World Cities Report 2020

The Valueof Sustainable
UrbanizationiWorld Cities Report 2020
First published 2020 by United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2020
All rights reserved
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Website: www.unhabitat.org
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this report do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its
economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this report do notnecessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme or its Governing Council.
The Report is produced with official data provided by governments and additional information gathered by the
Global Urban Observatory. Cities and countries are invited to update data relevant to them. It is important toacknowledge that data varies according to definition and sources. While UN-Habitat checks data provided to thefullest extent possible, the responsibility for the accuracy of the information lies with the original providers ofthe data. Information contained in this Report is provided without warranty of any kind, either express or implied,
including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
UN-Habitat specifically does not make any warranties or representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any
such data. Under no circumstances shall UN-Habitat be liable for any loss, damage, liability or expense incurred or
suffered that is claimed to have resulted from the use of this Report, including, without limitation, any fault, error,
omission with respect thereto. The use of this Report is at the User’s sole risk. Under no circumstances, including,but not limited to negligence, shall UN-Habitat or its affiliates be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special orconsequential damages, even if UN-Habitat has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
HS Number: HS/045/20E
Language:
Sales no.:ISBN:
eISBN:
Print ISSN:
Online ISSN:
Bar code:ii

EnglishE.21.III.Q.1
978-92-1-132872-1
978-92-1-0054386
2518-6515
2518-654X
ean-13 _9789211328721

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Secretary General's
Foreword

The most vulnerable to disease are those living on themargins of our cities. Unplanned urban living leaves
people vulnerable. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed
deep inequalities and demonstrated that tackling thevirus is more challenging in urban areas, where access toquality healthcare is uneven, housing inadequate, waterand sanitation lacking, transport infrastructure patchy andjobs precarious.

António Guterres
Secretary-General of the United Nations

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives andeconomies around the world. The social and economic
fallout is reversing development gains, and global poverty
is expected to increase for the first time in three decades.
Cities have borne the brunt of the pandemic. Urban areas
are already home to 55 per cent of the world’s population,and that figure is expected to grow to 68 per cent by 2050.
Our rapidly urbanizing world must respond effectively tothis pandemic and prepare for future infectious disease
outbreaks.

We cannot go back to business as usual. Cities andcommunities are demanding that those in authority takethe opportunity to build back better. To emerge stronger,
we need a sustainable, inclusive and green recovery forpeople and the planet. That means dealing with theexisting challenges of how cities are planned, managed andfinanced, and ensuring their development is compatible
with the goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
With appropriate policies and supportive frameworks,
resilient cities with improved housing and infrastructure
can bounce back from the devastating impacts of disasters,
including pandemics. The Sustainable Development Goals
and the New Urban Agenda provide the blueprint toimplement these measures.
The World Cities Report 2020 reaffirms that sustainableurbanization remains central to overall sustainable
development by creating economic, social and environmental
value that supports the fight against poverty, inequality,
climate change and other global challenges. This simple
but powerful message should guide development efforts
as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic andthroughout the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals.

iii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Executive Director’sIntroduction

In a span of a few months, our world has been transformed
in a manner that none of us anticipated. The novel
coronavirus pandemic triggered the worst public healthcrisis in a century and we are now living through the worst
economic recession since the Great Depression. With
over 90 per cent of confirmed cases coming from urban
areas, cities remain the epicentres of COVID-19. In our
rapidly urbanizing and globalized world, the virus has
spread to virtually every corner of the globe; first, among
globally connected cities, and now, through community
transmission, from the city to the countryside.

MAIMUNAH MOHD SHARIF
Under-Secretary-General andExecutive Director of UN-Habitat

COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated underlying
inequalities in cities. The poor are the most vulnerable
and the most likely to die from the disease. Informal
workers dependent on daily wages have been deprived of
their livelihoods. Children without internet access havelost a year of formal education. Elderly persons, facing
risk and stigmatization, are confined to their homes withno opportunities for social interaction. Migrant workers
return home after grueling journeys to face a future ofpoverty. Others are confined to dormitories with highexposure to the disease. Minority groups have also beendisproportionately affected. Women were forced to juggle
childcare, education and work without access to schools
and daycare services. Essential workers continue to toil
tirelessly and at great personal risk to ensure that our urban
services function uninterrupted. Above all, COVID-19
is reversing the gains made in poverty eradication and ispushing back the possibility of attaining the Sustainable
Development Goals by at least a decade if not more.
In the midst of all this gloom, urban areas offer a glimmer ofhope as cities and frontline agencies have a key role to playin turning this grim situation around. The World Cities
Report 2020 makes the case that cities remain central toiv

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Urbanization should not be at the expenseof rural development. In fact, both should
be symbiotic and mutually enhancing

the sustainable development trajectory. The Sustainable
Development Goals, and particularly Goal 11, recognize
the transformative role that cities can play. COVID-19
brings to the forefront how effective and essentially local
governments and communities are to the recovery process.
The New Urban Agenda makes the case for the value ofsustainable urbanization, or how people choosing to maketheir lives in cities can contribute to economic prosperity,environmental quality, social equity and strengthened civic
and cultural institutions. Urbanization is essential to theglobal efforts to build back better and to transition tosustainable development.
COVID-19 will not reverse urbanization. The primal drive
to congregate in cities and towns in pursuit of aspirations
and a better life will continue. But we have a chance tomake this agglomeration process more inclusive, witha clear focus on our collective wellbeing. To harness thetransformative powers of urbanization towards sustainable
development, we need effective planning, management andgovernance. We also need to build back greener. Growthcannot be at the expense of the environment.

Global agendas provide comprehensive, multi-sectoraland multi-stakeholder frameworks for unlocking thevalue inherent to urbanization. But we need to do
things right by ensuring that cities are well-planned,
well-managed and with sustained financing. For this tohappen, national governments must create an enabling
environment for cities to thrive, and local authorities
must seize the opportunities given to them to flourish
and develop. Urbanization should not be at the expenseof rural development. In fact, both should be symbiotic
and mutually enhancing. The private sector should invest
in sustainable development projects, deploying innovativeideas for affordable housing, infrastructure and clean
technologies. Civil society must strengthen institutions
and contribute with their powers of imagination to bepart of this transformative process with a renewed senseof openness, participation and commitment. When all theinterlocking parts operate in harmony and are supported
by appropriate institutions and policies, cities will thrive
and their value will be enhanced and shared by all; and in
the process, no one and no place will be left behind.

The World Cities Report 2020 convincingly affirmsthat well-planned, managed, and financed cities andtowns create economic, social, environmental and otherunquantifiable value that can vastly improve the qualityof life of all. Urbanization can be leveraged for the fightagainst poverty, inequality, unemployment, climatechange and other pressing global challenges. In this regard,sustainable urbanization can play a key role in the Decadeof Action to accelerate growth and shared prosperity toadvance the achievement of the SDGs by 2030.

v

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Acknowledgements

Authors: UN-Habitat Core Team
Christine Knudsen (Division Director); Eduardo Moreno (Head of Branch); Ben Arimah (Chief of Unit and Task
Manager); Raymond Otieno Otieno; Ololade Ogunsanya
Authors: External Consultants
Godwin Arku; Remi Jedwab; Vanesa Castán Broto; Alfonso Iracheta; Jackie Klopp; Edgardo Bilsky; Tomás
Dentinho; David Simon; Hayley Leck
Statistical Annex
Robert Ndugwa; Donatien Beguy; Julius Majale; Dennis Mwaniki; Daniel Githira; Pauline Masita; Edwin Kochulem
Contributors: UN-Habitat Staff
Raf Tuts; Donatien Beguy; Robert Ndugwa; Remy Sietchiping; Chris Williams; Marco Kamiya; Ananda Weliwita;
Joel Jere; John Gituri Mureithi; Lennart Fleck; Hannes Berggren; Stephanie Gerretsen; Robert Lewis-Lettington,
Anne Klen-Amin, Samuel Njuguna; Diana Lopez Caramazana; Pontus Westerburg; Paula Pennanen-RebeiroHargrave; George Gachie; Cecilia Andersson; Mark Ojal; Pireh Otieno; Debashish Bhattacharjee; Stefanie
Holzwarth; Trang Nguyen; Catherine Otono
Contributors: External
Susan Parnell; James Duminy; Merlin Chatwin; Afeikhena Jerome; James Mbata; Cecilia Cota, Alejandra
Marulanda; Sergio González López; Nicholas Barrett; Joel Goh; Elizabeth Lenz; Luc Aldon; Anna Calvete; Andrea
Ciambra; Ainara Fernández; Sara Hoeflich; Mathilde Penard; Massimo Perrino
Administrative Support Team
Nelly Kang’ethe; Anne Idukitta; Mary Dibo; Jacqueline Macha; Samuel Muraga; Duncan Kimani Kamau
International Advisory Board
Christine Platt; Obas John Ebohon; Taibat Lawanson; Yu Zhu; Matt Benson; Nikolai Bobylev; Ryan Centner; Bharat
DahiyaFinancial Support
Office of the Executive Director, UN-Habitat
Expert Group Meetings
Geneva: International City Leaders
Mombasa: Office of the Executive Director, UN-Habitat
Editorial Consultant
Gregory Scruggs
Communications and Media Team
Susannah Price; Victor Mgendi; Ivy Mutisya
Design and Layout: Peter Cheseret
Illustrations: Andrea Posada
Web Development: Joshua Gichuhi, Andrew Oukovi

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Contents

Secretary General's Foreword..................................... iii
Executive Director’s Introduction..............................iv
Acknowledgements........................................................vi
List of Figures, Boxes and Tables.................................xAcronyms and Abbreviations................................... xiii
Key Findings and Messages..........................................xv

2

1
Urbanization and Cities: 1
Trends of a New Global Force

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

43

1.1. Urbanization: A Key Agenda inInternational Development Policy

2

2.1. Conceptualizing the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

45

1.2. Cities and Development: An Enduring
Issue

6

2.2. Value within the Context of
Sustainable Urbanization

47

1.3. Implementing the New Urban Agenda

749

1.4. Recent Global Urban Trends andConditions

11

2.3. Harnessing the Value of
Urbanization for People

52

1.5. Concluding Remarks

40

2.4. Economic Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
2.5. Environmental Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

59

2.6. Social Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

62

2.7. Intangible and Cultural Value

71
73

2.8. Concluding Remarks and Lessons
for Policyvii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

3

4

The Economic Value of
Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity andOpportunities for All

75

The Environmental Value of
Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban
Development

3.1. Cities: Sustainable Growth Accelerators

81

115

3.2. How Cities Contribute to National
Prosperity and Inclusiveness92

4.1. Environmental Values through the Lens of
the Global Development Agendas

126

3.3. Sustainable Urbanization is Crucial toReap the Economic Benefits of Cities

96

4.3. Mapping the Action Space for Urban
Environmental Value

139

3.4. How Various Levels of Government Can
Help Cities Thrive

106

4.4. Unintended Impacts of Urban
Sustainability Policies

140

3.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for Policy

109

4.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
Policy5
The Social Value of
Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place
Behind111

6143

Innovation, Technology andthe Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

179

6.1. What is Innovation and Why Does It Matter?

182

5.1. Understanding the Social and Intangible
Value of Sustainable Urbanization

145

6.2. Civic Technology for Urban Innovation

183

6.3. Technology Firms and the Smart City

192

5.2. Pursuing Inclusion through Sustainable
Urbanization

147

6.4. The Bottom-up Smart City: Urban Labs, Open
Data and the Open-Source Movement

195

5.3: Pursuing Equity through Sustainable
Urbanization

158

6.5. Cities and the Uneven Geography of TechnologicalInnovation

198

5.4. The Intangible Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

166

6.6. Digital Exclusion, Data Privacy and the Perils of
New Technologies

201

5.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for Policy

177

6.7. The Importance of Governance and Digital Rights

203

6.8. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for Policy

204

viii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

7

8

Local Governments andthe Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

207

7.1. The Emerging Urban Alternatives for a
Sustainable Future

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

233

8.1. Urban Investments Demand

236

209

8.2. The Urban Finance Challenge

7.2 The Evolution of Local Governments’Institutional Frameworks and its Relevanceto Harnessing the Potential of Sustainable
Urbanization

215

8.3. Mobilizing Financing for
Sustainable Urbanization

246
254

7.3. Local Governments as Pillars for the
Coalescence of the Transformative Local Forces

220

7.4. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
Policy228

8.4. Concluding Remarks andLessons for Policy

9267

Statistical Annex..........................................................305
References......................................................................445

The New Urban Agenda
and the Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

271

9.1. Towards the Decade of Action: Rapidly
Harnessing the Value of Sustainable Urbanization274

9.2. Enhancing the Economic Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

277

9.3. Enhancing the Environmental Value of
Urbanization

280

9.4. Enhancing the Social Value of Urbanization

284

9.5. Governance, Institutional Frameworks and
Urban Legislation

287

9.6. How Can We Harness the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization?

288

9.7. Concluding Reflections: Implementing the
New Urban Agenda in Times of Uncertainty andUnprecedented Global Challenges

298

ix

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

List of Figures, Boxes and Tables
List of Boxes
Box 1.1: The view from the ground: What the Voluntary National Reviews of SDG 11 revealed...................................................................................................................... 5
Box 1.2: Providing for youth in Wau, South Sudan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Box 1.3: Seattle climbs but Austin sprawls: The myth of the return to cities........................................................................................................................................................18
Box 1.4: Inequality fuels global discontent in cities........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Box 3.1: Economic impacts of COVID-19 pandemic in various regions................................................................................................................................................................. 88
Box 3.2: Informal economy: A lifeblood for many cities..............................................................................................................................................................................................95
Box 3.3: Public transport networks: BRT and the economic benefits of cities...................................................................................................................................................106
Box 3.4: Iskandar Malaysia: a catalyst development corridor ..................................................................................................................................................................................108
Box 4.1: COVID-19 pandemic and the glut in plastic waste.......................................................................................................................................................................................113
Box 4.2: Creating environmental value through public space....................................................................................................................................................................................119
Box 4.3: The water-energy nexus dilemma in Bangalore, India.................................................................................................................................................................................123
Box 4.4: Developing research agendas on urban energy access: experiences from Maputo, Mozambique . ............................................................................................. 124
Box 4.5: COVID-19 and reduced emissions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126
Box 4.6: From crisis to resilience: urban and peri-urban agriculture in Rosario, Argentina ....................................................................................................................... 130
Box 4.7: Sustainable Favela Network in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.................................................................................................................................................................................131
Box 4.8: Six principles for the creation of urban environmental value..................................................................................................................................................................135
Box 4.9: In times of crisis, grassroots networks are informal workers’ bulwark................................................................................................................................................. 136
Box 4.10: Why European parents are suing their cities over poor air quality...................................................................................................................................................... 137
Box 5.1: Gender mainstreaming in Vienna......................................................................................................................................................................................................................150
Box 5.2: Children’s rights and urban planning principles.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 152
Box 5.3: Montréal: A city of immigration........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 157
Box 5.4: Black Lives Matter sparks a global urban social movement following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis (US)..................................................160
Box 5.5: COVID-19: Reinforcing inequalities in urban areas.....................................................................................................................................................................................161
Box 5.6: Eradicating poverty through improved water supply and sanitation in Surkhandarya province...............................................................................................164
Box 5.7: Citizen report card: A tool for urban governance........................................................................................................................................................................................168
Box 5.8: An innovative entrepreneurial model for culture-based urban regeneration in Ségou, Mali........................................................................................................171
Box 5.9: Equity in distribution of and access to cultural resources within countries....................................................................................................................................... 175
Box 6.1: How citizen reporting for municipal response evolved from “Dial 311” to SeeClickFix to civic apps........................................................................................185
Box 6.2: Digital Matatus project maps minibuses in Nairobi . ................................................................................................................................................................................187
Box 6.3: Ten technology trends accelerated by COVID-19........................................................................................................................................................................................188
Box 6.4: Measuring air pollution with low-cost air quality monitoring networks ...........................................................................................................................................191
Box 6.5: Google’s Sidewalks Lab encounters resistance to Toronto Tomorrow.................................................................................................................................................. 193
Box 6.6: Hackathons leverage open data to build city tech tools............................................................................................................................................................................197
Box 6.7: New York City’s “Town and Gown” programme..........................................................................................................................................................................................198
Box 7.1: The localization of the global agendas for sustainable development...................................................................................................................................................... 210
Box 7.2: Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM).................................................................................................................................................................211
Box 7.3: Cities for Adequate Housing Initiative............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 214
Box 7.4: Seoul: Urban planning and the global agendas.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 221
Box 8.1: Financing Sustainable Urbanization: Counting the Costs........................................................................................................................................................................ 241
Box 8.2: Investing in sustainable urbanization through effective monitoring and reporting ......................................................................................................................247
Box 8.3: Cities: Investment need vs. public and private investment capacity.....................................................................................................................................................255
Box 8.4: Urban poor funds: Leveraging community finance.....................................................................................................................................................................................258
Box 8.5: China’s Belt and Road Initiative ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 266
Box 9.1: Harnessing the New Urban Agenda to Accelerate the Value of Urbanization..................................................................................................................................276
Box 9.2: .Main features of the Urban Agenda Platform...............................................................................................................................................................................................297x

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Gini coefficients for selected cities in Europe and North America...................................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 1.2: Gini coefficients for selected Latin American cities.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1.3: Gini coefficients for selected Asian cities.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 1.4: Gini coefficients for selected African cities.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 1.5: Percentage of urban populating living in slums....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 1.6: Change in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentration in the atmosphere for selected metropolitan in Latin America and the Caribbean (percentagechange)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 1.7: Application of digital technology in South African cities.................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 2.1: Conceptualizing the value of sustainable urbanization........................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 3.1: Urbanization and economic development.................................................................................................................................................................................................................78
Figure 3.2: Share of the population with convenient access to public transport, 2019 (percentage)..........................................................................................................................79
Figure 3.3: Share of municipal solid waste collected, 2001-2010 and 2010-2018 (percentage)........................................................................................................................................80
Figure 3.4: Concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in urban areas 2016..........................................................................................................................................................80
Figure 3.5: Labour productivity and city population density, South Africa, 2007............................................................................................................................................................84
Figure 3.6: Urban density and COVID-19 infection rates in China......................................................................................................................................................................................87
Figure 3.7: Percentage of the population living in multidimensional poverty, 2018........................................................................................................................................................94
Figure 3.8: Presence of building size regulations across various regions..............................................................................................................................................................................98
Figure 3.9: Urbanization-income relationship for resource exports and other countries.............................................................................................................................................101
Figure 3.10: Urbanization and manufacturing and service output........................................................................................................................................................................................101
Figure 3.11: The evolution of planning in the expansion areas of cities, a sub-sample of 30 cities............................................................................................................................ 105
Figure A: citywide inventory and assessment across various regions..................................................................................................................................................................................119
Figure B: Components of the Nairobi public space project implementation.................................................................................................................................................................. 120
Figure 4.1: The Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) assessment framework.............................................................................................................................................................................. 129
Figure 4.2: The double exposure framework applied to urban infrastructure planning................................................................................................................................................ 131
Figure 4.3: Principles of just sustainabilities.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................134
Figure 4.4: Design principles of the Co-City Cycle employed in Bologna, Italy..............................................................................................................................................................135
Figure 4.5: How green gentrification affects poor urban communities in the context of building resilience...................................................................................................... 140
Figure 5.1: Age-friendly city topic areas.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................154
Figure 5.2: Foreign-born population in some major cities.......................................................................................................................................................................................................155
Figure 5.3: Equality versus equity......159
Figure 5.4: Culture and sustainable development: Three models......................................................................................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 6.1: Public transport map for Nairobi . ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................186
Figure 6.2: Government of India’s smart city mission.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 194
Figure 6.3: Digital principles for development .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 196
Figure 6.4: Global distribution of top 100 digital companies and market capitalization (US$ billion)................................................................................................................. 199
Figure 6.5: Venture capital’s uneven distribution globally......................................................................................................................................................................................................200
Figure 6.6: The San Francisco Bay Area innovation system .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 201
Figure 7.1: Average of local governments expenditures, revenues and direct investments as a share of total public expenditures, revenues and direct investmentsby regions, 2016...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 216
Figure 8.1: Housing deficits in Africa............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 239
Figure 8.2: Investment opportunity across regions for green buildings.............................................................................................................................................................................244
Figure 8.3: Sample of rating agency criteria.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................248
Figure 8.4: Property taxes as a percentage of GDP in selected African countries, (around 2012).............................................................................................................................250
Figure 8.5: Creating an enabling environment for scaling-up investment . ..................................................................................................................................................................... 257
Figure 8.6: Blended finance: Number of deals and average deal size by region............................................................................................................................................................... 261
Figure 8.7: Shandong Green Development Fund: Portfolio distribution . ....................................................................................................................................................................... 265
Figure 8.8: Sustainable urban investments: Key challenges and policy options for LDCs..........................................................................................................................................268
Figure 9.1: High and low thematic priorities in NUPs, by region........................................................................................................................................................................................ 293

xi

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Urban population and level of urbanization (2000-2035).......................................................................................................................................................................................12
Table 1.2: Urban rate of change 2000-2035.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Table 1.3: Growth in urban expansion and urban population..................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Table 1.4: Urban population living in slums ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 1.5: Incidence of COVID-19 in urban areas (July 2020).................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 2.1: Groups and priorities in urban settings.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................50
Table 2.2: The value of urbanization for youth............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Table 2.3: The value of urbanization for poor women ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Table 2.4: The value of urbanization for children........................................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Table 3.1: Contributions of urban-based sectors to GDP and land use, 2015.....................................................................................................................................................................79
Table 3.2: City-specific factors determining a city’s productivity ........................................................................................................................................................................................82
Table 3.3: Largest Mega-Regions in the World, 2015................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
Table 4.1: Examples of environmental values associated with the targets of SDG11, alongside existing projects that enhance those values ............................................116
Table 4.2: Different types of nature-based solutions with impact at multiple levels..................................................................................................................................................... 128
Table 5.1: People living in monetary or multidimensional poverty, 2013............................................................................................................................................................................163
Table 5.2: Top destination cities 2018..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................173
Table 8.1: Investments required to enhance the value of sustainable urbanization....................................................................................................................................................... 237
Table A: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Small Cities (<100k Inhabitants). Millions of USD.................................................................................241
Table B: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Medium-Sized Cities (100k - 1 Million Inhabitants). Millions of USD............................................241
Table C: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Large Cities. (>1 Million Inhabitants). Millions of USD........................................................................241
Table 8.2: Land-based finance instruments.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 252
Table 9.1: Enhancing the value of urbanization: Key messages and implementation mechanism............................................................................................................................. 301

xii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAAA		
AFINUA
BRT		
C40		
CAF		
Can$		CCI		CIS		COP21		COP25		COVID-19
CPI		
ECLAC		EDGE		FAO		FDI		FMDV		
GCF		
GDP		
GNI		
GPS		
GTF		
Habitat III
HLPF		ICLEI		IDPs		ILO		IoT		IPBES		IPCC		IUCN 		LDCs		LGFAs		NBS		NDCs		NEN		NUA		Addis Ababa Action Agenda
Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda
Bus Rapid Transit
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
Development Bank for Latin America
Canadian dollar
Centre for Community Initiatives, Tanzania
Commonwealth of Independent States2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference
2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference
Coronavirus Disease
City Prosperity Index
United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies
Food and Agriculture Organization
Foreign Direct Investment
Global Fund for Cities Development
Green Climate Fund
Gross Domestic Product
Gross National Income
Global Positioning System
Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments
United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development
United Nations High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
Local Governments for Sustainability
Internally Displaced Persons
International Labour Organization
Internet of Things
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Union for Conservation of Nature
Least Developed Countries
Local Government Funding Agencies
Nature-Based Solutions
Nationally Determined Contributions
National Ecological Network
New Urban Agendaxiii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

NUPs		
ODA		OECD		
PFMs		
PPPs		PSUP		R&D		SDGs		SDSN		
SIDA		
SMEs		SPV		
TfL		
TRC 		UCLG 		UK		UNCDF		UNDESA
UNESCOUNFCCCUNICEFUS		US$		
VLRs		
VNRs		WCR		WHO		WRI 		

xiv

National Urban Policies
Official Development Assistance
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Pool Financing Mechanism
Public Private Partnership
Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme
Research and Development
Sustainable Development Goals
United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
Special Purpose Vehicle
Transport for London
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), Canada
United Cities and Local Government
United Kingdom
United Nations Capital Development Fund
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Children’s Fund
United States
United States dollar
Voluntary Local Reviews
Voluntary NationalReviews
World Cities Report
World Health Organization
World Resources InstituteWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Key Findings and Messages

Chapter 1
Urbanization and Cities: Trends of a New
Global ForceThe year 2020 marks a turning point in the global battle
for sustainable development, with cities once again at
the centre as home to a growing majority of the world’s
population. On the one hand, the world is entering the
Decade of Action, the ten-year period during which
national and local governments, the private sector andcivil society must accelerate their efforts to deliver on thepromise of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for
accelerating sustainable solutions to the world’s biggest
challenges—ranging from poverty and gender-based
discrimination to climate change, inequality and closing
the finance gap. By 2030, countless local actions, the vast
majority taken in cities or by city leaders, must collectively
add up to a global shift toward a more sustainable futurethat reduces poverty, improves health outcomes, expands
access to education and reduces carbon emissions, among
other societal challenges.
On the other hand, all of humanity is concurrently facing
the coronavirus pandemic, the worst public health crisis ina century that has triggered the worst economic prospects
since the Great Depression. In our globalized world, ahighly contagious virus has spread to nearly every corner ofthe globe, first among globally connected cities and then toeven remote rural areas. The impact shuttered economies as
nations scrambled to put their populations on lockdown.
The rapid pace of international travel ground to a halt.
White-collar workers shifted operations to working from
home, leaving behind empty offices in central business
districts from New York City to London to Sydney.
So-called essential workers from nurses to bus drivers togrocery clerks suddenly found themselves on the frontlines

of a new, poorly understood disease. Facing lockdown andrising unemployment, millions of people in countries like
India and Peru migrated from cities back to rural areas,villages and smaller towns, some perhaps permanently.
In the wake of these unexpected disruptions, the United
Nations estimates that 71 million people will be pushed
back into extreme poverty this year, the first rise in global
poverty since 1998. Some 1.6 billion informal workers, half
the global workforce, have seen their wages affected. School
closures have prevented 1.57 billion children, 90 per cent of
the global student population, from attending in-personschool at some point this year.
Amidst this unprecedented backdrop, the World Cities
Report 2020 makes the case that cities remain central to
the sustainable development story. Their role was solidified
in the last five years by the suite of United Nations
agreements that collectively form the global development
agenda. Chief among them, the New Urban Agenda
makes the case for the value of sustainable urbanization,or how people choosing to make their lives in cities
can contribute to economic prosperity, environmental
quality, social equity and strengthened civic and cultural
institutions. Sustainable urbanization will be essential to
the global effort to build back better from the impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic and get the world back on trackto achieve the SDGs and meet the ambitious targets of theParis Agreement on climate change.

