Despite recent advances, people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Intersex (LGBTI) continue to face widespread exclusion.
Stigmatization and discrimination often have a direct impact on the lives of LGBTI people, but also affect economies and societies at large: when entire groups are left behind - including due to sexual orientation or gender identity - everyone loses out on their skills and productivity.
It is pretty easy to understand how and why land use patterns around public transit stations can influence the way we move around the city.
As more and more people live and work in a neighborhood with a limited land area, it becomes increasingly challenging to drive around without encountering congestion or to find a parking space easily. In this situation, public transit and non-motorized transport (NMT) become attractive alternatives for people who otherwise are reluctant to give up the comfort and flexibility of driving.
Conversely, as street blocks get bigger, people may find it takes too long to access public transit stations, which discourages the use of public transport facilities.
As straightforward as the logic may sound, the nature and magnitude of such influence are yet to be evaluated with solid empirical evidence. To take a closer look at the linkages between land use and travel behavior, I decided to study the case of Boston in the United States. I chose Boston because it boasts an effective public transit system, and was one of the first American cities to embrace transit-oriented development (TOD), an urban planning approach that promotes compact and mixed use development around public transit facilities.
A comparison of costs of living across major cities in the world regularly intrigues people. The latest annual report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), for example, points to Singapore as the most expensive city to live in. The cheapest city in the ranking of 133 cities is Lusaka in Zambia, followed by two Indian cities Bangalore and Mumbai.
The World Bank Group’s Climate Action Plan, adopted last month, is designed to help countries meet their COP21 pledges and manage increasing climate impacts.
To achieve these goals, working with cities will be essential: with almost 80% of GHG emissions emanating from urban areas, cities are among the biggest contributors to climate change... and must, inevitably, become a big part of the solution.
Cities are also particularly vulnerable to climate risk and other forms of natural hazards, with many of them located in disaster-prone areas. Therefore, enhancing disaster resilience in urban settings is another key requirement to build more sustainable cities in the face of climate change.
The good news? Many countries are still in the early stages of the urbanization process, meaning they have a unique opportunity to develop sustainable cities right from the beginning - a much more viable option than trying to retrofit them later on.
In this video, World Bank Senior Director Ede Ijjasz-Vasquez and Practice Manager Bernice Van Bronkhorst explain how they are working with clients to make climate-smart cities a reality.
In Nepal, indigenous groups produced a range of training materials, including videos in local languages on forests and climate change, to help more than 100 women and community leaders in the Terai, Hill and Mountain areas better understand what terms like ‘mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate resilience’ mean for them in their daily lives.
A team of consultants in Kenya, who are members of indigenous communities with an understanding of regional politics and geographical dynamics, worked on increasing community involvement in sustainable forest management through workshops and face-to-face meetings. As part of their work, they collected information on land tenure status within indigenous territories, which will help the country prepare a national strategy for reducing emissions from deforestation.
Concern about climate change is often deemed a luxury; the domain of those that do not have to worry about famine, surviving the pending winter, local conflict, or political instability. But in the next three decades, an anticipated 900 million people will be added to Africa’s cities: a tripling of the current urban population. The small affluent-class aside, the clarion call of Africa’s newly urban population is not around climate change or industrialization, but jobs and access to work.
As anyone who has travelled around the country will testify, India is marked by glaring spatial disparities in well-being. On the one hand, New Delhi is relatively prosperous, and if you visit the recently renovated Connaught Place, you will find not only a bustling outdoor market, but also designer shops, upmarket restaurants and a gleaming new metro station.
However, take the Prayagraj Express train east for seven hours and you will find yourself in Kanpur, which is one of the largest cities in the densely populated state of Uttar Pradesh, where per capita income is less than one-fifth its level in Delhi and the poverty rate is three times as high.
Such large variations in well-being are a natural cause for concern among India’s policymakers and have generated intense interest in India’s spatial landscape of potential for economic development. Is it the case that less prosperous parts of the country lack the basic ingredients that can give rise to the high productivity that economists believe provides the key to well-being or is it the case that, while they may possess some of these ingredients, they are failing to make the most of them?
The Economic Potential Index
In an effort to provide some insights into both this and other key questions related to India’s spatial development, we have recently published a working paper that examines underlying variations in “economic potential” across Indian districts.
Our analysis is based on a composite “Economic Potential Index” ( EPI) that measures, in a single summary score, the extent to which a district possesses attributes that can be considered “universally” important to achieving a high local level of productivity, whether or not a high productivity level is currently actually observed.
The changes underway in Myanmar can be felt almost everywhere: in Nay Pyi Taw, portraits of Bogyoke Aung San grace the walls of parliament; in Yangon, traffic is choking roads while construction cranes dominate the skyline; and across the country, ports, airports and border crossings are booming with trade. Felt almost everywhere that is, except in rural areas, where the impacts of change have been less visible.
Over the next decade and a half the world will add a staggering 1.1 billion people to its towns and cities. About one half of this urbanization will happen in the regions of East and South Asia.
If history is any guide, this growth in urban population will provide tremendous opportunities for increasing prosperity and livability. One can look at the successes of a few Asian cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, and Singapore to demonstrate how, with the assistance of good policies, urbanization and economic development go hand-in-hand. More generally, no major country has ever reached middle-income status without also experiencing substantial urbanization.
Yet cities can grow in different ways that will affect their competitiveness, livability, and sustainability. The more successful cities of Asia have been effective at creating opportunities, increasing productivity, fostering innovation, providing efficient and affordable services for residents, and enhancing public spaces to create vibrant and attractive places to live. But many, many, more cities have neglected fundamental investments in critical infrastructure and basic services, and have mismanaged land, environmental and social policies. This has resulted in traffic congestion, sprawl, slums, pollution, and crime.
Among the many complexities of urban development that have contributed to success, two critical factors stand out – investing in strategic urban planning, and in good urban governance.