezuela


Spain USA Chile Japan Canada


Haiti


living below sea level in both Lagos and Dhaka are extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels and flooding (Martino et al. 2016, p. 65). In contrast, the city of New York is financing a seawall to protect the affluent district of Manhattan. These contrasting situations illustrate a broader trend whereby the cities of the Global North, which have contributed the most to climate change and biodiversity loss (through historical and ongoing energy use and consumption patterns), are often able to buffer themselves from some of the consequences. Meanwhile, the wide range of cities in the Global South often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and have disproportionately fewer resources to adapt and transform (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2018; African Development Bank, UNEP and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa [UNECA] 2019; UNEP 2019a) (Figure 2.3).


The burden of adapting to climate change is also shared unequally within cities. In some cases, affluent households have been able to retreat and relocate from at-risk coastal areas, often taking with them valuable tax revenue, which is needed to finance adaptation to a changing climate. In contrast, poorer communities are


Argentina Malta


60 Level of urbanization (per cent)


Classes of urban vulnerability


Very low Low


Medium High


Very high Source: UNEP 2019a, p. 34 Urban Dynamics for Environmental Action 25 Level of


urbanization 75.80 69.19 56.07 43.51 38.59


Growth rate 2000-2015


0.71 0.92 2.36 2.89 3.71


80


100


Urban growth (per cent)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146