Key Findings
The importance of cities is enshrined in global development
policy: Since 2015, the international community has adopted
several key agreements to guide development. The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, Paris Agreement,

xv

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

New Urban Agenda, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction and Addis Ababa Action Agenda collectively
form the backbone of international development policy,
recommendations, goals, targets and indicators for Member
States. In each of these documents, local governments arerecognized as important partners in the drive to a moresustainable future. The role of cities is woven throughout
this tapestry of agreements, most prominently in SDG 11
and the urban dimension of the SDGs.
The New Urban Agenda is linked to the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development: Acknowledging that the SDGs
are an overarching set of goals that require a more detailed
roadmap, the New Urban Agenda provides a spatial
framework for how to achieve a number of the goals andtargets. The New Urban Agenda’s expands on the relatively
limited means of implementation for SDG 11 by delving
into the processes that produce better urban outcomes,
like national urban policies, legislation, spatial planningand local finance frameworks.
The world continues to urbanize: It is too soon to know if
the pandemic experience of 2020 will lead to lasting
demographic changes, but the long-term prospects

continue to predict that the world will further urbanize
over the next decade, from 56.2 per cent today to 60.4 percent by 2030. Every region is expected to become more
urbanized in the next 10 years, although highly urbanizedareas are expected to slow their rate of urban growth.
Ninety-six per cent of urban growth will occur in the lessdeveloped regions of East Asia, South Asia and Africa withthree countries—India, China and Nigeria—accounting for
35 per cent of the total increase in global urban populationfrom 2018 to 2050.
Cities are consuming land faster than they grow in population:
Urban sprawl is an increasingly common phenomenon.
Once associated with the land-rich developed countries ofNorth America and Australia, it is now occurring in cities
all over the world. Whether horizontal spreading, dispersed
urbanization or peri-urbanization, the physical extent ofurban areas is growing much faster than their population,
thereby consuming more land for urban development.
The unbridled expansion of urban areas has profound
implications for energy consumption, greenhouse gas
emissions, climate change and environmental degradation.
Findings from a global sample of cities show that between
1990 and 2015, cities in developed countries increased their

Bonifacio Global City skyline and surrounding cityscape, Metro Manila, Philippines. © Michael D Edwards/Shutterstockxvi

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

urban land area by 1.8-fold while the urban population
increased by 1.2-fold; thus, implying that the expansionof urban areas in relation to urban population growthincreased by a ratio of 1.5.
Migration is a driving force in urbanization: One in every
seven people on the planet is a migrant. Currently, there are
763 million internal migrants and 272 million internationalmigrants in the world. This demographic force has beena major contributor to urbanization, whether rural-tourban movement within countries or the clustering ofinternational migrants in global cities. Internationalmigration accounts for about one-third of urban growthin developed countries and is increasingly transforming
urban areas into heterogenous, multi-ethnic, multiculturaland multilingual spaces. In migration hubs like Brussels,
Dubai and Miami, foreign migrants outnumber the local
population. But cities are also on the frontlines of irregularmigration, from Middle Eastern and African refugees inboats crossing the Mediterranean to Central American
migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to Rohingya
living in refugee camps in Bangladesh.
Inequality remains a persistent trend in urban areas: Growing
levels of inequality and exclusion are becoming persistent
trends in urban areas. For more than two-thirds of theworld’s urban population, income inequality has increased
since 1980. This widening gap means that about 2.9 billion
people are living in cities where income inequalities are
currently more pronounced than they were a generationago. In a rapidly urbanizing world, the nature of inequality
will largely depend on what happens in cities. Today,
many US, UK, Latin American, Caribbean and African
cities have levels of inequality higher than their respective
countries. Inequality can fuel social unrest, as witnessed in
Chile in 2019.
Affordable housing remains elusive: Housing affordability is
not confined to a handful of expensive cities; it is a global
challenge that affects virtually all households. Globally,
prospective homeowners are compelled to save more than
five times their annual income to afford the price of astandard house. Renter households often spend more than
25 per cent of their monthly income on rent. High levels of
unaffordability mean that inadequate housing and slums
remain the only housing choice for low-income households.

Currently, 1.6 billion people or 20 per cent of the world’s
population live in inadequate housing, of which one billion
reside in slums and informal settlements. In developed
countries, unsheltered or homeless populations are a small
but significant feature of the urban landscape.
Urban areas bore the initial brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic:
Even as coronavirus has now hit rural areas, the pandemic
was initially an urban phenomenon as epicentres flaredin Wuhan, Milan, Madrid, New York City, Guayaquil andManaus among other cities. As the world slips into a severerecession, urban areas, which account for more than 80
per cent of global GDP, will be affected in several ways.
First, the shrinking of the global economy implies that lessfunds will be available for urban development projects likewater, sanitation, public transport systems, adequate andaffordable housing, slum upgrading, poverty eradication andhealthcare improvements to respond to both this and future
pandemics. It is expected that revenue to local authorities
will decline by 15–25 per cent in 2021 and will likely lead to
reduced municipal service delivery. The envisaged decline inrevenue is likely to hit developing world cities the hardest
even as these are the places where critical infrastructure andhealth systems are already grossly inadequate.

Key Messages
Implementing the New Urban Agenda should be a global
priority: Amidst unprecedented challenges, the New Urban
Agenda as a means of implementing SDG 11 and the urban
dimension of the other SDGs offers a roadmap to equitable
growth and prosperity. Four years since the New Urban
Agenda was adopted in Quito, UN-Habitat has prepared
tools and methods to guide national governments, local
governments, the private sector and civil society on how
to create the framework for well-planned, managed,
governed, regulated and financed cities.
Well-planned cities and urban extensions can curb excessive
land consumption: Flexible zoning regimes that are inconsonance with the prevailing socioeconomic milieu aswell as building permits and master plans are among theregulatory tools that cities can adopt to address sprawl.
Cities can and must grow their built environment footprint
to accommodate growing populations, but they do nothave to grow their footprint disproportionately.

xvii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Cities can respond to the enduring threat of climate changewith local action: Urbanization offers many opportunities
to deploy mitigation and adaptation strategies to limit
the average global temperature increase to 1.5ºC. Cities
generate 70 per cent of global carbon emissions andconsume two-thirds of the world’s energy. To respondproactively, cities have undertaken emissions inventories
and adopted reduction targets. Urban areas that haveadopted compact and mixed land uses are able to reduce percapita rates of resource use and greenhouse gas emissions.
When nature-based solutions are incorporated into design
and management, urban areas can benefit from multiple
ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, local
climate regulation, stormwater capture and water and air
purification.
Host cities should integrate migrants to spur diversity,
prosperity and entrepreneurship: Migrants should not beseen as a burden to cities but rather, as an opportunity to
be harnessed. Both educated foreign migrants with highintellectual capital and less educated migrants, whether
internal or foreign, can bring an entrepreneurial spirit,
cultural vibrancy and spur new opportunities if given the
chance to thrive. A growing urban population does notmean that native-born workers will be squeezed out of theemployment market. There is not some maximum numberof available jobs for which workers compete. Rather,migrants bring a diverse set of skills, tools, perspectives,connections and capital that will ultimately “grow the pie”
and create more opportunities for all.
Tackling urban inequality and unaffordable housing remain
urgent priorities: Cities will not be able to offer opportunityand create value if workers do not earn liveable wages that
permit them access to adequate housing and other services.
Policy tools like minimum wages and formalization of
informal employment can help boost incomes, althoughsome of the most powerful tools, such as conditional cashtransfer programmes, are within the purview of national
government. Inadequate affordable housing can beaddressed by changing regulatory frameworks to address
the cost of land, building materials and housing financethat prevent urban dwellers from owning their homes orpaying affordable rents with strong tenant protections.
Pathways to this goal include increasing supply where there
is a housing deficit, subsidizing access to formal housing

xviii

where there is adequate supply and regulating housing
markets to prevent improper speculative activity.
The COVID-19 pandemic does not signify the end of cities:
Despite early fears that urban density correlates with the
spread of the disease, the relatively successful ability of very
dense places like Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo and even New York
City, an early epicentre, to manage the virus is encouraging,even as it ravages rural and smaller communities. As
epidemiologists have come to better understand COVID-19,
a consensus has emerged that overcrowding, not density, isthe chief culprit. In urban areas, addressing overcrowding
and maintaining acceptable levels of hygiene in houses, shops,
places of employment and on public transport are crucial tosurviving the pandemic. These public health guidelines are achallenge in informal settlements, which are more prone toovercrowding and inadequate sanitation. In these cases, local
governments must work to provide sanitation infrastructure
in public spaces in order to mitigate the health risk. Healthshould become a new guiding principle in urban planningand governance. In turn, the pandemic has spurredinnovations in cities like closing streets to cars and opening
them to people to allow more room to walk, cycle and dine.

Chapter 2
Unpacking the Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
When well-planned and managed, cities create value,
which is the totality of the economic, social, environmental
and intangible conditions (institutional, governance,
political, cultural and civic perception) outcomes thathave the potential to improve quality of life of residents
in meaningful and tangible ways. As is increasingly
understood by policymakers at all levels of government,planned urbanization leads to positive development
outcomes and can be leveraged for improved quality oflife and overall prosperity. Cities are not simply incidental
geographies where people congregate, but rather are theloci of economic and cultural production and spaces ofenvironmental and social development.
Urban areas are places of opportunity where aspirations
are realized. This sense of possibility motivates people toWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

migrate from rural areas to urban areas and to leave theircountries of origin for global cities. Consequently, thediscourse on cities has shifted from the perspective thatthey are challenges to address to the view that they are key
to improving development outcomes. There is an increased
understanding that cities create and sustain value.

Key Findings
The value of urbanization should be inclusive of all groups thatlive in cities: Urban areas are heterogeneous places home toextremely diverse groups of people. Wealthy elites may live
a short distance from poor slum dwellers. Youth looking
for new economic opportunity might ride the bus next toolder persons seeking good quality health care. Indigenous
people, refugees, migrants and those with differing identityand orientation all coexist in urban areas. The value of
urbanization should respond to the specific of each ofthese groups, as each group finds a different type of value
in the city, which are sometimes at odds and sometimes inharmony.
Urban economies drive the performance of national
economies: The global economy is increasingly a functionof goods and services produced in or traded among
cities and metropolitan areas. Resource-based economies
require urban ports and logistics hubs to move goods.
Consumption-based economies cluster their economic
activities in cities. The knowledge economy continues tothrive on the basis of proximity to urban areas.
Urbanization does not constitute an intrinsic threat to the naturalenvironment: Well-planned, compact urban development
generates immense environmental value. Greater resource
efficiency means less energy use. Avoiding sprawling landconsumption protects natural and agricultural areas.
Cities themselves can promote biodiversity through urban
greening. Ultimately, urban areas cover just two per cent of
global land area, meaning that the majority of humanity isable to live with a relatively light planetary footprint thatallows for wildlife conservation and biodiversity hotspots
to remain undisturbed.
Urban areas can enhance social inclusion and reduce poverty:
Transformative commitments in cities, like embracing
the framework of ensuring the “right to the city” or“cities for all,” build the social value of urbanization. For
centuries, people have congregated in cities to pursue their
aspirations and dreams, leading to increased individual andcollective wellbeing. However, realizing the social value ofsustainable urbanization is not a natural consequence of acity’s economic growth, as increasing investment in urban
areas does not automatically address poverty and inequality.
Mounting evidence suggests that economic growth in itself
will not reduce poverty or increase wellbeing if it is notaccompanied by equitable polices that allow low-income
or disadvantaged groups to benefit from such growth.
Strong civic and cultural institutions are crucial for therealization of sustainable urbanization: Sound institutions—aconstitution, laws, regulations, social norms, customs
and traditions—provide the superstructure for the valueof urbanization to be fully realized and lead to inclusive
prosperity and improved quality of life. This moreintangible value of urbanization generates a sense of pridein the overall perception of the city. When these institutions
function well, city dwellers have a sense of civic identity asurban residents.

Key Messages
Urbanization will continue to be the driving force for global
growth: However, given the pace of urbanization, thisprocess requires effective planning, management andgovernance if the value of urbanization is to be fully
realized as a truly transformative process. Internationallydeveloped policies like the global development agenda
can guide this process, but it must be adapted to the
local context in order to ensure policy coherence. The
perspectives of local governments should be integrated into
international discussions, given their role in implementing
such agendas.
Urban economic prosperity will provide the basis by whichcountries can contribute to achieving the SDGs and New Urban
Agenda, as well as recovering from the COVID-19 induced global
recession: In the absence of healthy urban economies andpro-poor economic development policies, the goals of the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will be difficult
to attain, especially enhancing economic opportunities
for the urban poor. With the appropriate macroeconomic
policies, well-planned and managed urbanization can help

xix

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

countries accelerate their economic growth and serve
as a channel to global markets by creating productive
environments that attract international investment andincrease economic efficiency. Recovering urban economies
will be essential to lift countries out of the global recession
occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic.

providing a recap of the foundational mechanisms thatenable cities to serve as growth accelerators, highlights
the risks embedded within the very structure that enable
cities to generate economic value. These risks have beenmagnified by the coronavirus pandemic and its adverse
socioeconomic impacts.

Integrate environmental sustainability into urban development:
Sustainable cities offer environment value through boththe built and natural urban environments. When designedwith climate adaptation, mitigation and resiliency,
components of cities from buildings to public spaces cancreate communities that enhance environmental values
like biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Combined,
such efforts not only improve quality of life, but put cities
at the forefront of solutions to climate change.

Key Findings

The social value of urbanization can be enhanced by protecting
the rights of vulnerable groups: Cities exhibit social value
when they promote gender equality and ensure broadbased civic participation. Empowering marginalizedgroups like slum dwellers, the homeless, indigenous
people, LGBTQ2+ and youth makes cities equitable forall. Ultimately, sustainable urbanization is experienced
through the intangible value of urban culture. As theworld’s cities become more heterogeneous, there are everincreasing opportunities to incorporate cultural diversity
as part of a city’s brand or identity thereby attracting
the best and the brightest. Such intangible value, in turn,supports the economic, environmental and social value of
urbanization in a virtuous cycle.

Chapter 3
The Economic Value of Sustainable
Urbanization: Inclusive Prosperity andOpportunities for All
Cities do not merely symbolize the dreams, aspirations
and hopes of individuals and communities, they are theprimary catalysts or drivers of economic development
and prosperity across the world. Urban areas generate
enormous economic value as they are the world’s platforms
for production, innovation and trade, generating bothformal and informal employment. This chapter, whilexx

Urban areas are accelerators of economic growth: Urban areas
generate economic value across a range of spatial scales—
local, regional and national. Cities are “advertisers” forforeign-direct investment in their countries because they
are where the biggest factors attracting such investment—
trade regimes, quality institutions, labour force andinfrastructure—are located. Through urban-rural linkages,
urban economic activities have a profound impact acrossthe urban-rural continuum. Urban systems are also
integrated knowledge creation and diffusion networks,
which raises productivity in the aggregate. Positive
spillovers such as diffusion of innovation and technologies
from urban areas to their surrounding regions promote
regional and national growth.
Sustainable urbanization is a generator of inclusive prosperity:
The value of sustainable urbanization lies in its contribution
to productive employment. Sustainable cities allow for more
economic opportunities for all, including marginalizedgroups and people with disabilities, thus ensuring that the
productive potential of all residents is realized.
COVID-19 shutdown measures in urban areas have had economic
impacts far beyond their boundaries: Urban and national
economies have been hit hard, resulting in substantial
losses in productive jobs and loss of revenue for economic
units, particularly the informal sector. Populations living in
informal settlements and slums have been more economicallyvulnerable because of their reliance on daily earnings fromthe informal sector. For example, millions of informal
workers in India returned to their villages when urban
jobs dried up. As of May 2020, at least 170,000 Peruvians inurban areas requested assistance from local governments toreturn to the countryside. In Kenya, the economic hardshipassociated with the pandemic has forced urban households
unable to afford rents to downgrade to cheaper housing or
relocate to rural areas.

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The very dense interaction networks of people, which are thefactor behind cities’ potential as economic growth accelerators,
also carry embedded risks, as evidenced by the COVID-19
pandemic: These risks require both the ability to adapt
quickly as well as more complex responses at the local,
national and global levels for the long term. The capacity
to rapidly respond to such unexpected risks is driven bygood governance as well as the financial health of the local
and national governments. Well-planned and managed
cities are uniquely well-equipped to respond to all hazards,
including public health threats.
The informal economy has become the lifeblood of many cities
in developing countries: Informal employment comprises
more than half of non-agricultural employment in mostregions of the developing world: 82 per cent in South Asia,
66 per cent in Sub-Sahara Africa, 65 per cent in East andSouth-East Asia, 51 per cent in Latin America and the
Caribbean and 45 per cent in the Middle East and North
Africa. However, the nature of informal economic activity
is also a major challenge for workers’ rights. For example,
the informal micro and small enterprises that constitute 80
per cent of enterprises worldwide generally fly under theradar of public policy interventions, such as government

measures to save jobs, bankroll enterprises and provide
workers with income support.
Property rights, land use regulations and poor transport systems
are limiting value generation in cities of developing countries:
In many developing and developed countries, poorly
defined property rights and/or land use regulations havea huge economic impact that limits value generation. Thisinstitutional deficit results in higher housing prices andless inclusive cities. In the same vein, lack of sustainableurban transport systems results in higher commuting costs
and less inclusive cities.
Subnational administrative structures can catalyse or hinder
the full realization of agglomeration economies: Urban
agglomerations, while part of a broader economic system
linking them to other agglomerations, towns and villages,
are usually their own independent economic entities.
However, regional economic growth in most places isnegatively impacted by overlapping functions, (dis)economies of scale and policy fragmentation. Enabling
metropolitan governance structures and collaboration
mechanisms, as appropriate, is thus key to enhancing the
economic value of urbanization.

An overview of downtown Nairobi, Kenya. © UN-Habitat/Julius Mwelu

xxi

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Key Messages
Urban and territorial planning supported by adequate
governance structures will enhance the economic value of
urbanization: How urban areas are spatially configured
and organized is directly connected to their generation of
economic value. Poorly planned and managed urbanization
diminishes the potential to leverage economies of scale andagglomeration effects. It is therefore important that cities
are spatially organized in the most efficient and sustainable
way in order to increase their absorptive capacities andensure sustained economic growth.
Local and national governments need to strengthen their urban
productive capacities: Cities can enhance their productive
capacities by reforming legal and regulatory frameworks aswell as integrating urban planning and design with measuresthat provide greater security to workers, particularly those
operating in the informal economy.
There needs to be a paradigm shift in how urban planningand governance frameworks view the informal economy:
Sustainable and inclusive urban development will be
hard to achieve in developing countries without adequate
measures to facilitate the transition of workers andeconomic units from the informal to the formal economy.
As cities in all regions make progress toward realizing the SDGs
and the New Urban Agenda, the more the economic valueof urbanization is enhanced: Cities can become effective
catalysts for inclusion, powerhouses of equitable economic
growth and places where the productive potential ofvarious population groups are realized and harnessed forthe greater good of society. For this dynamic impact to besustained, strengthening productive capacities is key. Cities
must offer equal opportunities for all residents to accessappropriate education and further develop their skills for
productive participation in the local economy.
The economic growth and consumption potential of cities should
be managed in ways that support the achievement of sustainable
development outcomes and build resilience: Particularly inthe wake of the COVID-19 pandemic that has disrupted
business-as-usual patterns of consumption like short-haul
air travel and carbon-intensive supply chains, governments
can re-evaluate their growth and consumption patterns

xxii

going forward so as to ensure inclusive prosperity andopportunities for all.
Leverage density but protect against crowding: The COVID-19
pandemic has shown that urban density does not inevitably
correlate with higher virus transmission. Cities are largely
vulnerable as a result of how people live, work and travelin and around them. Density has enhanced the delivery ofservices in the wake of COVID-19; it supports economies ofscale in the provision of critical public services like healthcare and other necessary infrastructure. On the other hand,
unplanned density associated with crowding increases therisk of rapid virus transmission.
Cities can have sustained economic growth and higher levelsof productivity even as they navigate demographic transitions:
From youth booms to the “silver tsunamis” associatedwith ageing, cities are undergoing demographic change.
It is therefore imperative that policies (such as familyplanning, education and labour force participation)and urban and territorial planning processes are datadriven—i.e. informed by disaggregated data. This method
is key to harnessing the urban demographic dividend
as well ensuring age-friendly cities that “leave no one
behind.”Governance, institutional, policy and legal frameworks shouldbe aligned to local realities and not be a hindrance to economic
growth: Development controls should be assessed regularly
to check their relevance and responsiveness to prevailingneeds. Local governments should also establish clear
property rights to facilitate the efficient functioning ofland, housing and commercial real estate markets. These
measures are key to achieving compact and integrated
development.
Sustainability and productivity go hand in hand: While making
cities more affordable and inclusive as well as increasing
connectivity in cities and improving urban quality of life
are desirable goals on their own, they also have importanteconomic effects. On the other hand, cities that offer alow quality of life usually have limited growth relative totheir potential. Local and national governments thus needto incentivize companies and residents to minimize thesocial costs they generate, for example their contributions
to traffic congestion or pollution.

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Effective municipal financing is integral to equitable planningand development: Effective, innovative and sustainablefinancing frameworks and instruments strengthenmunicipal finance and local fiscal systems that create,sustain and share the economic value generated bysustainable urban development in an inclusive manner.
Local governments in developing countries need to build
productive capacities and leverage endogenous sources offinance as well as exercise prudent financial management
practices to ensure sustained finances. In areas where
taxation and fees are levied, equity considerations
like progressive revenue must be considered to ensure
inclusive prosperity.

Chapter 4
The Environmental Value of Sustainable
Urbanization: Building Resilient Urban
Development
Current international debates are characterized by urban
optimism, as sustainable urbanization is recognized asa transformative force to harness environmental value.
The implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement
and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction areembedded in this urban optimism. There is also the implicit
agreement that actions at the local level will bridge the gap
between intended contributions from countries and theactual emission reductions required to keep global averagetemperature change within safe levels. The adoption ofthese global development agendas as well as the ushering
in of the Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs presents anopportunity for pragmatism whereby urban actors have todemonstrate the effectiveness of existing actions.
Unplanned and unmanaged urbanization represents a threat
to environmental sustainability, including unbridled urban
sprawl, irreversible land-use changes and biodiversity loss,
resource and energy-intensive consumption patterns, andhigh levels of pollution and carbon emissions. However,when well-planned and managed, urbanization provides
opportunities to address these challenges and contribute toenvironmental value through energy innovation, sustainable
settlement patterns, changes in human behaviour andlifestyles, environment-related improvements to healthand wellbeing, and resource efficiencies.

Key Findings
Nature-based solutions represent an integrated approach todeliver environmental value across the urban-rural continuum,
but there are challenges to overcome: In urban areas, naturebased solutions have been linked with positive effects on
both urban nature and human health. However, when
applying nature-based solutions to urban environments,
there are still knowledge gaps regarding the effectivenessof solutions to address different environmental challenges,
the involvement of various stakeholders and specificimplementation challenges related to land competition,
overlapping regulations and integration with existing
infrastructure. In addition, there is a dearth of informationon the extent and state of conservation of green and blue
infrastructure across the various regions of the world.
Some green action and sustainability policies in urban areas
are having unintended impacts: While environmental
and conservation projects are adding value to the urban
environment, marginalized groups are pushed out by thechanging conditions for habitation, for example, becauseof an increase in housing prices and rents. Urban areas
are finding a new challenge in these green and climate
gentrification processes as people are excluded not only
from housing and public space but also from safe andprotected environments. For example, recent assessmentsof urban greening initiatives show that while they haveresulted in positive environmental outcomes (increase ingreen space, reduction of pollution), they have also been
associated with the displacement of low-income residents.
Multiple, interconnected environmental challenges affectlife in rapidly growing urban areas: These include theever-growing need to access resources and provide
infrastructures and public services to sustain urban life,
the increasing incidence of environmental risks linked
with the impacts of climate change and air pollution, thethreats to ecosystems and biodiversity, and the growing
imperative to enable structural transformations to reduce
emissions. In the US, the expansion of the wildlandurban interface is seen to contribute to ravaging wildfires
as sprawling cities encroach on forests. In Europe, one in

xxiii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

every eight (or 13 per cent) of deaths is attributed to poor
quality environments.
How environmental challenges are experienced and addressedlargely depends on the living conditions and experiences of
specific groups: Slums and informal settlements generally
suffer the impacts of climate change and natural disasters
disproportionately as compared to other settlements.
While there have been improvements in global coverageof basic services over the past two decades, which haveenvironmental benefits, particularly for slum dwellers,more action is still needed for this population most at riskof being left behind.
Recognizing the context and advancing principles of justicematters: Sustainability policies to unlock the environmental
value of urbanization depend on the ability of different
actors to tailor options to the context in which they operate.
There are various ways in which planning, management andgovernance of urban areas can enhance the environmental
value of urbanization. However, these measures need tobe tailored to the specific conditions of an area, resources
available and action potentials. Incorporating principles
of justice entails taking into consideration the politicaland social implications of actions that are intended to
unlock the environmental value of urbanization. In 400
sustainability initiatives in more than 200 urban areas, theseprinciples are being embedded in current environmental
action at the local level as cities make efforts to deliver on
the NUA and the SDGs.
Despite its ravaging impacts, COVID-19 pandemic has shown thata green urban future is possible: The disruption caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated some environmental
challenges, for example, resulting in an increase of plastic
waste. On the other hand, COVID-19-induced lockdowns
led to a sudden fall in carbon emissions and improvements
in air quality in cities, providing the world a brief window
into the decarbonized, sustainable future environmental
advocates have championed for decades.
Mobilizing all kinds of data: The recent shift towards evaluating
the effectiveness of urban responses to harness environmental
value has revealed an emerging interest in mobilizing all
kinds of data. However, harnessing the environmental valueof urbanization in a context of limited data and limited

xxiv

resources also means delivering strategic action throughmapping current capabilities, enrolling multiple actors andidentifying critical knowledge gaps and information targeted
towards specific forms of urban change.

Key Messages
Address the structural drivers of environmental degradation:
Local governments and other actors operating in the urban
environment need to recognize the structural drivers ofenvironmental degradation and how they interact withpeople’s lives (as they drive vulnerability and reduce
urban resilience). Harnessing the environmental valueof urbanization requires planning with people rather
than for people. Urban dwellers have the knowledge
to deliver sustainability and resilience and multiply
governments’ capacity to harness the environmental valueof urbanization. Recognition of the multiple drivers of
disadvantage and how they shape the urban experience(known as “intersectional analysis” in the urban governanceliterature) is a precondition for delivering environmental
justice in urban settings. There is a need for developing
intersectional environmental policies that question
privilege as the root of current environmental problems
and celebrate social diversity. An intersectional approachis also key to understanding the needs and concerns ofdifferent groups, hence facilitating authentic inclusiveness.
Urban greening initiatives enhance the overall value of
urbanization, but adequate measures are needed to ensure thatthey do not exacerbate inequality and social vulnerability:
Green initiatives have numerous added co-benefits
that can support simultaneous achievement of multiple
developmental goals and targets, thereby enhancing theoverall value of urbanization. The New Urban Agenda andSDG 11 place an emphasis on inclusive settlements andprovide frameworks for unlocking the environmental valueof urbanization for all, rather than for a rarefied elite.
The environmental value of sustainable urbanization cannot berealized without prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged groups:
Prioritizing the needs of the most disadvantaged means
creating opportunities within local planning processes torepresent their views, something already reflected in the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Harnessing
the value of sustainable urbanization requires delivering

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

environmental benefits across urban areas in a manner thatreaches every sector of the urban population, especiallythose who are most disadvantaged. The urban poor
must be represented and their needs prioritized in any
decision-making process, be it about the urban commons,
atmospheric commons, public spaces or resource use.

in 2014, Bologna, Italy, adopted the Bologna Regulation
on Civil Collaboration for the Urban Commons, whose
primary tool was a collaboration pact whereby citizens, thelocal government and any other interested organizations
would agree on care and regeneration actions to improveshared green areas and public spaces.

Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda is
key to enhancing the environmental value of urbanization: The
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New
Urban Agenda provide the opportunity to deliver a truly
innovative programme for urban action that harnesses
the transformative power of urbanization for the deliveryof environmental value at all scales. The 2030 Agenda
provides targets to orient environmental action. The NUA
provides guidelines to integrate development objectives
into a holistic vision of a liveable, sustainable city.

Leverage technologies for environmental action: Technology
and open data have opened new opportunities to enable
collaborative networks within and across cities. For
example, UN-Habitat’s Global Public Space Programmeis harnessing technologies such as Kobo Toolbox and the
Minecraft video game to engage a wider audience—e.g.
children and youth—in urban planning and design
processes for safe, inclusive and accessible public space.
The potential offered by digital technologies should not be
overlooked, but it should not distract from well-establishedprocesses of collaborative planning and their potential todeliver environmental action.

There is an ample range of initiatives to deliver environmental
value in urban environments, but outcomes are highly dependent
on how these are implemented: The environmental valueof urbanization depends on how cities are planned andmanaged. Ensuring due process and recognition of multiple
points of view are conditions for delivering sustainable
development for all, requirements already enshrined in
the NUA. For example, increasing understanding of thepotential of nature-based solutions and green and blue
infrastructure to deliver environmental benefits alongside
more conventional transport and waste management
interventions needs to be balanced with the realizationof how green gentrification is driving further processes ofurban exclusion.
Recognize the urban commons as socio-ecological assets:
Urbanization has transformative power because of its
potential to enable the sharing of social, cultural andnatural capital. The urban commons include sharedresources, spaces and knowledge. It can be related to bothproviding specific services (flood protection, food, waterand recreational areas) and protecting and enhancing
urban ecosystems. Inventories of shared assets developed
collectively help to identify and protect the commons.
Local governments play a role in mediating the generationof a collective pool of knowledge that can be mobilized
for the protection of the commons. The urban commons
are the basis for collective design processes. For example,

A green economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic canyield long-term environmental benefits: While COVID-19
induced lockdowns have been associated with shortterm reductions in emissions and pollutants, these will
have very little long-term effects, and will not change
the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions unlessthey facilitate deeper and longer-term human, businessand institutional change. Countries should seize thismoment to deliver on their commitment to sustainable
development by investing in cleaner and more resilient
forms of renewable energy that will we create lasting
solutions, reduce the risks of future crisis and adequately
mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Chapter 5
The Social Value of Sustainable
Urbanization: Leaving No One and No Place
BehindThe opportunities offered by cities lend a social value tourbanization. When cities are well-planned and managed,
they can lift families out of poverty, liberate women fromgender-based discrimination, point to bright futures forchildren and youth, offer comforts and supports to older

xxv

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

persons in their golden years and welcome migrants looking
for a better life. This wide-ranging value of urbanizationis one of its most potent features. Cities are the crucible
in which social outcomes will be improved for all types ofmarginalized and vulnerable groups.
But the social value of urbanization will only be realizedalongside the intangible value of urbanization. This
broad category encompasses the institutions—rule of law,property rights and democratic participatory systems,
among others—that allow cities to function effectively.
Embedded in this intangible value is the cultural elementof cities, from the diverse backgrounds of their residents tothe cultural heritage assets at their disposal.

Key Findings
The “right to the city” underpins the social value of urbanization:
The “right to the city” means that all people, particularly
vulnerable and marginalized groups, should have equal
opportunities and access to urban resources, services
and goods. The World Charter on the Right to the City
recognizes that cities are at the core of wealth creation;social, political and cultural diversity; and environmental
preservation efforts. Access to these opportunities is
not equal for all inhabitants, but local governments thatembrace the right to the city can create more equitableoutcomes. For example, the right to the city is enshrinedin Mexico City’s constitution, which informed the local
government’s efforts to provide aid to Central American
migrants as they travelled through the city.
Gender-based discrimination is a systematic problem: Women
make up over half of the global population yet suffer
systematic gender discrimination in cities. Women at thebottom of the economic ladder provide 12.5 billion hoursof unpaid care work every day, which is three times morethan men do. Worldwide, men own 50 per cent more
wealth than women. To address this imbalance, several
local governments have implemented a feminist approach
to urban planning. In the Spanish cities of Girona, Gavàand Donosti, a gender perspective informs public spaces
and housing projects, which has resulted in better lighting
in common spaces and improved spaces for pedestrians.
Gender equality in cities is also driven by grassroots
organizations, as some cities are being transformed intoxxvi

spaces of inclusion due to the efforts of community
organizations and committed citizens.
Urban planning often overlooks the needs of children andyouth: Urban planning does not adequately account for theneeds of young people, largely because they are dependent
on their parents and do not have the right to vote orparticipate in decision-making processes. Consequently,
their needs are not prioritized, as clearly demonstrated
in the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in school
closure and significant restrictions on their outdoor
activities and socialization. However, cities like Calgary,Ghent, Antwerp and Rotterdam are taking proactive
measures to create more child-friendly play opportunities.
Older persons are increasingly “ageing in place”—in cities: The
65 and over cohort is now the fastest growing age group,with an increasing proportion moving to or remaining incities instead of retiring to the countryside or returning
to an ancestral village. They have distinct needs, likeretrofitted home to accommodate their physical limitations,ready access to health care, and safe and reliable public
transport. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Government has adopted the principles of age-friendly
cities by focusing on a multi-dimensional approach that
includes medical care, community and residential support,
transport and mobility, housing and the built environment,
active ageing, more flexible employment and familyfriendly measures with local governments playing a key
role. More than 700 cities are part of the Global Network
for Age-friendly Cities and Communities to promotehealthy, active ageing and improve quality of life for theelderly.
Poor migrants face an uncertain welcome in cities: At atime of nearly one billion migrants worldwide, national
attitudes are increasingly hostile to migrants andforeigners. African, Middle Eastern and Latin American
migrants brave the odds to cross deserts and seas without
any guarantee of ever being socially integrated into their
host countries. International migrants often lack even themost basic civil rights and face various forms of socialand economic exclusion. In some cases, however, cities
are opening their doors. Montréal recognizes cultural
diversity as an asset that enriches the city’s quality of life
and the city government supports housing, education andWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

employment initiatives to integrate migrants. The city
believes that immigrant integration rests on the principleof co-responsibilities shared by immigrants themselves
and the host society, which has proven to be a positive andempowering approach.
Urbanization can be a pathway to eradicating poverty: Urban
areas offer significant opportunities to generate prosperity,
which in turn can be leveraged to eradicate poverty byfilling the gaps in sustainable infrastructure, such as
housing, water, sanitation and transport. Generally, higher
levels of urbanization are associated with lower levels ofpoverty. When well-planned and managed, cities can be“real poverty fighters,” if adequate policies are implemented
like the multiyear roadmap to improve water supply andsanitation in the urban areas of Surkhandarya Province in
Uzbekistan. A major predicament is that policies designed
to achieve economic growth—and thus the prosperity ofcities—do not necessarily result in improved economic andsocial opportunities for the poor, and could indeed worsen
existing poverty even while improving the urban economy.
Policymakers have to face important non-economicand equity considerations that must be balanced against
economic growth.
The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating urban inequality:
Lockdowns and other public health measures to control
the spread of COVID-19 have exposed and worsened
inequalities in cities. Informal workers dependent on day
wages were shut out of their basic livelihoods. Children
without internet access could not receive an education.
Isolated older persons were confined to their homes withno opportunities for social interaction. Migrants returned
home on gruelling journeys. Women were forced to juggle
childcare, education and work without access to schools
and day care services. Extreme poverty is expected toincrease globally for the first time in over two decades dueto the deleterious effects of COVID-19.
Effective institutions are the bedrock of sustainable urbanization:
Effective institutions are indispensable to the management
and governance of any city. These intangible components
have tangible impacts on inhabitants’ everyday lives, likewhether the garbage is picked up, the bus runs on timeor a pothole is filled. Sound institutions and mechanismsthat empower and include urban stakeholders are crucial

for generating value through urbanization, as they provide
the supportive framework responsible for steering urban
development and enabling it to operate and deliver
maximum benefits to a majority of the population.
Cultural and ethnic diversity is an urban asset: The cultural
diversity of cities contributes to their vibrancy, prosperity,
inclusiveness, competitiveness, attractiveness, positive
perception and overall development. Culturally diverse
cities feature more innovative workforces given that they
benefit from a wider range of international knowledge links,
idea generation, problem-solving and diverse decisionmaking. It is no coincidence that economically successful
global cities are dotted with vibrant international culturalneighbourhoods, ethnic retail stores, diverse religious
landscapes and regular multicultural events such as Drongo
Festival in Amsterdam, Caribana in Toronto, Notting Hill
Carnival in London, Chinese New Year Festival and Paradein San Francisco and Living in Harmony in Sydney.
Cities can build economies around culture and creative
industries: Creative industries are emerging as one of themost important dimensions of new economies in regions
around the world. Cities as diverse as Austin (music andtechnology), Berlin (visual arts), Mexico City (contemporary
art and television), Mumbai (film) and Seoul (gamingand digital media) have thriving creative industries thathave contributed remarkably to their respective urban
economies. The world’s top tourism destinations are all
known for their cultural landmarks. Small cities like Ségou,Mali have built entire local economies around cultural
festivals.

Key Messages
Governments should move from “equality” to “equity” and remove
systemic barriers: Whether in housing, education, transportor other municipal services, the concept of equity recognizes
that redistributive mechanisms are put in place for a fair andmore efficient use of resources, skills and opportunities totarget the most vulnerable with the highest levels of support.
For the social value of sustainable urbanization to be fully
realized, identifying and addressing the root causes of
exclusion and inequity are critical. For instance, an equitablepolicy approach to affordable housing would not simply
build more affordable housing equally throughout the city,

xxvii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

but target that affordable housing in the neighbourhoods
that have been historically gentrified or seen displacement
due to real estate investment.
Gender “mainstreaming” can address systemic discrimination
against women: Feminist approaches to urban planninginclude the notion of “gender mainstreaming,” whichapplies a gender-based lens on all public decisions.
Vienna has pursued this practice for 20 years, including inbudgeting, policy and resource allocation, while Rwanda
has the world’s highest rate of female elected legislators.
On a larger scale, various governments are partnering with
the United Nations Women Friendly Cities programme todevelop urban areas where everybody, especially women,
can equally enjoy the economic, social and political
opportunities offered by the city.
Youth rights and urban planning principles can lead the way
to child-friendly cities: Creating vibrant play spaces andproviding quality education are among the youth-specificoutcomes that local authorities can pursue in line with
UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative. Many urban
policy objectives that benefit children and youth also
benefit all urban residents, such as ensuring healthy food,safe and reliable public transport, affordable housing anddecent work opportunities.
Local governments can foster active ageing in cities: In linewith the WHO Age-friendly City initiative, there are eight
entry points for cities to better adapt their structures andservices to the needs of older people: outdoor spaces andbuildings; transportation; housing; social participation;
respect and social inclusion; civic participation andemployment; communication and information; andcommunity support and health services. Some cities might
only be able to implement a few elements at a time andgradually add on the rest. Like the Child Friendly Cities
Initiative, these principles are not exclusive to the needsof older persons. A city that works for children and older
persons alike works for urban residents of all ages.
Cities should develop frameworks to properly integrate migrants:
Even amidst political disagreements over immigration, local
authorities are on the frontlines of migrations and can prepare
for the arrival of refugees and migrants by establishing“welcome departments.” If cities and local governments

xxviiilook beyond the humanitarian emergency lens, they can see
migrants as integral to the socioeconomic development of
their cities. This perspective requires effective integration
programmes in the form of housing, employment, educationand health, safety and security, social protection andaccording migrants a sense of belonging.
Invest in cultural infrastructure for long-term dividends:
Historic buildings in need of renovations, arts and crafts
traditions that could prove nascent economic drivers andcultural institutions like museums and performing arts
venues are all the building blocks of a creative economy.
Cities with a vibrant cultural scene and assets are more
likely to attract skilled talent who will boost the city’slong-term prospects.

Chapter 6
Innovation, Technology and the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization
The world is firmly entrenched in the Information
Age. Technology continues to reshape economies andsocieties amidst the fourth industrial revolution, or the
exponentially paced disruption caused by the possibilitiesof billions of people connected by mobile devices, with
unprecedented processing power, storage capacity andaccess to knowledge. These possibilities will be multipliedby emerging technological breakthroughs in fields suchas artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things,
autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology,
biotechnology, materials science, energy storage andquantum computing.
Cities are at the centre of these changes as the concentrationof people and human activities encourage technology andinnovation talent to co-locate. Even amidst the COVID-19
pandemic, cities are where the main health facilities arelocated and the home of the research institutions thatare working assiduously to develop a vaccine. They are
the home base for the technology companies that haveproduced the tools for millions to work from home.
The interplay of technology and innovation has alreadyinfluenced urbanization patterns and is poised to further
shape the future of cities.

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Key Findings
Cities are rapidly deploying technology to address a wide rangeof urban challenges: Rapid urbanization, technologicalchange and the climate crisis are all happening at thesame time, creating new challenges for cities. In response,
cities are also innovating, leveraging new technologies,
ideas and approaches to help achieve the New Urban
Agenda and meet the Sustainable Development Goals andother international development frameworks relevant tosustainable urbanization. New technologies and innovations
provide opportunities for cities to generate immense value
from urban life. Cities that encourage creative activities,
communities and people are best able to innovate.
Innovation is not the exclusive purview of the private
sector—the public sector innovates as well: Innovation ismost commonly associated with start-up businesses andtechnology entrepreneurs, but a growing recognition existsthat while cities can serve as platforms of innovation,
creativity and knowledge generation, city governments canalso be innovators drawing on, and in some cases creating,new technologies and developing legal and institutionalinnovations to improve and transform government
processes and service delivery.
New technology is facilitating better urban monitoring: Cities
are increasingly using patented technologies like cheaperand more effective sensors to monitor and share information
on water, air, solid waste, infrastructure, energy, traffic andpublic transport, among other areas. Such monitoring canalso contribute to reducing the adverse environmental
impact of cities, including by paying special attention to
air quality and waste management.
Cities have troves of big data at their disposal: In addition tomonitors and sensors, cities collect data from smartphone
apps, city data dashboards, information screens inpublic spaces, intelligent operations centres and publicfacing websites with critical information and feedback
mechanisms. Combined, these sources generate “big data”
so massive that traditional techniques and software cannot
analyse them. Big data analysis, real-time monitoring andautomation of various municipal services from streetlights
to complaint systems are extremely useful for city planningand service delivery.

Pollution detector station of the Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection, Warsaw, Poland. © HAL-9000/Shutterstockxxix

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

When cities make their data open and transparent, innovations
emerge: Cities are making once proprietary data sources
available to the public. As cities open their data portals
to the public, private industry, civil society groups andindividual citizens through activities like civic “hackathons”
can create useful tools. For example, public transport data,
once hidden, is now standardized and has enabled transit
systems around the world to integrate their routes andschedules into mapping apps.
The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the deployment ofinnovation and technology in urban areas: Innovations
designed to curb the spread of the virus and keep people safe,
productive and connected when they are physically aparthave profound implications for urban built environments,social relations, labour markets and education, among
other areas. These evolving technologies have enabled
remote work, online or distance learning, digital andcontactless payments, telehealth, online shopping anddrone or robot delivery. While these technological trends
can make cities more resilient in the face of current andfuture pandemics, there is a real possibility that they could
deepen the existing digital divide and social inequalities,
particularly when millions of people cannot work or go toschool remotely or access technology and its benefits.
Smart city rhetoric does not always match reality: “Smart city”
is among the most common buzzwords at the intersection oftechnology and urbanization. However, top-down privatesector-led approaches driven mainly by technology firms
frequently do not promote socially inclusive urbanization
as envisioned in the New Urban Agenda. Technology firms
are increasingly focusing on cities as markets for smart
city technologies. Results of smart city initiatives are
mixed and particularly poor when these efforts are driven
by technology rather than by people. Cities should focus
on applying their own civic and urban technology andencouraging public sector innovation to address existing
problems within their jurisdiction.
Cities do not have adequate regulatory and policy capacity
to address technological challenges: Many governments aretrying to leverage new technologies to improve service
delivery, citizen engagement and governance as well as
reduce carbon footprints in cities. Few have adequate
capacity to maximally use, manage and regulate thesexxx

technologies while addressing concerns such as digital
exclusion, privacy, surveillance and political misuse of social
media platforms as well as the impacts on labour markets,
poverty and inequality. To address these problems, morecapacity support must be given to cities.
Investment in technology is unevenly spread across the world:
The global distribution of the top 100 digital companies
and the venture capital that backs new start-up
enterprises is uneven, favouring specific metropolitan
areas like Silicon Valley, the US Northeast Corridor,
London, Paris, Toronto, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Shanghai,
Mumbai and Bangalore. Large technology innovation
networks and the companies within them are almost
always located in global cities that can also attract youngwell-educated workers, many of whom are immigrants,
while less globally connected cities are left behind.

Key Messages
Innovation and technology play a multidimensional role in urban
areas: Disruptive technologies and new ways of managing
cities are now fundamental to the urban experience. They are
reshaping social relations, labour markets and governance.
At the same time, technology cannot displace citizen
engagement in neighbourhood and city affairs. Technology
is most effective when coupled with institutional innovationand is not a substitute for improving governance, planning,
operations and management.
True smart cities are people-oriented: Citizens are a city’s
greatest resource as they provide new ideas for innovation,
act as the eyes or ears of the city, help monitor conditions
on the ground and engage the city more actively in setting
priorities. Smart city technologically-based initiatives need
to be people-centred and people-driven.
Fostering collaborative network to drive research anddevelopment: Cities should foster strong research anddevelopment institutions and collaborative networks
between levels of government to build the research, data andregulatory capacities to ensure that new technologies address
urban problems rather than exacerbate them or create newchallenges. Finding pathways towards global cooperation
to confront these challenges and opportunities is critical,
including through city networks that share innovative ideas.

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Government should build its capacity to effectively manage,
deploy and regulate the use of technology: Cities should be
proactive in the technology they procure for public use.
They should also be willing to take a regulatory approach
toward disruptive technologies like transportation
start-ups, which if left unchecked can create negative
externalities like traffic congestion. Cities require accessto and capacity to manage data, as well as benefit frombuilding open data and open source ecosystems in linewith the principles for digital development. To enhance
the potential benefits, cities should develop open data
portals, urban innovation labs, hackathons, innovation
challenges, town-gown programs and support for researchand local data science.

Chapter 7
Local Governments and The Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Governments should address digital divides and exclusion:
Cities should develop and implement strategies toaddress ongoing problems of digital exclusion witha special focus on vulnerable populations to avoid
exacerbating inequalities and instead tap into a wide,
diverse pool of talent. In an era of remote learning,
ensuring access to technology is now an essential
responsibility of public education. At the same time,
more traditional forms of public outreach remain
necessary to reach segments of the population, like older
persons or the homeless, who do not have easy access tosmartphones or internet connections to answer surveys
or sign up for municipal services.

Subnational governments are central to the global sustainable
development agenda: There is a growing movement of local
and regional governments advancing the localizationof the global agendas to harness the value of sustainableurbanization. In all regions, local governments and theirorganizations are contributing to the advancement ofsustainable urbanization by fostering climate change
mitigation actions, urban resilience, alternative economic
models and social inclusion policies. For instance, in
2019, more than 10,000 cities from 139 countries madecommitments to take measurable climate action.

Cities should put in place clear ethical frameworks andinstitutional arrangements for data collection and sharing:
These governance frameworks need to set out ethicalstandards, including who has the right to data, access andownership, and who should enjoy the benefits from thedata. Here, it is important that the public sector, as thecustodian of citizens’ rights, assume its full governanceresponsibility. For many local governments, this is acompletely new area, and as such, digital policy andgovernance capacity needs to be significantly strengthenedor built from scratch. Cities should work with government
to protect privacy and open, factual public discourse. They
should prioritize innovative people-based policy overtechnological solutions. How technology is designed andused should reinforce democratic and humanistic values
and ecological wellbeing as embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Local governments are the prime movers of sustainableurbanization. As the unit of government closest to everyday
citizens, they are the most attuned to the needs and desiresof urban residents. The successful implementation of the
global development agendas and effectively unleashingthe value of sustainable urbanization thus depends on the
democratic, efficient and inclusive functioning of this levelof urban governance.

Key Findings

Overall, there is global progress on decentralization, despite
setbacks: Local governments are playing an increasingly
significant role in urban governance as decentralization
processes get implemented across various regions. Globally,
local governments account for 24.1 per cent of public
spending, 25.7 per cent of public revenue and 36.6 per centof public investments.
Weak institutional environments are hindering local action:
In many countries, a weak “enabling institutional
environment”—the powers, capacities and resources
devolved to the local level—have a debilitating impactthat hinders urban governance, and consequently, therealization of the value of urbanization. The extent
of fiscal decentralization is uneven across regions, yet
adequate financing flows are needed to support urban
investments as acknowledged by the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda.

xxxi

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Local governments can be transformative forces: In theimplementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda, many cities areplaying the role of experimental hubs and their experiences
can be used to inform policies that are scaled up at thenational level. Many cities are revising their policies andstrategic plans to include the SDGs, strengthening thevalue of urbanization. Participatory planning, for example,
is being implemented in order to co-create fairer, more
inclusive and environmentally sustainable cities. Notably,
many cities are increasingly institutionalizing their
engagement with local stakeholders as the basis for more
inclusive decision-making that leaves no one behind.
Weak coordination, monitoring and reporting hampers
localization efforts: Although various countries are taking
advantage of SDG-driven national coordination initiatives
to ensure greater collaboration between national andsubnational governments, local governments in all regions
are facing difficulties securing inclusion into the national
coordination mechanisms and reporting processes. Many
cities lack adequate statistical capacities. This dilemma

makes it difficult to monitor the implementation of theSDGs and the New Urban Agenda, as well as to ensure
local and national planning processes are founded onrealistic targets.

Key Messages
Galvanize the forces of localization of the 2030 Agenda andthe New Urban Agenda in cities and territories: Localization
strategies should be mainstreamed in all plans, programmes
and budgets from national to local levels. Cities need toadopt the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda as reference
frameworks to guide their policies and plans, as well as
ensure coherent and integrated implementation. Countries
need to integrate and strengthen robust localization
approaches into their sustainable development strategies
and actions.
Effectively involve local governments in national coordination
mechanisms: National governments should strengthen
local governments’ involvement in the definition,
implementation and monitoring of national urban policies

Community members design a public space at the Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement in Turkana, Kenya. © UN-Habitat

xxxii

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

and the SDGs. Coordinated strategies to support these
localization processes are also key.
Countries should create enabling institutional environments
to effectively unleash the value of sustainable urbanization:
Effective decentralization policies strengthen local
authorities’ capacities to pursue sustainable urban
development. In order to address the critical mismatch
between the increase of transferred responsibilities and therevenues allocated to local governments, special attention
should be given to fiscal decentralization and adequate
financing flows to support urban investments.
Create strong multilevel governance frameworks to foster
vertical and horizontal cooperation between different levelsof government and between local governments: Effective
multilevel governance requires clear legal and institutional
structures based on the principles of subsidiarity anddecentralization, as well as adequate intergovernmental
allocation of financial resources.

Chapter 8
Investing in the Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
Significant investments are required to enhance theeconomic, environmental, social value of urbanization,
including the intangible conditions of cities, all of which
are critical for to realizing sustainable urbanization. Just
like all aspects of development, sustainable urbanization
requires adequate financing. The extent to which cities
and countries attract and leverage the public and private
investments required to achieve SDG 11 and the New
Urban Agenda is key to enhancing the value of sustainableurbanization. Closing the investment gap requires
coordination and co-operation among diverse stakeholders,
including all levels of government, the private sector, andbilateral and multilateral development institutions.

Key Findings

Make strong metropolitan governance a key component of new
urban governance: National governments should enable
metropolitan governance that responds to the realities
of economic and social geographies, not just arbitrary
jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring the involvement ofboth local and regional governments in the reform process.

Adequate investments in urban infrastructure are central
to enhancing the value of sustainable urbanization: Urban
infrastructure in all its dimensions—including physicalassets, human capital, institutions, effective governancestructures and innovative technology—is crucial to thedelivery of essential services in urban areas to enhance thevalue of sustainable urbanization.

Support sustainable urban transformation via participatory
planning: An integrated planning approach is crucial tocreate inclusive cities and strengthen linkages between
urban and rural areas. Inclusive and participatory planning
is a key lever to involve local actors in the definition,
implementation and evaluation of a shared vision andsupport the coalescence of transformative local forces.
Participatory processes promoted by local government
should be transparent and implemented with regularity
and continuity, as well as endow citizens with real decisionmaking power.

Delivering on the urban dimension of the SDGs will cost
US$38 trillion: UN-Habitat estimates the total investment
need for infrastructure and the SDGs at US$38 trillion
for the years 2020–2030. Further, estimates based on
the investment trends from the pre-COVID-19 period
indicated that there would still be an investment gap of
US$5.6 trillion following the trend at the time. With the
COVID-19 pandemic triggering a global recession, theinvestment trajectory of developing countries might entera downturn for some years, leaving the investment gap
even wider.

The production and dissemination of disaggregated data formonitoring and impact evaluation is key: Cities must track the
localization of the global agendas to ensure that planning
processes at all levels are founded on realistic targets andeffective implementation can be monitored, as well as toensure accountability and citizen follow-up.

Adequate global financial resources exist to meet current
investment needs, but they are not channelled in areas where
they matter most: While there is a considerable amountof investible funds available at the global level andincreasing investment in global cities, adequate financing
is not directed to sustainable urbanization in the cities

xxxiiiWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

and territories where resources are needed most. Yet, as
UN-Habitat estimates show, the total public and private
investment capacity of US$98 trillion far surpasses total
investment needs. Simply put, while financing capacity
indeed does exist, it is currently not flowing into theright areas to meet this need. Redirecting even a part ofthese assets would make a significant difference, but it isimperative that these assets are matched to infrastructureand SDG projects to meet current investment needs.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an uncertain investment
climate: While the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
will not be known for some time, the global economic
consequences of the pandemic have shaken confidence ininfrastructure investment. For example, only five per centof public and private sector leaders believe that investments
will “increase significantly” following the pandemic, asharp decline from 34 per cent before the crisis.

to bring forth bankable projects and pilot projects that
demonstrate local government capabilities.
Government revenues are still the primary source of financing
for urban development: The average revenues in lowincome countries remain below the 15 per cent of GDP—athreshold considered essential for the effective functioningof the state. Besides, most cities in developing countries are
dependent on transfers from the central government andoften have limited financial instruments and mechanisms
for revenue generation; for example, the subnational taxes
in developing countries are approximately 2.3 per centof GDP compared to 6.4 per cent in advanced countries.
Central governments’ stringent control over spending andconditionalities tied to intergovernmental fiscal transfers
often carry the risk of forcing local governments to spend
funds in ways that do not match local needs, undermininga key objective of decentralization in developing countries.

Investment needs diverge widely: The investment needsof cities and countries required to achieve sustainableurbanization vary depending on city size, demographic
trends, urban configurations, geographic location, thecountry’s level of economic development and the quality ofexisting urban assets. For example, while investment needsof cities in most advanced economies are the necessary
upgrades to replace ageing infrastructure, cities in emerging
economies require adequate new investments in economic,
environmental and social infrastructure to meet thedemands of rapidly growing urban populations. Notably,
a study by UN-Habitat shows that the average annual costof achieving SDG 11 varies depending on context, ranging
from the tens of millions to billions of dollars.

The cost of inadequate investments in sustainable urbanization ishigh: Underinvesting in sustainable urbanization increases
inequality and often threatens the competitiveness andproductivity of cities and national economies. Inadequate
investments also impact health outcomes—public healthguidelines regarding the COVID-19 pandemic were almost
impossible to implement in informal settlements due toinadequate infrastructure.

Local governments face multiple constraints regarding
urban finance: These hurdles include insufficient andunpredictable transfers from central government, weakfiscal management, poor revenue generation and legal
constraints that affect their institutional capacities. The
combination of these factors poses enormous barriers suchas restricting cities’ access to capital markets—only 4 percent of the 500 largest cities in developing countries are
deemed creditworthy by international financial markets,and only 20 per cent are creditworthy in local markets.
Cities also face challenges in accessing resources for preinvestment activities such as financial structuring necessary

Key Messages

xxxiv

Investment in various aspects of human and institutional
capacity is vital for inclusive and sustainable urbanization: Thelack of adequate capacity impedes urban service delivery,
revenue generation, financial management and project
implementation in most cities in developing countries.

Adequate funding during the Decade of Action is key torealizing SDG 11, the urban dimension of the SDGs and the New
Urban Agenda: As the world enters the Decade of Action,
it is imperative for policymakers to catalyse actions that
support the adequate investments in urban infrastructure(physical assets, human capital, institutions, innovationand technology) that are required to make cities andhuman settlements safe, inclusive, resilient and sustainable.
Accelerated action on investment is required for the valueof sustainable urbanization to be realized.

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Cities require stable, sustainable sources of financing: Inorder to realize the investments necessary for sustainableurbanization, sources of municipal financing need to besustainable. This stability comes when cities have diverse
sources of revenue and adequate institutional capacities thatallows them to harness innovative financing mechanisms—
pooled financing, blended finance, green municipal bonds
and land-based finance instruments, among others. Urban
areas have tremendous assets that can be unlocked forinvestments and local economic development. Local
authorities must develop ways to link revenue generation tourban growth to ensure that local finances are sustainable
in the long term. Local governments must be empowered
to tap their endogenous potential to innovatively increase
and diversify own-source revenues, which in the long-run
enhances local autonomy and long-term sustainability.
Realign financial frameworks for sustainable urbanization:
Investing in sustainable urbanization calls for a policy
framework that realigns local financial flows to public
development goals. Urban governance should be underpinned
by well-coordinated fiscal, political and administrative
decentralization, where local expenditure responsibilities
are backed by predictable intergovernmental transfers andfiscal empowerment.
Policy coherence between global, regional, national and local
stakeholders is crucial for meeting investment needs: To leverage
the full potential of sustainable urbanization, investments
made in all forms of infrastructure must be compatible withthe 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda and other development
agendas. The goal should not merely be more spending,but rather more efficient spending while prioritizing
sustainability to enhance the value of urbanization.

effective urban governance, sound legal and institutionalframeworks and strengthened capacities to formulate,
implement, enhance, manage, monitor and evaluate public
policies for sustainable urban development. Strengthening
the institutional capacities of local governments is also
integral to facilitating local financial sustainability. A city’s
ability to maximize its leverage of endogenous resources
is subject to appropriate institutional arrangements, aswell as its technical capacity for planning, accessing andadministering the full range of financing instruments.
Optimizing revenue mobilization matters, as does improving
value for money from investment: Effective management
is essential to safeguard public investment. Local
governments should strengthen institutions for public
investment management to achieve desired developmental
outcomes while, at the same time, achieving quality andefficiency in spending on the city’s physical assets.
An accurate investment needs assessment is the basis forsustainable urban investment: Urban policies and investments
should be evidence-based and founded on realistic targets
that can be monitored. Preparing precise estimates ofurban investment should be the starting point for all levelsof government in their pursuit of sustainable urbanization.
These estimates should be considered alongside the shortand long-term benefits unlocked by urban investments.
The needs and combination of potential financing sources
are unique for each country. Some countries may require
technical assistance to develop a national reform agendathat maps infrastructure needs and the SDGs to national
circumstances. Others may need technical assistance toalign the complementary roles that various development
partners can play in financing infrastructure development
and maintenance needs.

A multiplicity of actors and collaborative ventures is required toadequately fund urban infrastructure: Public sector entities,
private sector corporations and financial institutions,multilateral development banks, international publicfinance and foreign direct investment all have significant
roles to play in funding urban investments.

Chapter 9
The New Urban Agenda and the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Sustainable cities stem not just from physical assets, but also
from sound legal and institutional frameworks: Making cities
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable not only requires
physical assets in cities, it also calls for investing in

Sustainableurbanization
generates
economic,
environmental, social and intangible value that can beharnessed for the wellbeing of all. This message can andshould guide development efforts during the Decade ofxxxv

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Action to achieve the SDGs and as the world recovers fromthe COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, there is a road map tosustainable urbanization in the New Urban Agenda, which
provides a comprehensive framework for unlocking thevalue inherent in well-planned, managed and financed cities.
Unlocking the value of sustainable urbanization is amultisectoral and multi-stakeholder endeavour. National
governments must create an enabling environment for cities
to thrive. Local authorities must seize the opportunities
given to them and govern their territories effectively, as
called for in the New Urban Agenda. The private sector
must invest in sustainable urban development, fromaffordable housing to climate-friendly infrastructure. Civil
society must strengthen institutions and create a welcoming
environment for a diverse citizenry. Philanthropy must fillin the gaps to support the most vulnerable. Universities
must educate the next generation and foster research anddevelopment opportunities for innovation and inclusive
prosperity. When all the interlocking parts operate inharmony and are supported by appropriate institutions
and policies, cities will thrive and their value will beenhanced and shared by all.

Key Messages
A call to action and commitment to implement the New Urban
Agenda: There should be a sense of urgency and a long-term
commitment to implement the New Urban Agenda as thebasis for achieving sustainable urbanization. The costs ofinaction and delay are too high. Profound rethinking toformulate appropriate action is necessary. The start-up
phase of New Urban Agenda and SDG implementation has
been quite slow. The pace needs to accelerate rapidly in the
Decade of Action to achieve the SDGs.
The effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda will
harness the value of sustainable urbanization: Effective
frameworks of action can substantively enhance thevalue of sustainable urbanization, most notably throughsupportive urban governance structures, planning andmanagement of spatial development, and effective means of
implementation in the form of adequate financing, capacity
development, information, technology and innovation.
Regionally-specific action plans and local initiatives fromcity governments and civil society groups complement one

xxxvi

another. Together they can boost awareness, enthusiasm
and uptake of these global sustainability agendas.
Assess progress in implementing and achieving the development
agendas relevant to sustainable urbanization: Cities
should undertake audits and map their efforts onto thetransformative commitments of the New Urban Agenda,
SDG 11 and the urban dimensions of the other SDGs. This
assessment is an important step that will demonstrate what
is already being done and thereby help to identify whatneeds to be done, as well as key weaknesses and gaps onwhich to focus new interventions and direct appropriate
resources.
Development goals and targets can be addressed simultaneously:
Being able to identify and take advantage of such synergies
across the SDGs and New Urban Agenda reinforces
the need for integrated policy coherence and crosssectoral harmonization from the global to local scales.
Demonstrating progress early on, even without dedicated
new investments, has the added benefits of reducing thescale of new costs to be incurred relative to starting fromscratch. These “easy wins” make it easier to gain support
from elected subnational and national representatives
and officials who must trade off diverse and competing
resource demands.
Collaboration and cooperation across scales is central toenhancing sustainable urban development: Convening multistakeholder workshops like national and regional urban
forums can act as strong catalysts for change, bringing
public sector, private sector and civil society together todetermine what changes are needed, gauge reactions andexplore more transdisciplinary and collaborative ways
forward. Deeper forms of multi-sectoral co-creation andco-production are demonstrating significant improvements
in appropriate public service provision as well as in researchand practice for improved sustainable urbanization.
Effective governance with cooperation between formal andinformal actors is key to achieving the SDGs and advancing
the New Urban Agenda: Informality is a fact of life, fromhousing to the economy, and should not be ignored. Urban
development initiatives where state-citizen relationships
have been reformed and strengthened can be built uponand shared more widely for supporting sustainableWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

urbanization. Co-production of housing and infrastructure
in informal settlements and spaces where civil society andgovernments engage in joint action are effective models forbridging the gap between the formal and informal, as wellas enhancing the value of urbanization.
Sustainable urbanization leads to economic development
and employment opportunities: Cities by their nature offer
significant work opportunities because urban areas create
employment that builds on their comparative advantage
and unique characteristics. Urbanization creates economic
development through the provision of decent jobs,
income and equal opportunities for all. Ensuring access tosustained productive employment, enhancing innovationand productivity, nurturing the talent and skills required
to thrive in a modern urban economy, developing creative
industries and utilizing viable forms of municipal finance
all have a key role to play in enhancing and sustaining the
economic value of urbanization.
Urban greening enhances the environmental value of cities: One
central requirement for accelerating urban sustainability isfor all stakeholders to take the green or circular economy
seriously and proactively promote it. Evidence from aroundthe world demonstrates that proactive urban greening leads
to a net gain in employment across diverse skill categories,
thus removing previous concerns about job losses fromphasing out carbon-intensive economic activities.
Cross-cutting considerations underpin all efforts to enhancesocial justice, equity and the overall value of sustainableurbanization by leaving no one and no place behind: Whilestrongly recognized in the New Urban Agenda and SDGs,
issues of cultural diversity, gender, age and other dimensionsof intersectionality, as well as groups marginalized on thebasis of other characteristics, require greater inclusionin the design of national and local policies on urban
sustainability and resilience. Leaving no one and no placebehind are the mantras of the development agendas.

with capacity building for strengthening government’s
ability to effectively manage, deploy and regulate the useof technology.
Local governments are key agents of change for achieving thetransformative commitments of the New Urban Agenda andenhancing the value of urbanization: However, the evidencebase for city-level implementation and monitoring
remains somewhat limited and uneven as relatively few
municipal governments have explicitly embarked on apath to implementing the New Urban Agenda. The growthof national and international city networks, and theirincreasing membership, are potential catalysts to change
this course. They play a leading role in sharing experience,
knowledge and good practices in relation to climatechange, urban sustainability and resilience.
Financing sustainable urbanization requires enabling
environments: Local authorities must be empowered toraise the necessary revenue in order to plan and manage
sustainable urban growth and development. There is a
wealth of fiscal tools available to governments provided
that they are given the necessary authority to deploy themeffectively.
Cities can turn the COVID-19 crisis into an opportunity to “build
back better”: The current COVID-19 pandemic has brought
to the fore existing problems and inequalities in how cities
are planned and managed, from an overabundance of
public space allocated to private automobiles to crowded
housing conditions and inadequate sanitation in slums andinformal settlements. The need for public health measures
like physical distancing and appropriate hygiene practices
underscore the urgency of eliminating urban poverty andimproving housing and infrastructure, while the global
sustainable development agenda, especially the SDGs and
NUA, provide a unique framework and opportunity to
implement the necessary measures.

Innovation in technology and data are integral to enhancing thevalue of sustainable urbanization: Technological innovation
is no longer a luxury, but rather an integral part of everyday
life in urban development and governance. Mobilizationof diverse sources of data and delivering effective strategic
action within current data constraints is key, together

xxxviiChapter 1
Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceThe year 2020 marks a turning point in the global battle for sustainable development, with cities once again at
the centre as home to a growing majority of the world’s population. On the one hand, the world is entering the
Decade of Action, the ten-year period during which national and local governments, the private sector and civilsociety must accelerate their efforts to deliver on the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
for accelerating sustainable solutions to the world’s biggest challenges—ranging from poverty and genderbased discrimination to climate change, inequality and closing the finance gap. By 2030, countless local
actions, the vast majority taken in cities or by city leaders, must collectively add up to a global shift toward amore sustainable future that reduces poverty, improves health outcomes, expands access to education andreduces carbon emissions, among other societal challenges.

1

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Quick Facts
1. After decades of ambivalence from policymakers, urbanization
has emerged as a key agenda in international development

1.1 Urbanization: A Key Agenda inInternational Development Policy

policy.
2. The New Urban Agenda places emphasis on effective
implementation at the local level and on the role of local
governments.
3. Every region is expected to become more urbanized in the nextten years, although highly urbanized regions are expected tohave slower rates of urban growth.
4. The New Urban Agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development were adopted in times of profound global
challenges, many of which have been exacerbated by thecoronavirus pandemic.
5. With over 90 per cent of confirmed cases coming from urban
areas, cities have borne the brunt of COVID-19.

Policy points
1. The New Urban Agenda as a means of achieving SDG 11 offers
a framework for unlocking the value of urbanization.
2. While countries have made progress in the implementationof the New Urban Agenda and urban dimensions of the SDGs,

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, cities havebecome increasingly central to global discussions aroundsustainable development. After decades of ambivalencefrom policymakers, urbanization has emerged as a key
agenda within international development policy. The
unanimous adoption in 2015 of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, which includes the goal to “makecities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable,” as well as the New Urban Agenda (NUA)
in 2016, firmly places urbanization at the forefront ofinternational development discussions. This recognition
goes beyond viewing urbanization as simply a demographic
phenomenon, but rather as a transformative processcapable of galvanizing momentum for development.
National governments, local authorities, internationalNGOs and the private sector now must emphasize theimplementation of the New Urban Agenda, which lays out
a 20-year vision for sustainable urban development, as anaccelerator for achieving the urban dimensions of the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

there are challenges that need to be addressed.
3. Sustainable urbanization has a key role to play in the Decadeof Action for accelerating sustainable solutions towards
eradicating poverty, reducing inequality, addressing climatechange and enhancing gender equality.
4. Sweeping investment in clean technologies such as renewableenergy are among the most cost-effective way to boost
economies hit by COVID-19 while reducing emissions.
5. COVID-19 provides the opportunity for cities to build backbetter in the long term and build up resilience against future
pandemics.

The importance of urban systems thinking is no longer
seen as relevant only to a few globally-connected
metropolitan hubs. Such a lens is now distributed acrossthe full spectrum of human settlements, from megacities
to secondary cities to smaller towns, that constitute theworld’s urban majority. Now more than a decade since
the world became predominantly urban, the continued
increase in urbanization, especially the rapid pace indeveloping countries, has placed the urban space at theforefront of global policy debate. The centrality of urban
processes in securing sustainable futures in a range ofdiverse fields such as climate change, economic growth,
poverty eradication, housing, infrastructure, basic services,2

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

decent jobs, food security and public health—including thecoronavirus pandemic—currently ravaging all parts of theworld is today undeniable.1
The global prominence now given to urbanization
is nuanced, drawing both on traditional views thaturbanization creates negative externalities such asenvironmental degradation and rural depopulation,
as well as newer thinking about the transformative
potential of urbanization for sustainable development.
In many respects, this view stems from the realizationthat while cities hold the key to solving many of theworld’s sustainability challenges, the current model ofurban development is unsustainable. In so far as the
mandate of the SDGs is to “leave no one behind,” urban
development policies focusing solely on economic growth
have not always brought about a reduction in poverty
and inequality, with the latter increasing worldwide. And
yet, when properly planned and managed, urbanization
can contribute to socioeconomic development, including
poverty reduction.2
Cities have emerged on the radar of international
development partly due to unprecedented demographic
growth, impacts of climate change, increased human
exposure to natural hazards and other urban risks. That
the international community is now receptive to thepositive potential of urbanization follows the recognition
that processes and activities in cities, such as unchecked
consumption, have significant repercussions on the global
environment and can push the planet beyond its ecologicallimits.3

Cities have emerged on the radarof international development partly
due to unprecedented demographic
growth, impacts of climate change,
increased human exposure to natural
hazards and other urban risks

3

The rising profile of urbanization in global policy discussions
can in part be attributed to the advocacy and activism of theGroup of 77+China coalition of developing countries at theUnited Nations, working within the multilateral processes
that shape global development priorities. Their diplomaticefforts were also supported by the United Nations Sustainable
Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a body set up
under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-Generaland UN-Habitat. Together with key partners from acrossthe urban sector, these groups formed the Campaign for
an Urban SDG, which successfully lobbied during the SDG
negotiations for urban-specific Goal 11.4 With the ratificationof the SDGs in 2015, at a United Nations General Assembly
meeting featuring Pope Francis, and following the broadest,
most participatory multilateral process in the history ofUnited Nations, urbanization was thus thrust into the global
limelight. The complexity of reaching a global consensus insecuring an urban goal and agreeing on an agenda that hasuniversal appeal was part of a process that has been described
as a significant political battle characterized by variant oreven conflicting positions held and promoted by different
actors and competing priorities, which forced advocatesof sustainable urbanization to make a compelling case thatcities are a central driver of global development priorities.5
Such a case was made successfully due in large part to theemergence of a certain optimism about urbanization at
the beginning of the twenty-first century, especially theimportance of cities in developed countries. The “devolution
revolution” that devolved national power to the local level
and the subsequent sense that as the unit of government
closest to citizens, cities were more capable than countriesof taking action and working across borders in addressing
common global issues, also led to the political rise of urban
areas in the diplomatic arena.6
The international research community has been pivotal
in bringing the urban question to the fore by helping
to coordinate, integrate and prioritize evidence andideas across the complex parts of the multifaceted urban
question. For example, the last few decades have witnesseda proliferation of disciplines, including the hard sciences,that has taken up an elevated urban research focus witha concerted effort to demonstrate that “cities need not
be environmental sinks.”7 This reinvigorated “science of
cities” has further enhanced the expansion and sharing

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. © Eduardo Moreno

of knowledge largely due to the interconnection between
technology and development.
The emergence of the global agenda from multilateralprocesses is recognition of how critical cities are tosustainable development. SDG 11 is not only fundamental
to achieving sustainable urbanization, but it also provides
a multilateral platform for cities to build and strengthen
partnerships as well as gain additional resources foradvancing sustainable urban development.8 SDG 11 has
been described as: “the strongest expression yet by theinternational development community of the critical rolethat cities play in the planet’s future.”9 It is believed that
the SDG 11 will:iii. Address the specific challenges of urban poverty andaccess to cost-effective infrastructure and housing, withcross-cutting benefits across a range of SDGs.
iv. Promote integrated and innovative infrastructure
design and service delivery, using technology-driven
and energy-efficient solutions.
v. Promote land-use planning and efficient spatialconcentration, while bringing a territorial approach to
the SDGs.
vi. Ensure urban resilience to climate change and disasterrisk reduction; andi. Educate leaders and the public and focus politicalattention on urgent urban challenges and future
opportunities.

vii. Give urban and local governments a place at the table
to influence decision-making in achieving sustainable
development.10

ii. Mobilize and empower all urban actors around practicalproblem-solving, so that they may work collectively
towards common objectives.

Some of the key issues emerging from the implementationof SDG 11 are summarized in Box 1.1.

4

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 1.1: The view from the ground: What the Voluntary National Reviews of SDG 11 revealed
United Nations Member States volunteer annually to report on their progress toward the SDGs at an event known as the High-Level
Political Forum. In 2018, SDG 11 was among the six SDGs under review. UN-Habitat’s analysis of the 46 Voluntary National Reviews(VNRs) for SDG 11 reveals that Member States have adopted varied approaches towards achieving the goal to “make cities and humansettlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” in line with their specific national challenges.
The notion of leaving no one or place behind features prominently in the VNRs with links to national strategies and specific issues,
such as housing and the proliferation of slums, rural-urban divide, spatial and gender equality and public space. Member States also
focus on vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities, women and young girls, youth and older persons.
In highly urbanized countries, reoccurring themes were rural-urban connectivity, depopulation, sustainable transport, climate
resilience, the green economy and pollution. Reports across countries addressed the importance of climate change adaptationand mitigation, with few countries discussing support for disaster-prone developing countries. The deployment of technology andinnovation in decision-making and responding to urban challenges featured prominently, as did the notion of “smart cities.”
Reporting countries in Asia and Africa recognized the importance of investing in cities, but in those regions the rapid rate ofurbanization has been associated with negative externalities that need to be addressed. Over 90 per cent of countries reported
challenges relating to housing and the need to establish social housing programmes to curb the proliferation of informal settlements.
Eighty-two per cent of reporting countries stressed the importance of investing in safe and sustainable transport that supports
interurban mobility. Reporting countries supported the use of non-motorized transport systems in pursuit of more sustainabletransport services and green, pedestrian-friendly cities. Although many countries are cognizant of the interrelated nature of the SDGs
and NUA, they presented few policy interventions to exploit such linkages.
To ensure the achievement of SDG 11, the VNRs identified four key areas that need to be improved upon:i.

Reinvigorate governance and civil society participation: Develop effective institutions and structures to oversee theimplementation of national urban plans, strengthen urban governance and stakeholder collaboration, increase civil society
participation and incorporate urban planning into local development.

ii. Reinforce financial mechanisms: Establish financial frameworks that attract sustainable investments, promote fiscal
decentralization especially in developing countries, increase the productive role of cities and urban territories, and enhancecollaborations with international development banks and the private sector to scale up urban investment in line with NUA
principles.
iii. Capacity development: Enhance the human resources and capacity of policymakers and technical personnel to implement the
NUA and the urban dimension of the SDGs.
iv. Technology and information: Increase the use of technology to produce open data to monitor and better manage urban
development.
Source: UN-Habitat, 2019a.

5

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceApart from SDG 11, which explicitly covers sustainable
cities and communities, nearly all of the other goals require
meaningful progress at the city level in order to be met, andas such, many targets beyond those attributed to the urban
SDG are relevant to local governments. Development
analysts argue that up to 65 per cent of the SDG targets are
at risk should local urban stakeholders not be assigned aclear role in the implementation of the agenda.11
Accepting that we live in a predominantly urban world
makes it easier to ascribe value to cities as criticaldevelopment points. But in giving greater weight tothe urban question, it is important to acknowledge thatwhile there is now near universal agreement that cities areimportant and must be given even greater attention, there
remains disagreement over why and how cities can andshould add value to the ambitions of 2030.

1.2. Cities and Development: An Enduring
Issue

Cities are now deeply rooted at thecentre of development debates owing to
the greater appreciation of the positive
nature and benefits that accompany
planned urbanization

When well-planned, urbanization is associated with greater
productivity, opportunities and improved quality of life forall.12 Cities drive economic growth, innovation and greater
societal freedoms. Progressive institutional change—such as
women’s advancement, gender equality and entrenchmentof the rights of minority groups—frequently take holdfirst in cities (Chapter 5). Highly urbanized countries
are generally associated with positive societal outcomessuch as higher incomes, lower poverty rates, stronger andresilient institutions that enable economies to withstandglobal shocks, enhanced democratic accountability, moregender equality and technological innovation.13

Cities and urbanization have had a long and significant
relationship to development. But it has not always been thecase that what happened in cities was linked to wider global
or national processes. Especially when only a minority of theworld’s population was urban, it was easy for policymakers
to ignore cities as exceptional bubbles that needed no
special attention and could largely take care of themselves.
What is new is that cities are now seen as an integral partof the global system. There is more interest in the scale andintensity of current and future urban processes becauseof the linkages and flows between town and country thathave enhanced the overall significance of urban living inshaping planetary dynamics. The emergence of a “global
urban agenda” enshrined in multilateral accords likethe 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the New
Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030 signals a formal recognition by Member Statesof the United Nations that urban processes hold the key tosustainable development at a worldwide scale.

These cumulative benefits point to one conclusion: There isan intrinsic value associated with sustainable urbanization.
Urbanization therefore represents an opportunity that canbe harnessed to increase the wellbeing of all urban dwellers
and their rural counterparts.14 In acknowledging this new
global and national scaling of interest in the urban, thequestion of how and why urbanization has risen to thismore prominent status becomes salient. Indeed, now thatthe urban agenda has emerged, it has been “written into
contemporary global politics” through particular sectors
and kinds of disciplinary knowledge.15 Moreover, the various
theoretical and disciplinary traditions used to legitimize the
new urban agenda—the generalized view of cities as a toolfor development rather than the specific negotiated outcome
document—each have their own way of conceptualizing
urban processes as objects of inquiry and intervention.16 The
status afforded to the urban agenda is partly a function ofthis uneven sectoral and intellectual framing. The applicationof these foundational ideas is then entrenched throughprofessional practices, including the defining of indicatorsthat value or weight some issues over others.

Cities are now deeply rooted at the centre of development
debates owing to the greater appreciation of the positive
nature and benefits that accompany planned urbanization.

Yet in the process of calling the urban sector into the global
political and developmental realm and the push to makeclear that cities cannot be ignored, there is a false impression

6

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

that there exists consensus on why the concentration ofpeople, resources and economic activity in a circumscribedgeographic area is so important. In making the generalargument for cities, certain kinds of urban phenomena
and knowledge have been rendered more prominent orvisible. Given this tendency, it is important to reflect
not only on the content and emphases of the new urban
agenda, but also on its disconnections or omissions. Doingso prevents an overly simplistic or celebratory tone fromtaking precedence when talking about the implications ofan increasingly urban world and global policy landscape.

1.3. Implementing the New Urban Agenda
While largely beneficial, urbanization occurs amidst
entrenched planetary challenges. Many cities suffer fromthe impacts of climate change, inequality and exclusion,
inadequate infrastructure, uneven access to basic services
and a lack of economic opportunities for young people andminority groups. In addition, lax regulatory frameworks
have permitted the elite and ruling classes to benefit
disproportionately from urbanization through real estate
speculation, or even to appropriate city assets outright.17
Besides which, the process of urbanization in many contexts
is based on a model that is environmentally, socially andeconomically unsustainable.18 In these contexts, the processof urbanization erodes the inherent value that comes with it.

Many cities suffer from the impacts ofclimate change, inequality and exclusion,
inadequate infrastructure, uneven accessto basic services and a lack of economic
opportunities for young people andminority groups

7

It is these persistent and emerging challenges of urbanizationthat the NUA addresses, as it provides an action-oriented
road map to guide sustainable urbanization globally tothe year 2036. In many respects, the NUA represents aparadigm shift that will:a. Readdress the way cities and human settlements areplanned, financed, developed, governed and managed,
while recognizing sustainable urban and territorial
development as essential to the achievement ofsustainable development and prosperity for all.
b. Recognize the leading role of national governments, as
appropriate, in the definition and implementation ofinclusive and effective urban policies and legislation
for sustainable urban development, and the equallyimportant contributions of subnational and local
governments, as well as civil society and other relevant
stakeholders, in a transparent and accountable manner.
c. Adopt sustainable, people-centred, age- and genderresponsive and integrated approaches to urban andterritorial development by implementing policies,
strategies, capacity development and actions at alllevels.19
The NUA is anchored on three transformative commitmentsthat are grounded in the integrated and indivisible
dimensions of sustainable development—social, economicand environmental. The transformative commitments
are: sustainable urban development for social inclusionand ending poverty; sustainable and inclusive urban
prosperity and opportunities for all; and environmentally
sustainable and resilient urban development.20 The valueof sustainable urbanization as discussed in Chapters 3, 4
and 5 encapsulates the three transformative commitmentsof the NUA. The effective implementation of the NUA,
which is an accelerator for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, can enhance the value of sustainableurbanization by creating socially inclusive cities where
poverty is eradicated; generating inclusive urban prosperity
and opportunities for all; and building environmentally
sustainable and resilient urban development. Indeed, the
NUA offers a global vision for people, the planet and longterm prosperity in which urbanization plays a vital role forpositive change.

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Manifestation of spatial inequality in Mumbai, India.
© Johnny Miller Photography

8

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The NUA places emphasis on effective
implementation at the local level and on
the role of local governments
The NUA places emphasis on effective implementation
at the local level and on the role of local governments. It
affirms “sustainable urban development as a critical stepfor realizing sustainable development in an integrated
and coordinated manner at the global, regional, national,
subnational and local levels.”21 The implementationof the NUA contributes to the achievement andlocalization of the SDGs by providing an implementing
framework for the integrated delivery of many SDGs at
the urban level. In particular, it covers substantive areas
partially covered or not covered by the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, namely the additional means of
implementation and localization.
Following the adoption of the NUA, a major task was
to develop an enabling framework for its effective
implementation at the national, subnational and local levels
that would link the NUA to the SDGs. The impact of the
NUA will depend on the effectiveness of its implementationand the extent to which it is mainstreamed into national
development policy. An integrated approach to sustainableurbanization by various actors, as well as enhanced
coordination and coherence, is crucial to its implementation.
Drawing from its normative and operational work,
UN-Habitat proposed the Action Framework for
Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA).22
This framework is designed as a basis for achieving the urban
dimensions of the SDGs, as well as other international
development frameworks relevant to sustainableurbanization—the Paris Agreement on Climate Change,
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and
the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. The AFINUA identifies
the basic ingredients for the implementation of the NUA,

9

who should lead each, how they might be measured andhow these are linked to the provisions of the NUA. The
AFINUA sets out five themes, which can be referred toas the “elements of planned urbanization”: national urban
policies; urban legislation, rules and regulations; integrated
urban design and territorial planning; urban economy andmunicipal finance; and local implementation.
These elements require political buy-in at the national
level and the necessary capacity at the local level. In an
ideal situation, these elements should be interrelated
and mutually reinforcing. Such links will not occur
automatically, but rather should be facilitated by policy,
planning and efficient institutions. This effort involves
prioritization of actions as well as selection of interventions
through appropriate decisions and monitoring. This
strategic harmonization of actions will undoubtably
contribute to the effectiveness of the AFINUA.
1.3.1. Linkages between the New Urban Agenda
and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development23

The New Urban Agenda emphasizes the importance ofacting on the linkages between global development agendas.
It focuses on where national governments, working in
partnership with local governments, the private sector,
NGOs and the grassroots, must enact change to ensurethat cities and human settlements are planned, developed
and managed sustainably. The NUA promotes this visionbecause there is a spatial dimension to sustainable
development. The built environment in which people live,
work, learn and play will influence their development
outcomes. In acknowledgment of the interlinkages withother global agendas, the NUA complements SDG 11 bydetailing strategic actions that are necessary for cities
and human settlements to support and facilitate effective
implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.
The NUA is the first internationally agreed document
detailing implementation of the urban dimension of the
SDGs. It builds on SDG 11, but addresses a wider range ofurbanization and human settlements issues.
Sustainable urbanization as spelled out in the NUA has a
key role to play in the United Nations Decade of Action
to accelerate sustainable solutions to the world’s biggest
challenges.24 With ten years left to achieve the SDGs,

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceWith ten years left to achieve theSDGs, the importance of sustainableurbanization as an entry point for
ensuring progress across multiple SDGs
needs to be reemphasized
the importance of sustainable urbanization as an entry
point for ensuring progress across multiple SDGs needs
to be reemphasized. When well-planned and managed,
urbanization can serve as a catalyst for the realization ofmany urban-related SDGs. Planned urbanization has a keyrole to play in eradicating poverty, reducing inequality,
addressing climate change, enhancing gender equality,
providing productive employment, driving economic
growth and facilitating sustainable consumption andproduction patterns, among others positive attributes.
The sectoral nature of the SDGs requires a spatial
framework, which the NUA provides. For instance, itwill be impossible to address poverty (SDG 1), inequality(SDG 10), climate change (SDG 13), gender equality (SDG
5), water and sanitation (SDG 6), economic growth andemployment (SDG 8), industrialization and innovation(SDG 9) and consumption and production patterns (SDG
12) without addressing the way cities are planned, managed
and governed.
Most of the SDGs and targets relevant to cities and humansettlements focus on people, households and communities,
rather than on processes. For example, the means of
implementation for SDG 11 are very restrictive. Goal 11’s
targets cover areas like urban-rural linkages (11a), resilienceplans (11b) and local building materials (11c). These targets
do not cover the most relevant means of implementation
required to achieve sustainable urbanization. Similarly, themeans of implementation of other relevant SDGs (water,energy, industrialization and climate change) do not coversome of the essential requirements in the context of cities
and human settlements. This gap is filled by the means of
implementation elaborated in the NUA document.

One of the ways in which the NUA expands on the meansof implementation of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs is byaddressing strategic spatial and governance frameworks
essential for implementation of the 2030 Agenda andSDGs within urban areas, such as national urban policies,
legislation, spatial planning and local finance frameworks.
These frameworks, which are central to the NUA, will
facilitate implementation within cities not only of SDG 11,
but also of many other SDGs.
In some areas, such as urban basic services, the NUA
deepens the scope of some of the targets of SDG 11. For
example, transport is reflected more comprehensively in
the NUA than in the SDGs, where it is limited to targets
11.2 (access to public transport) and 3.6 (road traffic
accidents). By contrast, there is a range of recommendations
pertaining to sustainable transport and mobility in the
NUA, such as sustainable transport infrastructure andservices generation; rural-urban linkages; travel demand
management; road safety; climate change, air quality
and energy efficiency; freight transport; land use, urban
transport planning; transport poverty, equity and inclusion;
capacity building; and sustainable transport financing. TheNUA not only deepens the scope of implementation, butalso proposes more integrated responses at the urban level,
thereby providing a more detailed road map that will assist
policymakers in creating a more sustainable urban future.
Although a document negotiated and agreed uponby Member States, the NUA places emphasis on
implementation at the local level. In this regard, Chapter
7 discusses the vital contribution of local governments in
unlocking the value of sustainable urbanization. Whilethe 2030 Agenda also acknowledges the importance of
implementation at the local level and the role of local
governments, it positions local and regional governments
in tandem with major groups and other stakeholders
while giving national governments primacy. The NUA
seeks a more balanced distribution of authority for the
implementation of the urban dimension of sustainable
development by empowering local authorities. Such a roleis appropriate because local governments have traditionallyfacilitated development and provided services directly
to households, as well as overseen spatial development
through local planning, governance and financial policies.
Consequently, the NUA also emphasizes the need to10WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

develop the capacity of local authorities and other local
actors to implement both the NUA and the SDGs.

1.4. Recent Global Urban Trends andConditions

Given that the NUA addresses a much wider rangeof urban issues than the SDGs, it requires its own
follow-up and review process, which consists of a series ofquadrennial reports, a midterm review of the New Urban
Agenda (Quito+10) and annual dialogues at the World
Urban Forum and UN-Habitat Governing Council. This
follow-up and review process is complementary to thatof the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, with regular overlap every
three years when the High-Level Political Forum addresses
SDG 11. Ahead of the midterm review of the Sustainable
Development Goals in 2022, the follow-up and review of
the NUA will have to feed into the overall follow-up andreview of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs.

The New Urban Agenda, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and other global frameworks relevant
to sustainable urbanization were adopted in times of
profound global changes and challenges. The Kuala
Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030 adopted at the NinthWorld Urban Forum in 2018 acknowledged several trends
and challenges typical of our increasingly urbanized worldsuch as limited opportunities for collective city-making,inequitable access to urban life, gender inequalities
in urban economies and leadership, and insufficient
protection from human rights violations like forced
evictions.26 The Abu Dhabi Declared Actions adopted
at the Tenth World Urban Forum in 2020 moved fromchallenges to solutions as international organizations, local
and regional governments, the private sector, civil society,academia and other groups enumerated commitments toaccelerate the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.27
An understanding of these challenges, many of which haveintensified since 2016 and were further exacerbated by
the recent outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, as wellas the types of actions taken to address them, is crucial
for achieving sustainable urbanization. These trends also
have implications for unlocking the value of sustainableurbanization.

The first quadrennial report on the implementation of
the NUA, issued 18 months after the agenda’s adoption,
provides many lessons, challenges and opportunities.25 In
some cases, there has been low levels of awareness regarding
the potential benefits of urbanization and of urban-related
commitments made in global development agendas.
National authorities are burdened by low institutional andfiscal capacity and weak multilevel governance structuresand multi-stakeholder engagement. The implementationof the New Urban Agenda demands local actions; thistype of action requires institutional, organizational, policy
and financial capacity that is often lacking or poorly
developed in many countries. The capacity to strengthen
devolution and local autonomy in many countries is low,
and many cities continue to lack financial resources andthe technical capacity to manage the challenges associatedwith urbanization.

The NUA seeks a more balanced
distribution of authority for the
implementation of the urban dimensionof sustainable development by
empowering local authorities

11

1.4.1. Demographic change and related trends

The world continues to experience an increase in its urban
population even as the rate of urbanization in many regions
has slowed from previous decades. Nevertheless, urban
areas are expected to absorb virtually all the future growthof the world’s population. At the time of adoption of the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, 54 percent (4 billion) of the world’s population lived in urban
areas (Table 1.1); by the end of the 20-year period covering
the New Urban Agenda in 2036, 62 per cent (5.4 billion) of
the global population is expected to reside in urban areas.28
Ninety-six per cent of urban growth will occur in the lessdeveloped regions of East Asia, South Asia and Africa withthree countries—India, China and Nigeria—accounting for
35 per cent of the total increase in global urban populationfrom 2018 to 2050.29 These countries are expected to add 416
million, 255 million and 189 million new urban dwellers,
respectively.

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceTable 1.1: Urban population and level of urbanization (2000-2035)
Percentage urban

Urban population (million)
Region

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

World

2868

3216

3595

3981

4379

4775

5167

5556

46.7

49.2

51.7

53.9

56.2

58.3

60.4

62.5

High-Income Countries

822

870

919

955

989

1019

1049

1076

76.8

78.6

80

80.9

81.9

82.8

83.9

85.0

Middle-Income Countries

1935

2211

2511

2825

3145

3456

3757

4045

41.6

44.7

47.9

50.8

53.7

56.5

59

61.5

Low-Income Countries

109

133

162

199

243

296

359

432

25.7

27.2

28.9

30.9

33.2

35.7

38.3

41.2

Africa

286

341

409

492

588

698

824

966

35

36.9

38.9

41.2

43.5

45.9

48.4

50.9

Asia

1400

1631

1877

2120

2361

2590

2802

2999

37.5

41.2

44.8

48

51.1

54

56.7

59.2

Europe

517

525

538

547

557

565

573

580

71.1

71.9

72.9

73.9

74.9

76.1

77.5

79.0

Latin America and the
Caribbean

397

433

470

505

539

571

600

627

75.5

77.1

78.6

79.9

81.2

82.4

83.6

84.7

Northern America

247

262

277

291

305

320

335

349

79.1

80

80.8

81.6

82.6

83.6

84.7

85.8

Oceania

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

68.3

68

68.1

68.1

68.2

68.5

68.9

69.4

Source: United Nations, 2018b.

With 2.3 billion people living in cities, Asia has the highest
number of urban dwellers worldwide; the region is 50.1
per cent urbanized and accounts for 54 per cent of theworld’s urban population.30 The process of urbanizationin Asia, especially South-East Asia, is strongly linked
to economic transition and greater integration into
the global economy, as many cities have become therecipients of foreign direct investment, mainly in theform of the outsourcing of manufacturing of consumer
goods by parent companies in developed countries.
Urbanization in South-East Asia is leading to an economictransformation across the region as workers increasingly
gravitate to the service sector.31 Indeed, the economic
hubs of Asia are almost entirely urban-based as its cities
thrive with investments, infrastructure, innovation andcompetitiveness.
Urban growth rates vary remarkably across the world. The
highest growth rates are in the developing regions, with
Africa having urbanized the most rapidly at 3.7 per centannually between 2010 and 2015 (Table 1.2); this figure
is projected to have declined marginally to 3.57 per centbetween 2015 and 2020, but still remains the highest of
any region. Africa’s rapid urbanization is driven mainly
by natural increase, rural-urban migration, spatial
expansion of urban settlements through annexation andthe reclassification of rural areas.

Compared to other developing regions, Africa shows much
lower income levels than other regions at similar levels ofurbanization.32 This discrepancy means that Africa is notreaping all of the potential economic development benefitsof urbanization. By contrast, countries in East Asia andthe Pacific surpassed the 50 per cent level or urbanizationin 2009 with an average GDP per capita of US$5,300. The
Middle East and North Africa region became at least halfurban in 1981 with an average GDP per capita of US$3,700
and Latin America and the Caribbean region crossed the 50
per cent threshold in 1961 with an average GDP per capita
of US$2,300. Meanwhile, Sub-Saharan Africa is currently
41.4 per cent urban with an average GDP per capita of
US$1,574 (2018).33

Compared to other developing regions,
Africa shows much lower income levels
than other regions at similar levels ofurbanization

12

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

MindTheStep project in Sao Paulo Brazil. © UN-Habitat

13

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

The world’s urban population of 4.3 billion is unevenly
distributed among human settlements of different sizes.
The world has witnessed an increasing concentration ofpeople in highly urbanized areas, especially megacities or
those metropolitan areas with at least 10 million people.
There are 33 megacities worldwide, which accounted for 13
per cent of the world’s urban population in 2018, up from
9 per cent in 2000. Latin America leads the charge in thisregard with 18 per cent of its urban population residing
in megacities. While megacities are notable for their size,
concentration of economic activities and influence in the
global economy, they are not the fastest growing type ofcity, nor do they represent most of the urban population.
Indeed, the fastest growing cities are the small and medium“intermediate” or “secondary” cities with less than 1 million
inhabitants, which account for 59 per cent of the world’s
urban population and a majority of the urban populationin every region.34 The growth of intermediate cities will
help foster better urban-rural linkages and relieve some ofthe quality of life strain, such as rampant informal housing,environmental degradation and long commutes, that canbe endemic to megacities.
Despite the demographic importance and potential role ofintermediate cities, urban planning in developing countries
has focused disproportionately on the problems of large
metropolitan areas, thereby further fuelling the problem

While megacities are notable for theirsize, concentration of economic activities
and influence in the global economy, they
are not the fastest growing type of cityof urban primacy. If small and medium cities are to fulfil
their potential, then they should form part of the urban
planning agenda for developing countries in the twenty-first
century.35 In this regard, the NUA calls for strengthening therole of small and intermediate cities and towns in providing
access to sustainable, affordable, adequate, resilient and safe
housing, infrastructure and services as well as facilitating
effective trade links across the urban-rural continuum.
Gender, youth and older persons

Urbanization provides unique momentum to advancegender equality, as it is often associated with greater
access to education and employment opportunities, lower
fertility rates and increased independence. Yet, women’sequal “right to the city” is still far from being realized,
especially among lower-income women.36 The growing
number of women-headed households in cities and theparticipation of women in the labour market imposes new
requirements on the location of homes vis-à-vis places of
employment and urban services, as well as to the layout
and management of transportation systems.37

Table 1.2: Urban rate of change 2000-2035
Region/Area

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Urban Population

Entire Period

2000-2005

2005-20102010-2015

2015-2020

2020-2025

2025-2030

2030-2035

2000-2035

World

2.29%

2.23%

2.04%

1.90%

1.73%

1.58%

1.45%

1.89%

High-Income Countries

1.13%

1.11%

0.76%

0.69%

0.61%

0.57%

0.51%

0.77%

Middle-Income Countries

2.67%

2.54%

2.36%

2.14%

1.89%

1.67%

1.48%

2.11%

Low-Income Countries

3.90%

3.98%

4.08%

4.03%

3.96%

3.85%

3.70%

3.93%

Africa

3.52%

3.61%

3.70%

3.58%

3.44%

3.32%

3.19%

3.48%

Asia

3.06%

2.80%

2.43%

2.16%

1.84%

1.58%

1.35%

2.18%

Europe

0.33%

0.46%

0.35%

0.35%

0.30%

0.28%

0.26%

0.33%

Latin America & the
Caribbean

1.74%

1.61%

1.47%

1.30%

1.15%

1.00%

0.85%

1.30%

Northern America

1.13%

1.13%

0.95%

0.95%

0.96%

0.92%

0.84%

0.98%

Oceania

1.35%

1.78%

1.54%

1.42%

1.30%

1.24%

1.18%

1.40%

Source: United Nations, 2018b

14

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Men, women, boys and girls experience cities in very
different ways on account of gendered social rules, norms
and culture; subtle discrimination against women suchas micro-aggressions; institutionalized gender bias; andthe structural asymmetrical distribution of power andresources between men and women. These different
experiences suggest that the value attached to urbanization
will also be different depending on one’s gender (Chapter2). Public transport can be liberating for a man to affordably
experience urban life, but petrifying for a woman who
suffers from a lack of personal safety. For example, over 65
per cent of women using public transportation in Mexico
City have experienced sexual harassment while travelling.38
Public space can offer a livelihood for men to sell street
food, but not offer the same guarantee to women. For
example, 92 per cent of women in Rabat, Morocco and 68
per cent of women in Quito, Ecuador have experienced
sexual harassment in public spaces.39 These disparities also
manifest in areas like limited land and property ownership(women account only for 25 per cent of the landowners in
Latin America).40

An important demographic trend that has
implications for urban areas, particularly
in developing countries, is the relatively
large proportion of the youth population
aged 15 to 24
An important demographic trend that has implications
for urban areas, particularly in developing countries, is therelatively large proportion of the youth population aged 15
to 24. The world youth population is projected to rise to 1.3
billion by 2030.41 In many developing countries, the decline
in infant mortality and increase in fertility over several
decades has created a youth population boom. In Africa,
youth comprise almost 20 per cent of the population and 35
per cent of the global youth population.42 While a youthful
population can present challenges for ensuring educationand employment, it could be an advantage against thedevastating impacts of COVID-19 (see section 1.4.7). In
Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia and West
Asia, youths account for between 17 and 19 per cent of
the population. In some regions, the energy of a youthful
population has been harnessed to nefarious ends. The highlevels of youth unemployment in Latin America and the15

Caribbean is associated with the proliferation of youth
gangs and high rates of urban crime and violence.43
Currently, youth and children collectively account for nearly
40 per cent of the world’s population. It is predicted that by
2030, 60 per cent of urban dwellers in developing countries
will be under the age of 18.44 A large youthful population
presents the challenge of youth unemployment, which is
two to three times higher than adult unemployment. The
provision of training and employment opportunities, aswell as investments in sports and recreational facilities will
make cities more attractive and healthier for youth while
encouraging pro-social behaviour. UN-Habitat’s One Stop

Box 1.2: Providing for youth in Wau, South Sudan
In South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, young people
in the north-western city of Wau now have a place to relax,learn and come together following the opening of the
One Stop Youth Centre with funding from Japan. The newcentre provides a space for conflict resolution forums aswell as opportunities for vocational and computer training,
recreational activities, job placement and entrepreneurial
skills development. It is a model that UN-Habitat has
pioneered to promote youth development across East Africa.
The centre has already trained 72 young men and womenin conflict resolution and trauma healing and 170 youth
have enrolled in computer, tailoring and English courses. Up
to 100 young people use the sports facilities daily and thecentre has attracted youth from all over the state, includinginternally displaced people.
During the inauguration, the Japanese Ambassador to South
Sudan handed equipment for basketball, volleyball andhandball to the centre in the presence of the Governor, thenational Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports and the Wau
State Minister of Information, Culture, Youth and Sports. The
Japanese Ambassador called on the youth to dream big anddevelop the country noting that: “The next responsibility forthe development of South Sudan lies with you, young people.”
Source: UN-Habitat, 2019b.

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Youth Centres in East Africa provide meeting places foryoung people to access information and resources criticalto youth-led development programmes (Box 1.2).
Population ageing has been described as one of thedemographic megatrends that hold important implications
for economic and social development and for environmental
sustainability.45 The so-called “global greying” is emerging
as one of the most significant social transformations of thetwenty-first century, with implications for financial andlabour markets as workers retire. This demographic wave
will impact the demand for goods and services such as
housing, transportation and social protection, all of which
are strongly linked to urban areas. In 2018, for the firsttime in history, persons aged 65 years or over worldwide
outnumbered children under age five.46 Ageing of the
population is occurring in all countries all over the world,with the population aged 65 and over being the fastest
growing age group—increasing from 6.9 per cent in 200047
to 9.1 per cent in 2019.48 The proportion of older persons
in the world is projected to reach nearly 11.7 per cent in
2030 and 15.9 per cent in 2050. The increase in the ageing
population has been occasioned by declining fertility rates
and improvements in life expectancy over the latter half ofthe twentieth century.
Ageing and its consequences, such as too few workers
to support a large population of pensioners and theneed for housing designed to meet the physical needsof older persons, appear gradually and predictably. As
such, policymakers have time to address these issues
before they become acute problems.49 It is imperativethat countries plan for population ageing, safeguard
the wellbeing of older persons and ensure that they
are not left behind by protecting their human rights
and economic security as well as by ensuring access toage-appropriate healthcare services, built environment
facilities, lifelong learning opportunities, and formal
and informal support networks. The recent outbreak

An important demographic trend that has
implications for urban areas, particularly
in developing countries, is the relatively
large proportion of the youth population
aged 15 to 24

of COVID-19 poses a major threat to older persons as
those aged 65 years and over account for 80 per centof fatalities, making countries with a sizeable ageing
population particularly vulnerable.
1.4.2. Urban footprints growing faster than urban
population

Urban sprawl, a spatial phenomenon initially used todescribe the suburbanization of land-rich developed
countries of North America and Australia, is now occurringin cities in all over the world.50 Whether horizontal
spreading, dispersed urbanization or peri-urbanization,
the physical extent of urban areas is growing much
faster than their population, thereby consuming moreland for urban development. The unbridled expansionof urban areas has profound implications for energy
consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change
and environmental degradation. Findings from a global
sample of 200 cities with over 100,000 inhabitants showthat between 1990 and 2015, cities in developed countries
increased their urban land area by 1.8-fold while the urban
population increased by 1.2-fold; thus, implying that the
expansion of urban areas in relation to urban population
growth increased by a ratio of 1.5.51
In the case of developing countries, over the same period,
urban land use increased 3.5-fold, while the urban population
increased one-fold or doubled. This suggests that urban
expansion increased 3.5 times in relation to urban population
growth. Further findings suggest that the expansion of urban
areas in developed and developing countries is projected
to grow by a factor of 1.9 and 3.7, respectively, between
2015 and 2050.52 However, if urban areas are effectively
planned, managed and governed, then the urban expansion
in both developing and developed countries will grow at
a projected factor of 1.1 and 2.5, respectively. Elsewhere,
it has been estimated that by 2030, cities are expected tocover three times as much land as they did in 2000, withmuch of the expansion occurring in relatively undisturbed
key biodiversity hotspots.53 These projections indicate thequantitative value of well-planned urbanization, which canpreserve excess land from peri-urban redevelopment.
Table 1.3 provides an indication of the expansion of urban
areas in different regions. Despite the rapid rate of growth of
the urban population in developing regions, the expansion

16

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table 1.3: Growth in urban expansion and urban population
Geographic Regions

Average of Urban Extent
Annual Change
2000-2015

Average of Urban Extent
Population Annual
Change 2000-2015

Ratio of Urban
Extent to Urban
Population

Sub-Saharan Africa

5.1%

4.2%

1.20

North Africa and Western Asia

4.0%

2.7%

1.45

North Africa
Western Asia

4.5%
3.5%

3.1%
2.4%

1.43
1.46

Central and Southern Asia

4.3%

3.0%

1.46

Central Asia
Southern Asia

5.1%
4.3%

4.3%
2.8%

1.18
1.50

East and South-East Asia

6.9%

4.2%

1.65

East Asia
South-East Asia

7.2%
5.7%

4.1%
4.4%

1.77
1.31

Latin America and the Caribbean

2.1%

1.9%

1.12

Caribbean*
Central America
South America

0.3%
2.6%
2.0%

0.8%
2.3%
1.8%

0.35
1.14
1.13

Oceania

1.2%

1.4%

0.86

Australia and New Zealand **Oceania [excl. Australia and New Zealand] ***

1.1%
1.3%

1.7%
0.8%

0.67
1.64

Europe and North America

2.1%

1.0%

2.06

North America
Europe

2.0%
2.1%

1.5%
0.7%

1.32
2.88

Average Global Sample Cities

4.3%

2.8%

1.52

*One city (Holguin)**Two cities (Sidney and Auckland)***One city(Suva)
Source: Based on UN-Habitat, 2016bof urban areas is occurring even faster. For instance, urban
areas in Sub-Saharan Africa expanded at an annual rateof 5.1 per cent between 2000 and 2015, behind East Asia
and South-East Asia, where the expansion of urban areas
grew at annual average rates of 7.2 per cent and 5.7 per cent,respectively. The rate of urban expansion in these regions ishigher than the global average of 4.3 per cent.
The expansion of African cities, characterized by the
spreading out of large cities at a remarkable pace, has beendifficult to manage.54 In the process, these cities engulf
surrounding rural land and adjacent towns, leading tocontinuous belts of settlements.55 This process of periurbanization, which is largely informal, is driven by theefforts of low-income households to secure affordable
land in a reasonable location. It has led to the emergenceof new settlement forms, which current planning and17

regulatory frameworks are unable to address effectively.
These sprawling urban peripheries are often disconnectedfrom the main urban fabric. They lack the necessary roadconnections for efficient urban travel and increase the costof providing municipal services. The failure to effectively
plan and manage the expansion of urban areas has led toserious resilience challenges, such as housing affordability,
traffic congestion, poor access to labour markets and public
space, natural hazard risk to communities, loss of naturalenvironment and ecosystems and lack of basic services
such as water, sanitation and electricity.56 The absence ofbasic services increases the vulnerability of these areas tothe coronavirus disease, as is currently the case.
Although the ratio of the rate of urban expansion tourban population growth is low in Sub-Saharan African
cities (1.2) when compared to East Asia (1.77) and Europe

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Forceand North America (2.06), cities in these regions havebeen able to offset the reduction of densities throughinnovative planning that contains sprawl and enhances
connectivity, such as urban growth boundaries and urban
infill policies.57 The inadequate planning structures in the
sprawling areas of African cities hinders the developmentof agglomeration economies and the efficient provision of
public goods and services. Since most of the infrastructure
to accommodate rapidly expanding urban areas in Africa
is yet to be built, planning for urban expansion provides
an auspicious opportunity to plan city growth in a mannerthat generates social and economic returns and enhances
inclusive prosperity.
In the US, 80 per cent of metropolitan areas have becomeless dense since 2010 (Box 1.3). Even as jobs have shiftedto urban centres, US residents continue to exhibit
preferences for a suburban lifestyle while those who would
prefer to live in cities must contend with extreme housing
unaffordability as desirable cities have not permitted
sufficient new housing construction to keep up withdemand. This trend has contributed to the country’s highrate of car ownership, distances travelled for work, lengthof paved roads, overall fuel consumption and high personalcarbon footprint.
The spatial expansion of cities is an inevitable consequenceof urban population growth and other contextual factors.
The challenge for planning is to devise mechanisms for
directing or controlling the timing, rate and location ofurban growth. Urban sprawl—whether suburbanizationin North America, peri-urbanization in Africa or
metropolitanization in Asia and Latin America—are all
products of either inappropriate or ineffective planning
regulations. All of these types of sprawl necessitate theadoption of more sustainable urban growth management
policies where both planned expansion and planned infill
play key roles.

Box 1.3: Seattle climbs but Austin sprawls: The
myth of the return to cities
Be skeptical when you hear about the return to glory of theAmerican city—that idealized vision of rising skyscrapers
and bustling, dense downtowns. Contrary to perception,
the nation is continuing to become more suburban, and at
an accelerating pace. The prevailing pattern is growing out,
not up, although with notable exceptions.
Rural areas are lagging metropolitan areas in numerous
measures, but within metro areas the suburbs are growing
faster in both population and jobs. On the other hand, as
anyone who has tried to rent an apartment or buy a condo
in a big city knows, housing prices are climbing faster inurban neighbourhoods than in the suburbs. And urbanneighbourhoods are younger and richer than they used tobe, with more educated residents and fewer school-age
children. Higher-wage jobs are increasingly in city centres,with urban retail catering to these well-paid workers andresidents.
This combination of faster population growth in outlying
areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited
housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people
out to the suburbs. It is a reminder that where people live
reflects not only what they want—but also what is available
and what it costs. However, these broad national trends
hide divergent local ones. A few large metro areas did, infact, become more urban between 2010 and 2016. Of the
51 metro areas with more than one million people, averageneighbourhood density rose in 10 and fell in 41, according
to census population data and United States Postal Service
counts of occupied housing units. That is, four-fifths oflarge metro areas have become more suburban since 2010,
while only one-fifth have become more urban.
Source: Kolko, 2017.

1.4.3. Migration: Opportunity and challenge forinclusive cities

Migration is one of the main factors driving the global
increase in urbanization, and in the process it is making cities
into more diverse places.58 Currently, there are 763 million
internal migrants59 and 272 million international migrants
in the world,60 which means that every seventh person in theworld is a migrant. In many developing countries, internal
rural-to-urban migration in search of economic opportunity
has historically been a key driver of urban growth.61 Safe,orderly and regular migration can be a powerful tool for
lifting people out of poverty, reducing inequality and18

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Refugees migrate to Europe. © Fishman64/Shutterstock

contributing to sustainable development in both place oforigin and destination.62 At the same time, policies that
address the negative drivers of migration such as poverty,
unemployment and insecurity can make remaining in one’s
country more viable for potential migrants.
Most migrants are found in urban areas. Internationalmigrants represents over one-third of the populationin global cities that have become magnets for foreign
talent, from students to professionals, like Toronto, Los
Angeles, Sydney, London, Melbourne, Vancouver, San
Francisco, Malmö, Montréal, Brisbane, The Hague and
New York. In certain international hubs like Brussels,
Dubai and Miami, they significantly outnumber the local
population.63 International migration accounts for about
one-third of urban growth in developed countries64 and isincreasingly transforming urban areas into heterogenous,
multi-ethnic, multicultural and multilingual spaces withcities large and small reacting accordingly to accommodate

19

these newcomers. Such cultural diversity contributes tothe vibrancy, prosperity, inclusiveness, competitiveness,
attractiveness, positive perception and overall developmentof cities, all of which will enhance their intangible value(Chapter 5). It has been shown that culturally diverse cities
are more innovative given that they benefit from a wider
range of international knowledge links, idea generation,
problem-solving, diverse decision-making and ability to
attract a more innovative workforce.65
Rising migration brings both opportunities and challenges
for the migrants, communities and governments
concerned. The rise in international migration calls forpolicies to integrate migrants into cities in an inclusive
manner. In this regard, the United Nations adopted
the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in
201666 as well as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly andRegular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees
in 2018 in response to large movements of refugees andUrbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

protracted refugee situations as well as to define processes
for shared responsibilities.67 The 2030 Agenda recognizes
that international migration is a multidimensional realityof major relevance for the development of countries oforigin, transit and destination, which requires coherent
and comprehensive responses. These global frameworks
reinforce the role of local authorities as central to theintegration of refugees and migrants insofar as cities are thefrontline recipients of migrants. In the absence of effective
integration policies, migration can lead to the formation of
marginalized communities, which could serve as breeding
grounds for exclusion, disenchantment, vulnerability andeven radicalization.68
Cities are also on the frontlines of irregular migration,
defined as movement that takes place outside theregulatory norms of the sending, transit and receiving
country.69 There were 58 million irregular migrants in
2017, up from 50 million in 2009.70 At the core of irregularmigration are restrictive policy regimes both at thecountries of origin and destination that not only reduce
the opportunities for regular migration but also deflectmigrants toward irregular migration channels.71 Whenavenues for regular migration are lacking, intending
migrants are inclined to venture into irregular channels
which are often costly, fraught with risks and potentiallycome with lower benefits for both the migrants and hostcommunities. Even as migration boosts urban economic
prospects, the increase in both regular and irregularmigration over the last decade has triggered a xenophobic
populist backlash fuelled by events like alleged sexualassaults against women in public spaces in Germany on
New Year’s Eve 201672 and fears of a “migrant caravan”
from Central America to the US in 2018.73 The resulting
political climate seeks to restrict immigration, especiallyfrom poorer countries and often from countries of origin
with different racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds thanthe country of destination. Border closures as a responseto the COVID-19 pandemic have accelerated this trend.74

Cities are also on the frontlines ofirregular migration, defined as movementthat takes place outside the regulatory
norms of the sending, transit andreceiving country

Irregular migrants are often exploited for economic gain.
In 2016, 2.5 million irregular migrants were smuggled foran economic return of US$5.5–7 billion.75 They are also
subjected to various forms of risks, severe hardship andphysical danger as they traverse dangerous terrains suchas oceans and deserts, which often result in the fatalities.
The discovery in October 2019 of the bodies of 39 migrants
in a refrigerated trailer in Essex, UK is just one gruesome
example that highlights the risks of irregular migration.76
In seeking a better future, migrants brave harsh practices
designed to deter, prevent and punish irregular entry. Yet even
if they do arrive safely, the difficulties faced by migrants inhost countries can entrench poverty, stereotypes, racism andrealities so different from the rewards initially anticipated.
Irregular migrants face legal barriers and difficulties in
integration, poor living and working conditions, limitedaccess to services including social protection systems andthe inability to make full use of their education and skills
leading to deskilling or “brain waste.”77
1.4.4. Rising levels of inequality in cities

Growing levels of inequality and exclusion are becoming
persistent trends in urban areas where most of the world’s
population growth will occur over the next 30 years.78 For
more than two-thirds of the world’s urban population,
income inequality has increased since 1980.79 Thiswidening gap means that about 2.9 billion people are living
in cities where income inequalities are currently more
pronounced than they were a generation ago. In a rapidly
urbanizing world, the nature of inequality will largely
depend on what happens in urban areas. Inequality withincities has economic, social and spatial manifestations
and is characterized by differentiated access to income,consumption, opportunities, employment, health,education, technology, public spaces, municipal services
and private goods.
Inequalities are reflected in the way urban space isproduced and consumed, with remarkable concentrationof disadvantages in specific locations. More than ever, cities
are demarcated by visible and invisible divides resulting invarious forms of social, cultural and economic exclusion.80
Inequality strongly affects vulnerable groups like womenand girls, older persons, indigenous people, persons
with disabilities, migrants, refugees and people living in

20

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Figure 1.1: Gini coefficients for selected cities in Europe and North America
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100

Zwolle (2015)

Victoria (2016)

Antwerp (2014)

Palermo (2013)

Montreal (2016)

Vancouver (2016)

Milan (2013)

Vienna (2017)

Toronto (2016)

Shefﬁeld (2016)

Manchester (2016)

Killeen (2017)

London (2017)

Raleigh (2017)

Modesto (2017)

Portland, OR (2017)

Minneapolis (2017)

Toledo (2017)

Springﬁeld (2017)

Chicago (2017)

Cleveland (2017)

Houston (2017)

Los Angeles (2017)

Philadelphia (2017)

New York (2017)

Gainesville (2017)

0.000

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

poverty, all of whom are excluded from full participationin economic, political and social life. The outbreak of the
COVID-19
pandemic together with the accompanying
0.700
lockdown measures are exacerbating these inequalities as
0.600
discussed
in section 1.4.7 and Chapter 5.

0.48, 0.50 and 0.48 respectively (Figure 1.1). New York City
epitomizes rising economic inequality in the US, where the
top one per cent earns over 40 per cent of the city’s income,which is double the national share of the top one percent.83
Cities are often bellwethers of national trends and in thisparticularly worrisome trend, city authorities working in
partnership with national authorities have a key role toplay in creating more equal cities and subsequently moreequal countries.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic
0.600
together with the accompanying
lockdown measures are exacerbating
0.500
these inequalities
0.400
0.300

21
0.200

Culiacan(2010)

Caracas(2010)

San Salvador(2010)

Guadalajara(2010)

Valledupar(2017)

San Jose (2010)

Mexico City(2010)

Bogota(2017)

Tijuana(2010)

Cochabamba(2007)

Globally, the regions with the highest levels of inequality
are Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. While Latin
American cities have become more egalitarian in the lasttwo decades, income inequality remains high (Figure 1.2).
The highest levels of inequality are in Curitiba, Santiago,
São Paulo, Guatemala City, Buenos Aires, Córdoba,
Cochabamba and Bogotá, where the Gini coefficients varyfrom 0.50 to 0.67. Between 1990 and 2010, the combined
Gini coefficients for urban areas in Latin American
dropped from 0.517 in 1990 to 0.494.84 This improvement
can be attributed to redistributive policies in somecountries such as Prospera in Mexico85 and Bolsa Família in
Brazil86 that were designed to improve the living standardsof the urban poor through conditional cash transfers andmassive investment in health and education.
Cordoba(2010)

San Pedro Sula (2017)

Tegucigalpa (2017)

Guatemala City(2006)

Resto Urbano (2017)

Leon(2005)

Quito(2010)

Sao Paulo(2009)

Santiago(2009)

Belo Horizonte(2009)

Curitiba(2009)

In countries with widening income gaps, urban inequality
often outpaces national averages. Many cities in the US
have higher Gini coefficients than the national figure of
0.42.82 For example, New York City, Gainesville, Cleveland,
Philadelphia and Chicago have Gini coefficients of 0.51, 0.52,

Buenos Aires(2010)

0.500

Generally, levels of inequality in developed countries
are0.400lower than in developing countries, which indicatesgreater access to public goods and services and the
0.300
existenceof institutions that implement more egalitarianpolices. Nonetheless, income inequality in developed
0.200
countries has been widespread and significant since the1980s
0.100 and has been blamed for the increasingly polarized
politics witnessed in several countries.81 Consequently,
0.000
socialexclusion, marginalization, urban segregationand persistent pockets of destitution and poverty are
increasingly rife in developed cities.

Extreme inequalities can lead to social unrest or full-blown
conflicts as demonstrated in Santiago, Chile in October
2019. What started off as student-led protests over the

0.50

0.40

Modesto (2017)

Portland, OR (2017)

Minneapolis (2017)

Toledo (2017)

Springﬁeld (2017)

Chicago (2017)

Cleveland (2017)

Houston (2017)

Los Angeles (2017)

Philadelphia (2017)

New York (2017)

Gainesville (2017)

Astana (2017)

Jiaxing (2014)

Ta shke nt (2 00 0)

Alma ty (2017)

Chengdu (2014)

Zhengzhou (2014)

Culiacan(2010)

Caracas(2010)

San Salvador(2010)

Guadalajara(2010)

Valledupar(2017)

Montreal (2016)

Vancouver (2016)

Milan (2013)

Vienna (2017)

Toronto (2016)

Shefﬁeld (2016)

San Jose (2010)

0.000

Bangkok (2017)

0.100
Mexico City(2010)

0.200

Qingdao (2014)

0.300
Bogota(2017)

0.400

Xiamen (2014)

0.500

Manchester (2016)

0.600
Tijuana(2010)

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

Zhong shan (2014)

0.000

Killeen (2017)

0.100

Cochabamba(2007)

0.200

Vinh Long (2016)

0.300

London (2017)

0.400

Cordoba(2010)

0.500

Wuhan, Hubei (2004)

0.600

Raleigh (2017)

0.700

Ho Chi Minh City (2016)

San Pedro Sula (2017)

Tegucigalpa (2017)

Guatemala City(2006)

Resto Urbano (2017)

Leon(2005)

Quito(2010)

Sao Paulo(2009)

Santiago(2009)

Belo Horizonte(2009)

Curitiba(2009)

Figure 1.2: Gini coefficients for selected Latin American cities

Buenos Aires(2010)

Beijing (2014)

Da Nang (2016)

Cebu City (2003)

Singapore (2016)

Manila (2015)

Can Tho (2016)

Hai Phong (2016)

Hà Noi (2016)

Is tanbul (2016)

Shenzhen (2014)

Hong Kong (2016)

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Zwolle (2015)

Victoria (2016)

Antwerp (2014)

Palermo (2013)

0.100

0.000

Health workers wearing protective gear monitor body temperature of people during the health check up camp at a slum in Mumbai, India. © Shutterstock/ Manoej Paateel

0.70

0.60

22

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 1.4: Inequality fuels global discontent in cities
Concern about inequality underlies the pre-pandemic social unrest that sparked on almost every continent in 2019, although tipping
points varied from corruption to constitutional breaches to price rises for basic goods and services. Even as global inequality
has declined over the past three decades, domestic income inequality has risen in many countries—particularly in advanced
economies—and reached historical highs in others. In OECD countries, income inequality is at its highest level of the past half
century. Many of the protesters have long been excluded from their country’s wealth and share frustration that the elite havecaptured gains at the expense of others.
In Chile, for example, a three per cent increase in metro fares triggered violent demonstrations, forcing the government to change
policy amidst calls for “¡dignidad!” (dignity). Chile is one of the fastest growing, wealthiest and most stable Latin American
economies. By some measures, it was reducing inequality. While the income share of the richest 10 per cent was 38 per cent in2015, the poorest 10 per cent earned just 1.7 per cent. Its Gini coefficient—the most widely used measure of income inequality—fell
from 0.57 in 1990 to 0.47 in 2017. Nonetheless, it still has the second highest Gini coefficient among OECD members, well above
the rich country group’s average of 0.32.
In Hong Kong, the recent months-long demonstrations on political issues have also been aggravated by inequality: at 0.54, Hong
Kong’s Gini coefficient is at its highest level in 45 years, significantly above those of China (0.39) or the United States (0.42).
Inequality is a powerful, but oft-ignored, factor underlying the frustrations of Hong Kong’s residents over disparities in labour
markets, increased levels of poverty especially among ethnic minorities, slow growth in real wages and reduced expenditure on
health and social welfare.
In Lebanon, where the Gini coefficient is 0.51, nationwide protests were triggered by the government’s decision to impose a tax
on the popular communication app WhatsApp. In Iraq, protests began in October—mostly led by people from the disenfranchised
working class and middle-income groups—over issues of corruption, unemployment and demands for access to basic public
services.
Source: World Economic Forum, 2020a

proposed increase of 30 Chilean pesos (US$0.04) in metro
fares escalated into widespread violent demonstrations andvandalism involving over 1 million people; thus revealing
deep-seated resentment among ordinary Chileans who
feel excluded from the country’s economic rise.87 Similar
demonstrations of widespread discontent in response torising inequality have taken place in different parts of theworld (Box 1.4).
Asian cities have the lowest levels of inequality amongdeveloping regions. The levels of inequality in Chinese cities
vary remarkably (Figure 1.3). Over the last two decades,
China experienced rapid economic growth and urbanization,
which led to a massive reduction in the number of people
living in extreme poverty.88 However, economic growth and23

urbanization in China have been accompanied by growing
inequality.89 Empirical analysis shows that the increase in
China’s urban population from 23 per cent in 1985 to 51 percent in 2010 resulted in an increase of 20.5 Gini coefficient
points.90 This jump reflects widening inequality in urban
areas, brought about by internal migration and the lack ofan adequate safety nets for migrants.
Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s second highest levelof income inequality after Latin America. Close to threequarters of the cities in Figure 1.4 have high levels of
inequality as indicated by Gini coefficients exceeding 0.4,
with South African cities being the most unequal in theregion; thus, confirming South Africa as the most unequalcountry in the world on account of its high Gini coefficient(0.63).91 The key drivers of inequality in South Africa are
inequality of opportunity; high0.60
levels of unemployment,
which stand at 29.1 per cent nationwide and 58.2 per cent
0.50
among youth92; low economic growth;financial constraints;
and a highly polarized labour market
characterized by a
0.40
large wage gap and low intergenerational mobility.93 The
creation of productive employment
0.30 and improved service
delivery as enshrined in the National Development Plan
0.20
2030 will go a long way in reducing
inequality in South
African cities, but this will be severally challenged by the
0.10
deleterious effects of COVID-19, which led to a 51 percent contraction of the country’s
0.00economy in the second
quarter of 2020.94

1.4.5. Affordable and adequate housing: Still an
illusion for many

Housing affordability is a global challenge that affects
virtually all households. Globally, prospective homeowners
are compelled to save more than five times their annual
income to afford the price of a standard house.95 Renterhouseholds often spend more than 25 per cent of theirmonthly income on rent. High levels of unaffordability
mean that inadequate housing and slums remain the only

60

70
0.10

0.00

Dar-es-Salaam 2012

Kampala 2016

Luanda 2011

Harare 2011

Bulawayo 2011

Lilongwe 2011

Blantyre 2011

Kigali 2013

Ekurhuleni 2015

Ethekwini (Durban) 2015
Dar-es-Salaam 2012

Cape Town 2015
Kampala 2016

Tshwane (Pretoria) 2015
Luanda 2011

Port Elizabeth 2015
Harare 2011

Johannesburg 2015
Bulawayo 2011

Lilongwe 2011

0.70

Blantyre 2011

Kigali 2013

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

Ekurhuleni 2015

0.000

Cape Town 2015

0.100

Ethekwini (Durban) 2015

0.000
0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

Tegucigalpa (2017)
Santiago(2009)

Guatemala City(2006)
Belo Horizonte(2009)

Resto Urbano (2017)
Curitiba(2009)

Leon(2005)

Quito(2010)

Sao Paulo(2009)

Santiago(2009)

Belo Horizonte(2009)

Curitiba(2009)

Guadalajara(2010)
Cochabamba(2007)

Valledupar(2017)
Cordoba(2010)

San Jose (2010)
Buenos Aires(2010)

Mexico City(2010)
San Pedro Sula (2017)

Bogota(2017)
Tegucigalpa (2017)

Figure 1.4: Gini coefficients for selected African cities
0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

70

24

Chengdu (2014)

Zhengzhou (2014)

Guadalajara(2010)

Valledupar(2017)

San Jose (2010)

Culiacan(2010)
Mexico City(2010)
Qingdao (2014)
Astana (2017)
Bangkok (2017)

Caracas(2010)
Bogota(2017)

San Salvador(2010)
Tijuana(2010)Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Xiamen (2014)
Jiaxing (2014)

Zhong shan (2014)
Ta shke nt (2 00 0)

Vinh Long (2016)
Alma ty (2017)

Wuhan, Hubei (2004)
Chengdu (2014)

Ho Chi Minh City (2016)
Zhengzhou (2014)

Beijing (2014)
Bangkok (2017)

Da Nang (2016)
Qingdao (2014)

Cebu City (2003)
Xiamen (2014)

Tijuana(2010)
Guatemala City(2006)

Cochabamba(2007)
Resto Urbano (2017)

Manila (2015)
Vinh Long (2016)
Singapore (2016)
Zhong shan (2014)

Cordoba(2010)
Leon(2005)

Can Tho (2016)
Wuhan, Hubei (2004)

Buenos Aires(2010)
Quito(2010)

0.600

Hai Phong (2016)
Ho Chi Minh City (2016)

0.600

San Pedro Sula (2017)
Sao Paulo(2009)

Figure 1.3: Gini coefficients for selected Asian cities

Hà Noi (2016)
Beijing (2014)

Is tanbul (2016)
Da Nang (2016)

Shenzhen (2014)
Cebu City (2003)

0.100

Tshwane (Pretoria) 2015

0.200

0.000

Hong Kong (2016)
Singapore (2016)

0.300

0.100

Port Elizabeth 2015

Johannesburg 2015

0.400

Manila (2015)

0.500

Can Tho (2016)

Hai Phong (2016)

Hà Noi (2016)

Is tanbul (2016)

Shenzhen (2014)

Hong Kong (2016)

0.000

0.200

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

People experiencing homelessness are
one of the most vulnerable groups to the
COVID-19 pandemic
housing option for low-income households. Currently, 1.6
billion people or 20 per cent of the world’s population live
in inadequate, crowded and unsafe housing.96
The private construction industry dominates the housing
market in most countries. It has systematically enabled
middle-class formal homeownership, but the free market
has simultaneously disabled ever-growing numbers of poor
citizens from access to adequate and affordable housing.
Such residents instead remain confined to single-room or
informal housing, if not sheer homelessness, which now
accounts for no less than 150 million people, or about
two per cent of global population.97 People experiencing
homelessness are one of the most vulnerable groups to the
COVID-19 pandemic. They often have underlying healthconditions that make them more susceptible to dying fromcoronavirus and their living conditions make them unable
to observe physical distancing and handwashing protocols,
although some cities have adopted emergency measures
like renting hotel rooms or installing handwashing stations
near tent encampments.98
While many of the world’s richest countries have an
oversupply of housing, in Eastern and Central Europe99
and in developing countries, shortfalls of formal housing
tend to be quite large.100 In South Asia, housing shortfalls
amount to a deficit of 38 million dwellings.101 There is a
general acknowledgement that enabling the market has
failed to provide affordable, adequate housing for the
predominantly low-income households that live in the
rapidly urbanizing regions of the world. Neither the public
nor the private sector have been able to provide affordable
housing for the poor at the scale dictated by the pace ofurbanization and household formation.
In much of the developing world, the informal sector
accounts for 60–70 per cent of urban housing in Zambia,102
70 per cent in Lima, 80 per cent of new housing in
Caracas,103 and up to 90 per cent in Ghana.104 Without
access to housing finance, adherence to building codes
or the use of professional labour, such informal housing

25

is often “inadequate,” meaning it is in poor physicalcondition, overcrowded, poorly ventilated, has poor accessto municipal services and is located far from employment
nodes and basic facilities. Moreover, decades of neglect inpublic or social housing and inadequate state intervention
to regulate the private market and produce adequate andaffordable housing for all segments of the population has
resulted in urban political polarization, weakening ofsocial cohesion and exacerbation of inequalities.105
Closely related to housing affordability is the growth ofslums and informal urban settlements in developing regions,which forms part of the unfinished business of the urban
agenda. Slums represent one of the most enduring facesof poverty, inequality, exclusion and deprivation. Slumdwellers must contend with inadequate access to potablewater, poor sanitation, overcrowding, poor-quality housing
in hazardous locations, insecure tenure and risk of eviction,
food insecurity, malnutrition, poor health, unemployment
and stigmatization, all of which make them highly vulnerable
to COVID-19 and other pandemics. Under such conditions,
physical distancing, self-isolation, handwashing andacceptable levels of hygiene, which are important measuresagainst the disease, are virtually impossible.
While remarkable progress has been made in reducing the
proportion of the global urban population living in slums
from 28 per cent in 2000 to 24 per cent in 2018 (Figure 1.5),
more than 1 billion people still live in such settlements withover half of these in East, South-East, Central and SouthAsia, and 23 per cent in Sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1.4).
The forces driving the prevalence of slums in developing
regions are rapid urbanization; ineffective planning; lackof affordable housing options for low-income households;
dysfunctional urban, land and housing policies; a dearth of
housing finance; and poverty and low incomes. Empiricalanalysis shows that a one per cent increase in urban
population growth will increase the incidence of slums in
Africa and Asia by 2.3 per cent and 5.3 per cent respectively.106
This correlation indicates that in some parts of these regions,

Slums represent one of the mostenduring faces of poverty, inequality,
exclusion and deprivation

KampalDar-es-Salaa

Luand

Harar

Lilongw

Bulaway

Blantyr

Kigal

Ekurhulen

Ethekwini (Durban

Cape Tow

Tshwane (Pretoria

Port Elizabet

Johannesbur

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Figure 1.5: Percentage of urban populating living in slums
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

World

Sub-SaharanAfricaNorthern Africa
andWestern Asia
2000

Central andSouthern Asia

2014

Eastern andSouth-Eastern
Asia

2016

Oceania(excluding Australia
and New Zealand)

Latin America
and theCarribean

2018

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

Table 1.4: Urban population living in slums

Central and Southern Asia

-10205.661

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia

-20

317.123

Latin America and the Caribbean

115.148-30

Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand)
Australia and New Zealand
Europe and Northern America

0.234
-35

-40

-40

-50
-53

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.
-60
-70

-51

-50

urbanization continues to occur
and within
the context of much lower levels -80
of income, rising poverty,
worsening unemployment, weak and under-resourced
municipalities, poor governance structures and the absenceof coherent urban planning and housing policies. Under
such conditions, rapid urban growth would serve as a recipe
for the proliferation of slums.
When well-planned and manged, urbanization can be acatalyst for socioeconomic transformation and improved
quality of life for all. However, slum dwellers will be left
behind in this process if their concerns are not integrated
GOVERNMENT

E-services
Citizen portals
Digital city services and products
Broadband ﬁbre rollouts
CCTV networks
Data centre facilities
Private cloud offerings

-26

2016

2018

1003.083

1033.546

202.042228.936

237.840

63.814-5-9206.704

71.72082.123223.643

221.092

349.409364.684368.898

104.652112.602

109.946

0.602

0.648

0.643

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.764

0.833

0.842

1.022

-64

-70
unplanned,









-14

2014
Santiago

46.335

Urban population living in slums (millions)897.651

Kingston

131.716

México2000

803.126

Sao Paulo

Rio de Janeiro

Guayaquil

Partial lockdown

Quito

Medellin

0

Lima

Sub-Saharan Africa
Northern Africa & Western Asia

BogotaRegionWorld

Buenos Aires

Total lockdown

into urban planning, urban policy, housing, legislation andfinancing frameworks. If the concerns of the urban poorand marginalized remain ignored, then the goal to “makecities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable” will only be achieved partially, and in theprocess, deny millions the benefits of urbanization. The
challenge is posed by the continuous increase in slums,
especially in Sub-Sharan Africa and in East, South-East,
Central and South Asia. Without concerted action on thepart of governments at all levels including civil society anddevelopment partners, the numbers of slum dwellers willcontinue to increase in most developing countries.
MOBILITYEDUCATION

 Internet accessin libraries

 Smart ﬁnes
 Intelligent trafﬁcmanagement
system26

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

1.4.6. Climate change: An enduring threat to cities

With its wide range of consequences, climate change is oneof the most pervasive challenges facing cities. Urban areas
are both the source of the majority of the world’s carbon
emissions and home to the majority of the world’s populationthat will be the victims of climate change. Urbanization
has been identified as one of the mega-trends that needs tobe addressed to achieve the target of limiting mean global
temperature increase to 1.5ºC.107 Cities, especially those inwarm climates or low-lying coastal areas, face existential
threats due to the risks and impacts of climate change andnatural hazards, such as increased extreme heat events in
New Delhi and pervasive flooding in Jakarta.
If the current rate of global warming continues, the world
could be 1.5ºC warmer by 2030.108 Regional warming
could be twice the global average in certain places, whichmeans that at least 136 coastal cities will be at risk fromflooding, and in the process, affect 280 million people

With its wide range of consequences,climate change is one of the mostpervasive challenges facing cities

Traffic on flooded roads of the city, Houston, USA. © IrinaK/Shutterstock27

including many informal settlements.109 Given that halfof the world’s population lives within three kilometresof a surface freshwater body, and over 40 per cent residein coastal areas, these populations would be at risk fromsea-level rise and extreme weather events associated withclimate change.110 Urbanization, especially in low-lying
coastal areas, seems to ignore climate change and its
potential impacts, rapidly increasing vulnerabilities andexposure to hazards (Chapter 4).
The combined threat of rising sea levels and storm surge
in coastal cities could result in the loss of more than one
trillion dollars each year by 2050.111 Destruction of existing
infrastructure, property and assets caused by tropical
cyclones or flooding are among the most visible impacts ofsuch losses, but the damage caused by the secondary threatsof disease, displacement, increased crime and civil unrest
should not be discounted.
The effects of climate change can exacerbate urban
challenges and make it more difficult to tackle thepersistent issues that cities already face, such as poverty,
inequality, infrastructure deficits and housing, among
others.112 These challenges could make it difficult to achieve

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

The combined threat of rising sea levels
and storm surge in coastal cities could
result in the loss of more than one trillion
dollars each year by 2050
certain SDGs, especially those relating to poverty, hunger,
health, water and sanitation, and ecosystems, as noted in
Chapter 4. In developing countries, the long-term effects ofclimate change could combine with the short-term impactof the COVID-19 pandemic to further reverse global gains
by pushing 100 million people into poverty.113 Rapidly
urbanizing cities in Africa and Asia are more vulnerable toclimate change and least able to respond to its effects. They
are hampered by limited financial, human and technicalresources as well as weak institutions and governancestructures relating to disaster mitigation and preparedness.
At the same time, these cities contribute very little toglobal warming, making their suffering disproportionate.
Urbanization offers many opportunities to develop
mitigation and adaptation strategies that limit the average
global temperature increase to 1.5ºC, especially throughurban planning and design. In this regard, 105 cities,
mostly in North America and Europe, have undertaken
emissions inventories and adopted emissions reduction
targets using various policy levers.114 Urban innovation,
economies of scale and concentration of enterprises makeit possible for cities to take actions to minimize bothemissions and climate hazards.115 Cities that have adopted
compact and mixed land uses are able to reduce per capita
rates of resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Cities
have significant opportunities for disaster risk reduction,
accelerated response and recovery through land use
planning, building codes and regulations, risk assessments,
monitoring and early warning, and building-back-better
response and reconstruction approaches (Chapter 4). More
importantly, when they incorporate nature-based solutions
into their design and management, urban systems canbenefit from multiple ecosystem services including carbon
sequestration, local climate regulation, storm-water
capture and water and air purification.116
The most recent IPCC report states that to stay under
1.5ºC and address the effects of global warming, drastic
measures are required to transform the way cities andhuman settlements are built and managed. Building more
resilient and equitable cities should entail mainstreaming
information on climate risks in the planning and deliveryof urban services while strengthening local capacity;
harnessing the power of nature to respond to both waterand heat risks; building climate resilience by upgrading
living conditions in vulnerable communities and informal
settlements while drawing on community knowledge;
increasing climate-resilient investments; and capturing
value from adaptation benefits.117
In order to drastically reduce greenhouse emissions
and adapt to global warming, a cost-benefit analysis by
the Global Commission on Adaptation shows that theworld will need to invest US$1.8 trillion over the next
decade in climate resilience strategies in five areas:
strengthening early warning systems; making new
infrastructure resilient; improving dryland agriculture;
restoring and protecting mangroves; and water resourcesmanagement.118 Investments in these areas could generate
US$7.1 trillion in total net benefits and will contribute toa “triple dividend” of preventing future losses; generating
economic benefits through reducing risk, increasing
productivity and driving innovation; and deliveringsocial and environmental benefits.

Urbanization offers many opportunities
to develop mitigation and adaptation
strategies that limit the average global
temperature increase to 1.5ºC, especiallythrough urban planning and design
In recent times, young people have been at the forefrontof galvanizing global action against climate change. This
energy can be seen in the growing number of individuals
and youth organizations engaged in intergovernmental
climate change processes and conferences. In addition,
young people have mobilized a new social movement aroundclimate change organized online but enacted in public. In
August 2018, teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg held
up a sign outside the Swedish parliament in Stockholm
reading “Skolstrejk för klimatet” (“School strike for climate”).
Her gesture sparked the Fridays for Future movement ofweekly school strikes around the world. That movement
grew to encompass a global climate strike to coincide with28

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

In recent times, young people have beenat the forefront of galvanizing global
action against climate change
the United Nations Climate Action Summit in September
2019, marking the largest demonstration yet against
climate change. Youths organized and led climate change
demonstrations spanning 185 countries and involving 7.3
million people, 73 trade unions, 3,024 businesses and 820
NGOs.119 Youth demonstrations echo one message: to bringabout a renewed sense of urgency and protest governmental
and business inaction on climate change by the generationthat must live with the consequences.
The formal withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement,
which commenced on November 4, 2019, poses a major
blow to addressing the challenges of climate change. As
the world’s largest economy, the US is not only a leader
in global environmental governance, but also accounts
for about 15 per cent of global carbon emissions and is asignificant source of finance and technology for developing
countries in their efforts to address global warming.120 The
US withdrawal provides an opportunity for other countries
like Canada, China, the EU and India to take enhanced
leadership roles.121 In turn, US mayors and state governors
reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement andhave pledged to stay on track, highlighting the importanceof subnational levels of governments in tackling climatechange.122 Nevertheless, the US withdrawal will not only
weaken enforcement of strategies and policies, it has
emboldened the anti-climate change movement in somecountries dependent on fossil fuels and eager to expand
their natural resource extractive industries.123 The US,
Russia and Saudi Arabia watered down language on climate
science at the United Nations Climate Change Conferencein 2018 (COP 24).124
These decisions run counter to the spirit of cooperationand consensus that produced the Paris Agreement in 2015.
They are a stark reminder of the limits of local action in
the context of multilateral agreements forged by national
governments. Even as youth march in the streets and local
authorities try to rein in carbon emissions, some national
governments continue to set energy policies reliant on
fossil fuels.

29

1.4.7. Cities as crucibles of crises: The coronavirus
pandemic

Cities all over the world are increasingly exposed to new andpervasive risks such as terrorism, violence, crime, different
forms of conflict, urban warfare, heightened securitizationand the spread of diseases. The globalized nature of cities
has added new levels of urban health risks, the most recent
being SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible
for COVID-19, which first emerged in Wuhan, China
in December 2019 and spread rapidly to virtually every
country in the world. It has since severely overwhelmed
healthcare services and paralyzed economies. Seven months
after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a
pandemic on March 11, 2020125, the world recorded over 40
million confirmed cases and over one million fatalities.126
Virtually all countries of the world have been affected; thehardest hit countries in terms of the number of confirmed
cases have been the US, India, Brazil and Russia.

Cities all over the world are increasingly
exposed to new and pervasive risks
such as terrorism, violence, crime,
different forms of conflict, urban warfare,heightened securitization and the spreadof diseases
Since the outbreak in Wuhan, the epicentre of the virus
has consistently shifted from Europe to the US to Latin
America, with India emerging as the newest epicentre.
Given the speed, scale of the spread and severity of its
societal and economic disruption, COVID-19 is one of themost unprecedented challenges facing humanity in modern
history.127
Urban areas bear the brunt of COVID-19

While COVID-19 is a global health crisis, it has far-reaching
implications for urban areas. With over 90 per cent ofconfirmed cases coming from urban areas, cities havebeen the epicentres of COVID-19.128 The concentration of
COVID-19 cases in urban areas is confirmed by a sample ofcountries in Table 1.5. Among African countries, between
77 and 89 per cent of confirmed cases are concentrated
in the capital city and four major cities, with the highest
being in South Africa, which has been the epicentre of
COVID-19 in Africa. In Latin America, the coronavirus

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceTable 1.5: Incidence of COVID-19 in urban areas (July 2020)
Country

Number of confirmed
cases

Number of cases
recorded in capital cityand four major cities

Percentage of cases
recorded in capital cityand four major cities(%)

Number of cities withover 100k population

Number of cities withover 100k population
with recorded cases

Algeria

26,764

23,17487

40

39

Argentina

173,355

163,217

94

30

27

Bangladesh

223,453

174,733

78

30

29

Brazil

2,554,042

1,460,545

57

324

308

Chile

351,575

299,844

85

49

49

China

82,88076,441

92

401

322

Colombia

257,101

216,196

84

65

65

Egypt

91,583

74,11981

41

39

Germany

212,331

184,691

87

79

79

Ghana

31,851

24,532

77

13

13

Iraq

110,032

84,662

77

29

29

Italy

248,229

224,381

90

48

48

Mexico450,570

367,561

82

188

164

Nigeria

39,977

23,661

59

82

82

Peru

389,717292,833

75

26

24

Qatar

109,305

104,123

95

2

2

Russia864,948

651,147

75

168

157

Saudi Arabia

266,941

225,971

85

24

24

South Africa

434,200

388,154

89

57

56

Spain

302,814

181,433

60

56

49

United Kingdom

307,256

267,884

87

84

84

United States

4,748,806

3,874,766

82

317

317

Source: UN-Habitat, Global Indicators Database 2020.

cases are mostly concentrated in the major cities ofArgentina, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, and less so in
Brazil where 57 per cent of the confirmed cases are in the
major cities, possibly signifying a spread to smaller cities
and rural areas. A similar pattern of the concentration of
COVID-19 cases in major cities is replicated in Europe andthe US.
In many developing countries, especially in Africa, thespread of the virus has been from airports to the major cities
and then to secondary and third-tier cities.129 The spreadof COVID-19 in urban areas across the world has been

amplified by globalization and the interconnectivity ofcities, largely facilitated by the ease of air travel. Movement
among cities around the world has significantly enabled
the spread of COVID-19. This form of spread in part
explains why most countries imposed partial or complete
border closures to foreign travels. Currently, COVID-19 isspreading largely through community transmission and ismoving from major cities to the countryside.
By their nature, cities are built-up agglomerations withconcentration of people and high densities, and as such,the impact of pandemics such as COVID-19 increases

30

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Currently, COVID-19 is spreading largely
through community transmission andis moving from major cities to thecountrysidewith crowding of people. If potential crowding is notcarefully managed, the dense concentration and large sizeof cities makes them highly susceptible to disease spreadin a pandemic. This risk is evident in the manner that
COVID-19 has spread within many major cities aroundthe world, including Milan, New York City, Madrid, SãoPaulo, London, Lima, Lagos, Paris and Tokyo. In general,more urbanized countries are most likely to experience a
rapid spread of COVID-19, which suggests that the way
urbanization is managed can play a key role in addressing
current and future pandemics.
COVID-19 and the urban economy

The International Monetary Fund predicts that the global
economy will contract by three per cent in 2020 on accountof the coronavirus pandemic.130 If that prediction holds
true, the virus will have effectively erased US$2.6 trillion
from the value of the world economy. This downturn ismuch deeper than the than the global financial crisis of
2008–2009 and represents the worst recession since theGreat Depression. The cumulative loss of global GDP over2020 and 2021 is estimated at US$9 trillion, which is greaterthan the economies of Japan and Germany combined.131
COVID-19 will adversely affect growth in all regions of
the world. Both containment measures to combat theillness and negative consumer and business sentimentwill stifle demand, leading to a widespread reduction in
spending. The decline in economic activities, closure offactories and disruption to supply chains will create supply
bottlenecks.132
As the world continues to slip into a severe recession,urban areas, which account for more than 80 per centof global GDP, will be affected in several ways. First, theshrinking of the global economy implies that less funds
will be available for urban development projects likewater, sanitation, public transport systems, adequate andaffordable housing, slum upgrading, poverty eradicationand healthcare improvements to respond to both this andfuture pandemics. The World Bank expects that revenue to31

local authorities will decline by 15–25 per cent in 2021 andwill likely lead to reduced municipal service delivery.133
The envisaged decline in revenue is likely to hit developingworld cities the hardest even as these are the places
where critical infrastructure and health systems are
already grossly inadequate. Such revenue shortfalls arelikely to hinder progress toward SDG 11 and other global
agreements relevant to sustainable urbanization and makeit even harder to deliver the annual investment of at least
US$2.5 trillion required to achieve the SDGs (Chapter 8).134
The coronavirus pandemic has led to widespread job loss,
especially in urban areas, with women and young people
disproportionately affected. In the early weeks of lockdown
measures, 2.7 billion workers, representing 81 per cent of
the world’s workforce, were affected by recommended or
required workplace closures.135 This figure decreased to
68 per cent in mid-April following the initial lifting ofsuch closures, mainly in China.136 In the US, in just overa seven-week period ending on May 2, 2020, 33.3 million
people representing 20 per cent of the workforce filed
for unemployment claims.137 The US unemployment rate
remains high at 8.4 percent as of August 2020, by which
point the number of unemployed persons had fallen to
13.6 million.138 The loss of jobs in the US resulted in loss ofhealth insurance coverage for 5.4 million people between
February and March 2020, thereby rendering them more
vulnerable and unable to seek medical care without
incurring substantial expenses.139 In the UK, 9.6 million
jobs have been furloughed since the government launcheda wage subsidy scheme in March,140 with 2.7 million people
claiming unemployment benefits between March andJuly.141 The worst affected areas following the COVID-19
induced lockdowns are hospitality, leisure and food andbeverage, which was the worst affected sector with 75 percent job cuts.142 With urban dwellers fearful of gatheringin enclosed spaces, the coronavirus pandemic has been
described as an “apocalypse” for restaurants across theworld in an industry with notoriously thin margins.143

The coronavirus pandemic has led towidespread job loss, especially in urban
areas, with women and young people
disproportionately affectedUrbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global ForceThe story is even more dire in developing economies. In
Bangladesh, 2.3 million workers in the garment industry
have either been furloughed or lost their jobs due tothe suspension or cancellation of exports worth US$3.2
billion to developed countries.144 In Latin America andthe Caribbean, COVID-19 has led to the loss of 14 million
jobs with more than 50 per cent of all workers employedin the commerce and service sectors heavily impacted by
the crisis.145 In Africa, it is predicted that the lockdown,
disruption of value chains and fall in commodity prices
will result in the loss of nearly 20 million jobs, with theinformal sector being most affected as it accounts for up
90 per cent of the labour force in some countries146, withworkers having limited or no access to healthcare services,savings and social protection. In the Gulf countries, tensof thousands of migrant workers in the construction,
hospitality, retail and transport sectors have lost their jobs
and have been forced to return home. In some developing
countries, the economic downturn has sparked an exodusof migrant workers who have lost their jobs and are goingback to their rural homes; in the absence of public transport

due the lockdown, many embarked on this journey by foot.
While the impact of COVID-19 will be felt acrossthe entire global economy, the hardest hit sectors arewholesale and retailing; vehicle repairs; real estate;business and administrative activities; manufacturing;accommodation and food services; transportation,
storage and communication; and arts, entertainment andrecreation—all of which account for 49 per cent of global
employment or 1.62 billion people.147 These sectors areclosely associated with the economic wellbeing of cities
and towns. All over the world, what were once bustling
cities remained desolate for much of the months of March
to July as hotels, restaurants, bars, entertainment centres,
street food stalls, sports stadiums, factories, business hubs,
malls and other public spaces were closed due to COVID19-induced lockdowns. At the peak of the lockdown, thenumber of people using the New York subway was downby 90 per cent and yellow cabs virtually disappeared fromthe streets of Manhattan148; in Seattle, the demand for
Uber services dropped by between 60 and 70 per cent in

Dharavi slum during the government-imposed nationwide lockdown as a preventive measure against the COVID-19, Mumbai/India. © Manoej Paateel/Patel

32

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

March 2020.149 Economic activities are yet to fully pick up
in many cities across the world as there have been second
waves of the outbreak of the virus, some more serious than
the first.150 The ongoing repercussions of the COVID-19
pandemic have effectively paralyzed economic activities
and disrupted livelihoods in cities around the world.

The notion of working from home or
remotely is strongly skewed in favour ofwhite-collar, high-income workers who
have the necessary amenities, but is
impossible for informal sector workers

COVID-19 is reinforcing urban inequalities anddisproportionately affecting vulnerable groups

shared multi-family living areas, inadequate infrastructure,poor public services and precarious locations, means that
self-isolation and physical distancing is an illusion. For
instance, how can physical distancing be maintained in
the Dharavi slum in Mumbai that has a population densityof 270,000 people per square kilometre154 or in the world’s
largest refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar?155 It is not surprisingthat Dharavi, which is home to about one million people
and one of the most densely populated areas in the world,
has become a major epicentre of COVID-19 in India.156

Coronavirus-induced lockdowns and physical distancing
measures are reinforcing inequalities and laying barethe fault lines that characterize many urban areas. These
measures have disproportionately affected low-income
households, the poor and vulnerable, the informal sector,
and daily wage workers who must leave their homes
for subsistence wages. Teleworking or telecommuting
increased remarkably due to the coronavirus pandemic;
so did online schooling. However, the notion of working
from home or remotely is strongly skewed in favour ofwhite-collar, high-income workers who have the necessary
amenities, but is impossible for informal sector workers
who are in the majority in developing world cities anddepend on daily earnings for which a few days of lockdown
can make the difference between poverty and starvation.151
A large informal labour force is a key factor in Peru’s highinfection rate despite an early and aggressive lockdown.152
Online schooling applies only to the well off and not lowincome families who attend schools in informal settlements
or where technologically enabled learning facilities areunlikely to be available. In addition, the housing situationof poor families is often not conducive for effective learning.
All of these issues exacerbate the existing inequalities in
education among different income groups, which in turn
manifests in inequalities of opportunities that are rife inurban areas.
The overcrowded nature of slums and informal settlements,
which is the only housing option for up to 60 per centof the population of some cities153, together with theirCoronavirus-induced lockdowns andphysical distancing measures are
reinforcing inequalities and laying barethe fault lines that characterize manyurban areas

33

Online schooling applies only to the welloff and not low-income families who
attend schools in informal settlements or
where technologically enabled learningfacilities are unlikely to be available
Inadequate water, poor sanitation and hygiene in slums
and informal settlements, crowded refugee camps andmigrant workers hostels157 means that handwashing as apreventive measure against the transmission of coronavirus
is a major challenge. In 2017, three billion people globally
had no handwashing facility at home, 1.6 billion had
limited facilities lacking soap or water and 1.4 billion had
no facility at all.158 In the least developed countries, close
to three-quarters of the population lacked handwashingfacilities with soap and water. These inadequacies provide
ideal conditions for the rapid transmission of COVID-19
and other diseases.
Older persons and minority groups in urban areas have ahigher risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19. Data
from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention
shows that while those aged 60 years and over accounted
for 31.2 per cent of all confirmed cases, they accounted for81 per cent of all COVID-19 deaths.159 A similar pattern
appears in the US, as the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention reported that 80 per cent of COVID-19 deaths

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Forceoccurred among adults aged over 65 years.160 In Italy, 83.4
per cent of deaths were among those over 70 years old.161
This can be attributed to Italy having the second oldest
population in the world after Japan, with about 23 percent of its population aged over 65.162 The fact that older
persons are more likely to die from coronavirus once
infected has led to healthcare workers giving preferential
medical treatment to younger people who are more likely
to survive. This exacerbates negative stereotypes about older
persons, who may be perceived as weak, unimportant anda burden to society.163 In several countries, severe physicaldistancing measures forced older people to remain indoors
or risk being fined. While well-intentioned, if not properly
managed, these measures can have the unintended effects ofstigmatizing and discriminating against older persons.
Recent data show that ethnic minorities in the US are
disproportionately affected by COVID-19; specifically,
African Americans account for up to one third ofcoronavirus deaths but constitute 14 per cent the
population.164 In virtually every city for which data on
ethnicity are available, black people account for a greater
proportion of COVID-19 deaths in relation to their shareof the population. In Chicago, African Americans accountfor 72 per cent of COVID-19 deaths but make up 30 per
cent of the population.165 In New York City, which wasonce the US epicentre of the pandemic, African Americans
account for one third of the city’s deaths, but 22 per centof the population.166 Black residents in New York City are
twice as likely to die compared to white residents if they
contract COVID-19.167 These differences in part reflect
inequality in economic opportunities, access to healthcare,poverty and structural factors, among others. African
Americans often earn lower wages, are less likely to have
health insurance and are more likely to have pre-existing
conditions and/or be employed in service jobs deemed
essential during lockdown and thus unable to stay home.168
African Americans also frequently reside in substandard,
overcrowded housing in segregated neighbourhoods andrely on public transport, which makes physical distancing
difficult; hence, they are more vulnerable to COVID-19.
COVID-19 exacerbates poverty levels

The contraction of the global economy together with rising
unemployment resulting from the various lockdowns,
especially in the absence of effective social protection

programmes, will lead to an increase in poverty. Recent
analysis of the potential increase in poverty due to thepernicious effects of COVID-19 shows that as much as half abillion people or 8 per cent of the world’s population could
fall into poverty.169 The most affected regions on the basisof poverty lines of US$1.90 and US$3.2 per day are SubSaharan Africa and South Asia, which account for between
two-thirds and 85 per cent of the world’s total poor.170 In
these regions, the number of people falling into poverty
could increase by between 80 and 420 million dependingon the contraction of household income or consumption.
This scenario will further exacerbate the poverty situationin urban areas in Bangladesh, India, Democratic Republicof Congo, Ethiopia and Nigeria, which already have large
numbers of people living in extreme poverty. Regions to beaffected at a higher poverty line of US$5.50 per day are East
Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa,and Latin America and the Caribbean, where the numberof those newly living in poverty could rise by between 124
and 580 million.171 The increase in poverty levels will not
be restricted to developing regions as the pandemic has
devastated the economy of developed countries, manyof which have fallen into recession. However, developed
countries have institutionalized social protection
programmes that are being deployed to mitigate theadverse effects of COVID-19.

The contraction of the global economy
together with rising unemployment
resulting from the various lockdowns,
especially in the absence of effective
social protection programmes, will leadto an increase in poverty
The portended increase marks the first time that global
poverty will increase in the last three decades, reversing
years of remarkable sustained progress. In 1990, 1.9 billion
people or 36 per cent of the world’s population lived in
extreme poverty.172 By 2015, this figure had dropped to 736
million people or 10 per cent of the world’s population;
thereby, implying that close to 1.2 billion people were
pulled out of poverty between 1990 and 2015. The reductionin poverty has been driven by strong global growth andincreases in prosperity in many developing countries,
especially in East Asia, the Pacific and South Asia.173 China

34

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

has been at the forefront in the eradication of poverty;
urbanization driven by massive economic growth helped
pull 850 million people out of extreme poverty between
1981 and 2015 and reduce the rate of poverty to 7 percent.174 COVID-19 could therefore erase the gains madein eradicating global poverty and jeopardize SDG 1 ofending poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030. Thisbacksliding in turn will adversely affect the attainment ofother goals: hunger and improved nutrition; healthy living;and inclusive and equitable education, which to a large
extent depend on the eradication of poverty.

COVID-19 could therefore erase the gains
made in eradicating global poverty andjeopardize SDG 1 of ending poverty in allits forms everywhere by 2030
COVID-19: Engendering short-term environmental
improvement

The COVID-19-induced lockdown has affected the urban
environment in various ways. Global CO2 emissions are
expected to fall by eight per cent or almost 2.6 billion
tonnes in 2020.175 This reduction marks the biggest everdrop in carbon emissions at six times greater than the
400 million tonne reduction in 2009 owing to the global
financial crisis. Much of the decline in CO2 emissions will
be experienced in cities, which generate as much as 70
per cent of the human-induced greenhouse gas emissions
primarily through the consumption of fossil fuels forenergy and transportation.176 In India, CO2 emissions fell
for the first time in 40 years (15 per cent in March and 30
per cent in April 2020), not only as a consequence of the
COVID-19 lockdown, but due to the weakened demand forcoal that was declining before the coronavirus outbreak.177
The reduction in emissions is seen as a silver lining of thepandemic,178 but is likely to be short-lived and will reboundonce the global economy restarts, unless countries deliveron their commitment to sustainable development byinvesting in cleaner and more resilient forms of energy.179
The reduction in CO2 emissions can be attributed to thevarious forms of lockdown, which affected economic
activities and led to a reduction of energy consumption.
Countries in full lockdown experienced an average 25
per cent decline in energy demand per week, while those35

in partial lockdown experienced an average 18 per centdecline.180 COVID-19 literally brought the world to a halt;
in a matter of weeks, planes disappeared from the skies,
local and national borders were closed, factories ceased
production, businesses stopped functioning, global supply
chains ground to a halt and tens of millions of jobs werelost. The oil industry, a key driver of CO2 emissions, washard hit by mobility restrictions and the drop in aviation
demand, which account for about 60 per cent global oil
consumption.181 By the end of March 2020, global roadtransport activity was almost 50 per cent below the 2019average and aviation 60 per cent below.182
In China, CO2 emissions fell by 25 per cent or more in
January 2020 when compared to the same period in 2019;
this was driven mainly by a 37 per cent decline in coalconsumption and crude oil use.183 In March 2020, New York
City experienced a 5–10 per cent drop in CO2 emissions
and a 50 per cent fall in carbon monoxide emissions
attributed mainly to a 35 per cent decline in traffic levels.184
Similar downward trends for carbon monoxide emissions
were observed in Wuhan and Beijing (Chapter 4). In
Latin American and Caribbean cities, traffic congestion
declined by between 47 and 97 per cent in March 2020,
while the use of public transport fell by at least 60 per centin Guadalajara, São Paulo, Curitiba, Belo Horizonte andBrasília and by over 80 per cent in Lima, Bogotá, Mexico
City, Buenos Aires and Santiago185, both of which musthave contributed to lower levels of CO2 emissions andimproved air quality.
In just two months following COVID-19-related lockdowns,
remarkable improvements in air pollution were observedin different parts of the world. Satellite imagery for
Hubei province in China shows significant decline in
the levels of PM2.5 nitrate following the imposition ofCountries in full lockdown
experienced an average 25
per cent decline in energy
demand per week, while
those in partial lockdown
experienced an average 18
per cent decline

0.40
0.30
Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

0.20
0.10

Kampala 2016

Dar-es-Salaam 2012

Luanda 2011

Harare 2011

Bulawayo 2011

Blantyre 2011

Lilongwe 2011

Kigali 2013

Ekurhuleni 2015

Cape Town 2015

Ethekwini (Durban) 2015

Tshwane (Pretoria) 2015

Port Elizabeth 2015

Johannesburg 2015

0.00

travel restrictions.186 While wind speed and temperature
affect the concentration of nitrogen oxide, the spectacularimprovements in air quality in China have been attributed
largely to the interventions to contain the COVID-19
outbreak—stringent traffic restrictions and self-quarantine,
first in Wuhan and neighbouring cities and later in allprovinces in China.187 Similar trends were observed in
Republic of Korea, Italy, Spain, the UK, India, Saudi Arabia
and the UAE leading to improved air quality.188

Echoing the view of eminent economists, short-term
reductions in emissions and pollutants resulting fromlockdowns will themselves have very little long-term effects
and will not change the trajectory of global greenhouse
Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean also witnessed
emissions unless they facilitate deeper and longer-term
reduction in the levels of nitrogen oxide in the wake ofhuman, business and institutional changes.189 Sweeping
the lockdowns. As shown in Figure 1.6, between the lastten days and first ten days in March 2020, the percentage
investment in clean technologies such as renewable energychange in nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere declined by
are the most cost-effective way to boost economies hit by
between 40–70 per cent in Bogotá, Lima, Buenos Aires,
COVID-19 while reducing emissions. As in the case ofMedellín, Quito and Guayaquil, all of which were underprevious crises, unless the wave of investment to restart
total lockdown; and by between 5 and 35 per cent in Rio
the economy is dedicated to cleaner and more resilientde Janeiro, Mexico City, São Paulo, Kingston and Santiago,
energy infrastructure, the rebound in emissions may be
which were all under partial lockdown. These contrasts
larger than the decline. China is already experiencing asuggest that Northern
the impositionof morelockdowns
in emissions where mobility restrictions have
Sub-SaharanAfricaCentraland stringent
Eastern and
Latin AmericareboundOceania
Africa(excluding Australia
andSouthern Asia
South-Easternand thecanlead to greater
improvementsinairquality.
been
relaxedand factories are reopening.190 Following theand New Zealand)Western Asia
Asia
Carribeaneasing of lockdowns and reopening the economy, similar
trajectories are being played out in cities across the world,
2000
2014
2016
2018
as more people in a bid to avoid contracting COVID-19 are
Figure 1.6: Change in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentration
opting to drive rather than take public transit—a decisionin the atmosphere for selected metropolitan in Latin America
contributing to greater emissions and congestion.191
and the Caribbean (percentage change)

-10

-9
-14

-20
-26

-30
-35

-40

-40

-50
-53

-60
-70

-64
-70

-80

Source IADB, 2020.

-51

-50

Santiago

Kingston

Sao Paulo

MéxicoRio de Janeiro

Guayaquil

Partial lockdown

Quito

Medellin

Buenos Aires

0

Lima

Total lockdown

BogotaWorld

Sweeping investment in clean
technologies such as renewable energy
are the most cost-effective way toboost economies hit by COVID-19 while
reducing emissions-5

The critical question is whether the seeming environmental
gains accompanying the lockdown can be sustained. The
success of lockdowns across cities in flattening the curveof coronavirus infections also provides urban dwellers
with a vision of behavioural change where they travel
more by non-motorized modes and consume less carbon.
Whether the environmental gains induced by COVID-19
can be sustained when the global economy returns
to normalcy will depend on how human behaviour iseffectively managed, whether there is a desire for a return
to business as usual or to resume pre-pandemic lifestylechoices like inexpensive short-haul air travel. Ultimately
what the pandemic shows is peoples’ willingness to alter
their behaviour in the face of adversity and in service ofthe collective good. This experience points to the needto alter the narratives surrounding climate change to
one of emergency brought about by human activities.
For behaviour to shift, the message must be effective and36

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

What the pandemic shows is peoples’
willingness to alter their behaviour in theface of adversity and in service of thecollective goodtargeted at all stakeholders. If climate change is tackledwith the same vigour as COVID-19, it will be possible
to restore the regenerative integrity of the naturalenvironment towards mitigating and adapting to climatechange and its attendant effects.
1.4.8. Deployment of Innovation and Technology in
Urban Areas

As city dwellers under lockdown increasingly relied ontechnology to access their workplaces, order food, shop
for groceries and communicate with loved ones, recent
technological advances in urban areas seemed poisedto accelerate. Even before the pandemic, cities wereincreasingly characterized by the deployment of innovationand technology in order to fuel a big data revolution to
inform public and private sector decision-making.192
Often referred to as disruptive technologies193, this trend
signifies a move towards a knowledge-based economy
that relies more on analytical capabilities than physicalinputs. This fourth industrial revolution194 is characterized
by innovation and technological breakthroughs like
automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, the use ofdrones and the Internet of Things.
Advances in technology enhance the productivity andprosperity of cities as they facilitate innovation, efficiency
and effective service delivery. Such innovations cancontribute to making cities more sustainable and provide
solutions to a wide range of challenges, such as water
management, sustainable mobility, security, solid waste
management, green city development, renewable energy
and urban agriculture.195 The application of these cuttingedge technologies is ultimately revolutionizing the way
cities are planned, governed, managed and analysed.
Technological innovation is redefining urban labour
markets and blurring the conventional lines between
tradeable (manufacturing-based) employment and nontradeable (service-based) employment in the process.
This disruption has profound effects on the employment

37

structure of the city in that huge non-tradeable or service
jobs have become tradeable with relocations occurring
within and across regions. While this possibility creates
new forms of employment in some cities, it is also
deepening unemployment and job insecurity in others.196
By 2025, it is reckoned that almost half of both new andreplacement employment within the European Union will
be highly skilled employment, forcing even higher rates ofmobility across Europe.197 These disruptive technologies
have also created a new class of independent worker
who participates in the “gig economy” by working per
job via digital platforms. Such work offers flexibility anda low barrier to entry, but also lacks traditional worker
protections, although some cities are enacting legislation
to require technology companies to treat their independent
contractors as employees. Despite the hype around the gig
economy, the World Bank estimates less than 0.5 per centof the global labour force works in such an arrangement.198
The ever-increasing application of data is driving thephenomenon of smart cities (Chapter 6). This concept
describes the innovative application of information andtechnology to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban
operations and services, and competitiveness in cities.199
Smart cities can guide better decision-making withrespect to prosperity, sustainability, resilience, emergency
management or effective and equitable service delivery.
The global demand for smart cities is growing rapidly at
almost 19 per cent, from US$622 billion in 2017 to US$1
trillion in 2019, and is expected to reach US$3.48 trillion
by 2026.200 This push is driven mainly by governments
investing in technology to meet the demands of a rapidly
urbanizing world.
The development of smart cities has in part been facilitatedby the increasing penetration of digital technology as morethan 50 per cent of the world’s population is now online
with two-thirds owning a mobile device.201 Singapore has
been at the forefront of the smart city movement; its Smart
Nation Programme seeks to harness ICT, networks and data

Advances in technology enhance theproductivity and prosperity of cities as
they facilitate innovation, efficiency andeffective service delivery

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

UAV drone delivery delivering big brown post package. © Flystock/Shutterstock38

AfricaSouthern Asia

andWestern Asia
2000

2014

South-Eastern
Asia

2016

and theCarribean(excluding Australia
and New Zealand)

2018

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020-30

Not all smart city initiatives have-40been successful, such as
the unkept promises of India’s 100 Smart Cities Mission.204
There are also pitfalls to investing -50
public resources in smart
-50
-51
-53
city tools (Chapter 6). The technology-60 and digital platforms
that underlie smart cites are often developed-64
and marketedby private sector actors, which in-70
turn can-70 lock cities into
using a certain technology and thereby
skew the long-term-80
investment priorities of national and city governments.205
Similarly, data ownership issues may arise between local

Santiago

Kingston

Sao Paulo

governments and the private sector entity that is supplying
technology to collect information.
México

Quito

Lima

Bogotato bolster better quality of life, create more opportunities
and support stronger communities.0 202 While smart cities
are still in their nascent stages in African countries, South-10
African cities have shown how digitaltechnology can be
deployed to improve urban management
and governance,-20
as well as citizen engagement (Figure 1.7).203

Rio de Janeiro

Partial lockdown

Guayaquil

Medellin

Buenos Aires

Total lockdown-5

While cutting-edge
technology can enhance economic-9-14
growth, productivity
and social inclusion, when unevenly
deployed in cities it can create a digital divide, which-26
can exacerbate inequality. Such a divide is characterizedby -35well-connected affluent neighbourhoods and business-40
districts coexisting with under-serviced and underconnected low-income neighbourhoods. The affluent tend
to have greater access to these technologies and ICT canoften serve to extend their reach and control while curbingthat of the more socioeconomically marginalized residents(Chapter 6). To realize the potential of innovation andtechnology in achieving sustainable urbanization, an
enabling environment must be created with the appropriate
institutions to ensure inclusion.

Figure 1.7: Application of digital technology in South African cities

GOVERNMENT








E-services
Citizen portals
Digital city services and products
Broadband ﬁbre rollouts
CCTV networks
Data centre facilities
Private cloud offerings

HEALTH Electronic
health records
in clinics

Source: South African Cities Network, 2018a.

39

MOBILITY Smart ﬁnes
 Intelligent trafﬁcmanagement
systemEDUCATION

 Internet accessin libraries

BUILDINGS






Internet to all municipal buidings
Building-management systems
Estate security and access control
Science and technology parks
ICT maintenance

ENERGY ANDENVIRONMENT Automated meter-readysystems for water andelectricity

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

While cutting-edge technology canenhance economic growth, productivity
and social inclusion, when unevenly
deployed in cities it can create a digital
divide, which can exacerbate inequality
1.4.9. Where is the Money: Shortfall in Funding for
Urban Development?

The NUA and other development agendas related tosustainable urbanization are being implemented within
the context of a shortfall in the funding available for urban
development programmes. This shortfall is likely to be
exacerbated by the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
Chapter 8 shows that achieving the SDGs requires ahuge financial outlay. Conservative estimates provided
by the United Nations and World Bank show that it will
cost US$3.9 trillion dollars a year to achieve the SDGs.206
Some other agencies provide higher estimates of between
US$4 and US$7 trillion annually.207 All of these estimates
are far higher than the development assistance currently
available for urban development. With the current annual
investment in the SDGs being just US$1.4 trillion, theshortfall of at least US$2.5 trillion will have to be financed
through various sources identified in Chapter 8 if the goalsof the 2030 Agenda are to be met.
There is an increasing need to develop and utilize a broad
range of alternatives for financing urban development.
For example, US$26 trillion currently invested in lowyield financial instruments can potentially be tapped forpromising urban projects.208 Tapping into these resources
requires innovation on the part of city leaders to convert theirurban challenges into well-defined and financially viable
projects capable of bridging and potentially surpassing the
US$2.5 trillion SDG investment gap.209 Other possibilities
that can be explored are municipal bonds, strengthening
the revenue capacity of local governments, improving
central-local fiscal transfers, mobilizing resources fromThe NUA and other development agendas
related to sustainable urbanization arebeing implemented within the context
of a shortfall in the funding available forurban development programmes

land-based finance, strengthening the financial capacitiesof public service utilities, expanding and deepening capital
market provision of housing and real estate financing andmaking more effective use of public financing (e.g. smart
and well-targeted subsidies) to leverage private financing.
In responding to climate change, cities must also explore
ways to generate local financing for adaptation andresilience investments. Cities in developed countries
will need more sophisticated taxation and value-capture
measures with relevant insurance schemes; while cities indeveloping countries must strengthen land management
systems and invest strategically in resilient infrastructure
for greater returns.210

1.5. Concluding Remarks
With the adoption of the New Urban Agenda and 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, the international
community affirmed that urbanization is a driver of
positive change with the genuine aspiration of leaving no
one and no place behind. The New Urban Agenda is theframework to integrate and elevate the vital role that cities
must play in decision-making and realizing development
transformations.

While countries have made progress in
the implementation of the New Urban
Agenda and urban components of the
Sustainable Development Goals, there arechallenges that need to be addressed
While countries have made progress in the implementationof the New Urban Agenda and urban components of
the Sustainable Development Goals, there are challenges
that need to be addressed. These include the low level ofawareness of urban-related commitments made in the global
development agendas; low institutional and fiscal capacity;
and weak multilevel governance structures and multistakeholder partnerships, among others. As seen in Chapter
7, the implementation of the New Urban Agenda demands
local actions. This requires an institutional, organizational
policy and financial capacity at the local level, which isoften lacking or poorly developed in many countries. The

40

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

capacity to strengthen devolution and local autonomy inmany countries is low and many cities continue to lack theresources to manage challenges related to urbanization.
Notwithstanding these challenges, sustainable urbanization
has a key role to play in the Decade of Action for
accelerating sustainable solutions to all the world’s biggest
challenges by serving as an entry point for ensuring progress
across multiple goals of Agenda 2030. When well-planned
and managed, urbanization can serve as a catalyst for therealization of many urban-related SDGs: eradicating poverty,
reducing inequality, addressing climate change, enhancing
gender equality, providing productive employment, driving
economic growth and facilitating sustainable consumption
and production patterns. While COVID-19 literally brought
the world to a halt, disrupting and paralysing urban

COVID-19 prevention in Mathare, Nairobi, Kenya. © UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

41

While COVID-19 literally brought theworld to a halt, disrupting and paralysing
urban economies in numerous ways,
it provides the opportunity for cities
to build back better in the long term
and build up resilience against future
pandemics. Cities, in collaboration with
their development partners, should
wholeheartedly embraceeconomies in numerous ways, it provides the opportunity
for cities to build back better in the long term and build up
resilience against future pandemics. Cities, in collaboration
with their development partners, should wholeheartedly
embrace this opportunity.

Urbanization and Cities:
Trends of a New Global Force

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

Barnett and Parnell, 2006.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
Parnell et al,2016.
SDSN, 2014.
Parnell, 2016; Watson, 2016.
Barber, 2016.
Parnell, 2016.
SDSN, 2016.
SDSN, 2016.
SDSN, 2016.
Cities Alliance, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
UN-Habitat, 2010a.
UN Environment, 2019.
Robin and Acuto 2018.
Barnett and Parnell, 2016.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
United Nations, 2017a.
United Nations, 2017a.
United Nations, 2017a p.3.
UN-Habitat, 2017a.
This section is taken mainly fromthe UN-Habitat document of thesame title.
United Nations, 2020a.
United Nations, 2018a.
Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities
2030.
UN-Habitat, 2020a.
United Nations, 2018b.
United Nations, 2018b.
United Nations, 2018b.
Florida and Fasche, 2017.
Freire, et al, 2014.
World Bank, 2019a.
United Nations, 2018b.
UN-Habitat, 2009.
United Nations System, 2019.
United Nations, 2017b.
Agencia EFE, 2015.
UN-Women 2017.
Chant and Mcilwaine, 2013.
United Nation, 2018c.
Population Reference Bureau, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2007.
UNFPA, 2007.
United Nations, 2019a.
United Nations, 2019a.
Rand Corporation, undated.
United Nations, 2019a.
Rand Corporation, undated.
Moreno and Panda, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2016b.
UN-Habitat, 2016b.
Seto et al, 2012.
Moreno and Panda, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2009.
Laberenne and Lamson-Hall, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2020b.
IOM, 2015.
UNDESA, 2013.

60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.

89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.

UNDESA, 2019.
United Nations, 2018b.
United Nations, 2019b.
Migration Data Portal, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2008b.
Lee and Nathan, 2011.
UNSG, 2016.
UNHCR, 2018.
World Economic Forum, 2016.
Migration Data Portal, 2019.
Global Migration Data Analysis
Centre, 2018.
Hagen-Zanker et al, 2018.
The Local, 2016.
Lind, 2018.
Reidy, 2020.
Global Migration Data Analysis
Centre, 2018.
BBC, 2019.
Hagen-Zanker et al, 2018.
UNDESA, 2020a.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2010b.
Partington, 2019.
World Bank, 2019b.
Inequality.org, 2018.
UN-Habitat and CAF, 2014.
World Bank, 2014a.
Ćirković, 2019.
Regan and Ulloa, 2019.
According to the World Bank, morethan 850 million Chinese people havebeen lifted out of extreme poverty;
China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 per cent in 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Jain-Chandra, 2018.
World Bank, 2018a.
Statistics South Africa, 2019.
World Bank, 2018a.
Patel and Steinhauser, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2016b.
McKinsey Global Institute, 2014.
UN-Habitat; 2016a; Chami, 2020.
World Economic Forum, 2020b.
Economic Commission for Europe,
2014.
Stephens, 2005.
Nenova, 2010.
UN-Habitat, 2012a.
Hernandez and Kellett, 2008.
UN-Habitat, 2011b.
United Nations, 2016.
Arimah, 2010.
IPCC, 2018a.
IPCC, 2018a.
IPCC, 2018a.
Barragan and De Andrés, 2015.
Hallegatte, et al, 2013.
Global Commission on Adaptation,
2019.
Global Commission on Adaptation,

114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.

145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.

158.
159.
160.
161.

2019.
Tuxford, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
United Nations, 2019b.
Global Commission on Adaptation,
2019.
Global Commission on Adaptation,
2019.
https://globalclimatestrike.net/#joinin.
McGrath, 2017.
Bonanno, 2017.
https://www.wearestillin.com/.
Rosenthal, 2018.
Chemnick, 2018.
World Health Organization, 2020.
Johns Hopkins University Center for
Systems Science Engineering, 2020.
United Nations, 2020b.
UN-Habitat, 2020a.
UN-Habitat, 2020b.
IMF, 2020.
Gopinath, 2020.
The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2020.
Wahba et al, 2020.
Oteh, 2019.
ILO, 2020a.
ILO, 2020b.
Cheung, 2020.
BLS, 2020.
Families USA, 2020.
Voce, et al, 2020.
King, 2020.
Institute for Social and Economic
Research, 2020.
Krader and Vines, 2020.
Bangladeshi and Garment
Manufacturers Exporters Association,
2020.
ILO, 2020c.
African Union, 2020.
ILO, 2020a.
The Economist, 2020a.
Conger, 2020.
Tait and Walker, 2020.
de Waal and Richards, 2020.
Welsh, 2020.
Winter, et al, 2019.
Al Jazeera and News Agencies, 2020.
Ratcliffe et al, 2020.
Shaikh, 2020.
The overcrowded and squalid living
conditions in migrant workers’
hostels have been the source of
COVID-19 reinfection in Singapore(see Ratcliffe, 2020).
UNICEF and WHO, 2019.
Chinese Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2020.
CDC COVID-19 Response Team, 2020.
EpiCentro - Istituto Superiore di

162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.

168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.

Sanità, 2020.
Balmer, 2020.
UNDESA, 2020b.
Associated Press and dailymail.
com, 2020.
BBC, 2020.
Sharp, 2020.
92.3 black people in every 100,000
cases die compared to 45.2 deaths
per every 100,000 cases for white
people.
van Dorn et al, 2020.
Sumner et al, 2020.
Sumner et at, 2020.
Sumner, et at. 2020.
World Bank, 2018.
World Bank. 2018.
World Bank, 2020a.
IEA, 2020a.
UN-Habitat, 2011a.
Rowlatt, 2020.
Teale, 2020.
United Nations, 2020b; United
Nations, 2020c.
IEA, 2020a.
IEA, 2020a.
IEA, 2020a.
Myllyvirta, 2020.
McGrath, 2020.
IADB, 2020.
Hernandez, 2020.
Chen et al, 2020.
Tobías et al, 2020; European Space
Agency, 2020.
Hepburn et al, 2020.
Hepburn et al, 2020.
Newburger, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
Publish0x.com, 2019.
Schwab, 2016.
World Economic Forum, 2015
Koutroumpis and Lafond, 2018
ESPON, 2017.
World Bank, 2019c.
ITU, 2015.
Smart Cities Association, 2017.
Persistence Market Research, 2017;
World Economic Forum, 2020.
Prime Minister’s Office Singapore,
2019.
South African Cities Network, 2018a.
Pettit and White, 2018.
Pieterse, 2019.
Oteh, 2019.
Muggah et al, 2019.
Muggah et al, 2019.
Muggah et al, 2019.
Global Commission on Adaptation,
2019.

42

Chapter 2
Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

When well-planned and managed, cities create value, which is the totality of the economic, social,environmental and intangible conditions (institutional, governance, political, cultural and civic perception)
outcomes that have the potential to improve quality of life of residents in meaningful and tangible ways. As
is increasingly understood by policymakers at all levels of government, planned urbanization leads to positive
development outcomes and can be leveraged for improved quality of life and overall prosperity. Cities are
not simply incidental geographies where people congregate, but rather are the loci of economic and cultural
production and spaces of environmental and social development.
Urban areas are places of opportunity where aspirations are realized. This sense of possibility motivatespeople to migrate from rural areas to urban areas and to leave their countries of origin for global cities.
Consequently, the discourse on cities has shifted from the perspective that they are challenges to address
to the view that they are key to improving development outcomes. There is an increased understanding thatcities create and sustain value.

43

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Quick Facts
1. The value of sustainable urbanization is the totality of a city’s
economic, environmental, social and intangible conditions thathave the potential to improve the quality of life of residents inmeaningful, visible and concrete ways.
2. Many individuals and population groups in cities around theworld are excluded from the benefits of urbanization.
3. Prioritizing youth employment creates benefits that will havesignificant impact on the economic value generated by cities.
4. The environmental value of urbanization improves quality oflife, prosperity and wellbeing.
5. Cultural diversity contributes to the social, economic andenvironmental value of urbanization through tolerance,
integration, and coming together in public spaces.

Policy points
1. Since urbanization will continue to be the driving force for
global growth, this requires effective planning, management

Over the past two decades, tremendous effort has been
invested to promote and articulate the significant rolethat cities play in the construction of a better world
economically, socially and environmentally. As discussed
in Chapter 1, international agencies and academics
have played a leading role in promoting sustainableurbanization against the context of the traditional
neglect of cities in national development policies.1 As
is increasingly understood by policymakers at all levelsof government, planned urbanization leads to positive
development outcomes and can be leveraged for improved
quality of life and overall prosperity. Cities are not simply
incidental geographies where people congregate, but rather
the loci of economic and cultural production and spacesof social development. Even if this understanding is arelatively recent trend in global discourse, the role of cities
in development has a long history. Cities have historicallyserved as places of innovation and creativity and as centresof commerce, science and culture.

and governance to become a truly transformative asset.
2. The economic value of urbanization will provide the basis bywhich countries can contribute to achieving the SDGs and New
Urban Agenda, as well as recovering from the global recession
induced by COVID-19.
3. When designed with climate adaptation, mitigation andresiliency, cities can create communities that enhanceenvironmental values like cleaner air, more compact, integrated
and walkable cities.
4. Any urbanization process that does not actively address
institutionalized obstacles to full representation, recognition
and redistribution is inequitable and therefore undermines thevalue of urbanization.
5. Realizing the social value of sustainable urbanization is nota natural consequence of economic growth, which does not
automatically reduce poverty and inequality.

In the context of a rapidly urbanizing world, these roles havebecome more compelling, with planning, managing andgoverning cities now a major tool to create inclusive growthand prosperity while driving sustainable consumption andsocially responsible investment. More importantly, cities
have become laboratories where public policies originate
and grassroots actions first take hold in order to tackle theCities have become laboratories where
public policies originate and grassroots
actions first take hold in order to tackle
the critical challenges of the twentyfirst century, including climate change,poverty, inequality, unemployment andinadequate housing

44

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

critical challenges of the twenty-first century, including
climate change, poverty, inequality, unemployment andinadequate housing. As a result, cities around the world
are playing an instrumental role in defining and localizing
global development agendas.
Once viewed primarily through the lens of challenges
to be addressed, cities are now recognized as central tosecuring a sustainable economic, environmental and social
future. Chapters 3 to 5 explore in depth the economic,
environmental and social value of sustainable urbanization.
As a prelude, this chapter introduces the broad conceptof the value of sustainable urbanization and unpacks its
various dimensions. It initiates discussion on importantquestions such as: What is the value of sustainableurbanization? Who is currently benefitting from thevalue of sustainable urbanization? How can the value ofsustainable urbanization be unlocked to ensure that weleave no one behind? This chapter also further establishes
how the value of sustainable urbanization supports theimplementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda.

2.1. Conceptualizing the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization
Urban practitioners around the world continue to facecomplex challenges in managing their urban development
process and caring for their most vulnerable residents.2 The
challenges in cities found in both developed and developing
countries limit the full realization of the potential valuethat can be derived from sustainable urbanization. Thus,
how various stakeholders who champion an urban agenda
articulate and promote the value of urbanization is
crucially important.
This 2020 World Cities Report offers a road map for
advocates to make the case for sustainable urbanization
at all levels, from the neighbourhood to the nation, andthrough the Report conceptualizes the value of sustainableurbanization as the totality of a city’s economic,
environmental, social and intangible conditions, or featuresthat have the potential to improve the quality of life ofresidents in meaningful, visible and concrete ways. This
chapter introduces the interconnectedness of sustainableurbanization’s economic, environmental, social and45

intangible conditions and posits that they are characterized
by several components (Figure 2.1). The economic value ofsustainable urbanization can be understood through thelens of the national economy, property development andprosperity across the urban-rural continuum. Likewise,
the environmental value of sustainable urbanization
can be understood through the lens of cities and climatechange, the built and natural environment and ecosystemservices. The social value of sustainable urbanization canbe understood through a city’s quality of life and focus
on inclusivity and equity. Finally, the intangible valueof sustainable urbanization can be understood throughits governance systems, political institutions, cultural
production and multi-level policy coherence. These values
and their characteristics are introduced and exploredthroughout this chapter.
Urbanization is a multidimensional phenomenon,
as such, its value must be couched in the language ofmultidimensionality. This Report uses value in the
broadest sense—economic, environmental, social andthe intangibles. That conceptualization implies thaturbanization processes should benefit, not handicap, allresidents who live in urban areas. As a transformative
force, sustainable urbanization should accelerate theability of governments to meet the diverse needs ofresidents’ lived experiences, aspirations and wellbeing.
The Report recognizes that because cities are inhabitedby diverse residents, their needs and expectations ofurban processes are different. In most cases, the distinct
historical, cultural and political experiences of people
influence how they perceive and value urbanization. For
instance, merchants turned refugees fleeing the war zoneof Aleppo (Syria) in fear for their lives, young professionals
who made a voluntary lifestyle choice to buy a high-rise
condominium in a walkable neighbourhood of Vancouver

Urbanization is a multidimensional
phenomenon, as such, its value
must be couched in the language ofmultidimensionality... As a transformative
force, sustainable urbanization should
accelerate the ability of governments tomeet the diverse needs of residents’ lived
experiences, aspirations and wellbeing

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Borough Market in Southwark, London, United Kingdom. © ndreyspb21/Shutterstock46

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

(Canada) or an affluent family who lives behind fences ina gated community in Buenos Aires (Argentina) will all
view and value urbanization differently from one another.
Thus, while cities may be plagued with challenges suchas war, violence, inequality and poverty, they also offer
opportunities for prosperity, hope, freedom and security.
The Report also recognizes that value is both time-sensitiveand variable. In the context of urbanization, the economicroles of cities have evolved over time. During the peak of
the industrial economy of the nineteenth through the midtwentieth centuries, cities such as Manchester, Philadelphia,
Lille and Osaka were economic powerhouses driven byindustry. However, global economic restructuring had led
to the erosion of traditional manufacturing away fromlegacy economies and into cheaper developing regions. Asa replacement, developed world cities have taken on new
economic functions, centring on knowledge industries,
technology, advanced producer services and banking.
These once-mighty industrial cities are now secondary
cities whose economic prospects trail the financial capitalsof New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. Some intermediate
cities, including former manufacturing hubs that haveinherited a legacy of underutilized warehouses, factories
Figure 2.1: Conceptualizing the value of sustainableurbanization

ty
ali
Qu of

NOMIC
ECO

Urba
n

rty

and izatio
PhnProp ysica
l
e

ts
en
sid
Re

EconomyValue to

lue
Va to

Bui

Urba
n

Envi ltronme
nt

tional
the NaCitiesChangeUrba nC u l t u re

For many decades, the perceived value derived fromsustainable urban development has predominantly beenmeasurable by economic growth. However, this Reportargues that value cannot be limited exclusively to theeconomic realm. Reducing the value of urbanization only
to that which can be measured ignores the complexity andexcludes the benefits that do not easily lend themselves
to measurement, including the intangible value such as
effective institutions, good governance, cultural diversity,
sense of belonging and civic identity.

ate
and Clim

I NTA N G I B L E
Gov
Sy er na n
s te
c
m e

M
VIRON ENTALEN

PEOPLEEquitys&
tie tem

SOCIALylic
Po e
a n re n c
b
r
U he
Co

LOCAL
Investments

SUBNATIONAL
NATIONAL

47

Around the world, from Montréal to Melbourne, from
Essen to Katowice, cities have deliberately cultivated artistic
activity as a sustainable economic alternative to heavy
industry. Public policies have successfully reimagined thesecities by spurring the physical regeneration of abandoned
industrial sites and the creation of iconic cultural facilities,
which have contributed to an economic reorientation
toward consumption, services and knowledge industries.4
When industrial cities can transition to an entirely
different economy—and a factory can become a museum
or a warehouse can become a nightclub—it indicates thatthe value residents derive from urban areas may change asa result of macro-economic trends. Since perceptions ofvalue can vary over time, urban policies and programmes
should be updated regularly through public participation
processes to reflect urban residents’ experiences andexpectations. In the cultural sector, for example, theso-called “experience economy” of festivals, conferences,
art exhibits and other in-person gatherings is currently atrisk due to the COVID-19 pandemic and cities may haveto reevaluate their approach to such large gatherings in the
post-pandemic world.5

2.2. Value within the Context of
Sustainable Urbanization

Ci sys cesioEc Serve
Lif

Inclusivity

and industrial infrastructure, have pursued policies toremake their economies, and ultimately their civic identity,
as “cultural capitals.”3

PolicyCoherence

Another reason to broaden the language ascribed to thevalue of urbanization is that economic gains have largely
benefited a small group of elites while worsening inequality.
If only the economic dimension of urbanization ismeasured, the potential negative outcomes such as impacts

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

on social marginalization, environmental degradation andthe breakdown of collective responsibility are ignored.
This Report instead promotes a measure of urbanizationthat accounts for the unique needs and aspiration of all
categories of urban dwellers in which no one is left behind(Table 2.1).
What has until recently been institutionalized as“development” is unsustainable and comes at a high costin human, ecological and socio-economic terms. The 2030
Agenda and the NUA represent a new way of conceptualizing
urban development. The SDGs are grounded in thedevelopmental interdependence of economic, social andenvironmental values; there is an explicit recognition thatcurrent patterns of consumption and production exceed
planetary boundaries and that unchecked global climatechange presents immediate dangers. The NUA commits
to people-centred development across the urban-ruralcontinuum of human settlements that protects the planet
and is responsive to the realization of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms.6 It outlines a commitment toshare the value generated by sustainable urbanization in an
inclusive manner.
Only when social equity is foundational to urban
development, thereby ensuring access to core services
for the most underserved, will cities thrive as enginesof economic growth and contribute to environmental
regeneration. This virtuous cycle is at the heart of the
expanded notion of the value of sustainable urbanizationthat underpins this Report, which believes that cities
should not strive to be the best city in the world, but thebest city for the world.7 This idea is a return to notionsof collective responsibility and the interconnectedness ofcities and their residents that requires a balance between
individual wants and collective and planetary needs.
Such a recalibration should begin with the original
inhabitants of any given geography. Even as humans migrate
and establish human settlements far from their place oforigin, the NUA acknowledges the value of indigenous
peoples globally and commits to an intentional and ongoing
dissemination of indigenous knowledge that comes fromthe long-term occupancy of a geographic area. Indigenous
knowledge sees the individual as a part of nature, making
decisions with past, present and future generations in

mind.8 As the urban community begins to recognize thevalue in development that balances economic growth withenvironmental sustainability and social cohesion, there isan emerging interest in indigenous knowledge and waysof being, including in cities where indigenous people havehistorically been excluded by laws and policies that viewindigeneity as incompatible with urban lifestyles.9
Such a mindset should also contribute to an understandingof economic value that not only generates wealth, but also
levels the playing field for people currently excluded from
economic prosperity. Similarly, environmental value cannot
merely halt ecological destruction, but must also build
ecological resilience and adapt to climate change. Social
value cannot be superficial, but rather identify and address
the root causes of exclusion and inequity. In practice, thisapproach means that cities must be welcoming to migrants
and more accommodating of marginalized and underserved
inhabitants. Local authorities must work with theirconstituents and social movements to build an economy
that contributes to environmental and social goals.10
Finally, cities can unlock the intangible value of sustainableurbanization by creating public spaces and opportunities for
democratic participation and social inclusion that allow thecultural fabric of urban life to flourish.

In conceptualizing the value of
urbanization, this Report recognizes
that the specific circumstances of urban
areas are not the same
In conceptualizing the value of urbanization, this Report
recognizes that the specific circumstances of urban areas are
not the same. While the scope of the SDGs and the NUA
are universal and the targets for the global urban agenda
include measurable indicators, setting the priorities andactions at various geographic levels requires grassrootscommunity building informed by the needs of residents.
With this recognition, it is nevertheless feasible to broadly
conceptualize the value of sustainable urbanization.
However, implementation and evaluation must be built on
locally defined models of sustainability that are based upon
the lived realities of local peoples. While cities around theworld face similar challenges and hold similar aspirations,the priorities of the urban population can differ based on48

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Children on the playground of Kalijodo, Jakarta, Indonesia. © Pepsco Studio/Shutterstocka variety of contextual factors such as economics, politics,
ecological resilience, geographic location and social cohesion.
Further, within each urban area resides a multitude ofdifferent individuals with different lived experiences who
are looking for different types of value in the city based on
their unique goals and aspirations (Table 2.1).

2.3. Harnessing the Value of Urbanization
for People
The SDGs and NUA are explicit in the need for sustainableurbanization to be people-centred, which means it should
serve the diverse interests, needs and aspirations of residents.
Around the world, people who migrate from rural to urban
settings do so with expectations. An African migrant who
crosses the Mediterranean Sea destined for Europe and ayoung person leaving their rural South American village
for the nation’s capital have different needs, but they areboth looking for opportunities. The unique geographicalcontext in which people live will also shape the value
they expect from sustainable urbanization. For example,

49

residents of a small human settlement in the Amazon
rainforest are concerned about having an adequate healthclinic when the nearest regional hospital is several days
transport by boat versus urban planners hoping to locate
enough basic services in a sprawling Sydney district sothat residents can live in a “15-minute neighbourhood” andavoid adding to traffic congestion with trips across town.
Likewise, slum dwellers crammed into inadequate housing
in Mumbai need larger flats to prevent overcrowding
while workers struggling to afford accommodation in
affluent parts of Los Angeles where single-family houses
predominate are pushing local authorities to relax zoning
rules and allow smaller dwelling units that cost less. Whilethese contrasts present extreme cases, the value desired byvarious groups in urban settings may overlap. For instance,
most groups’ environmental needs value protection fromnatural disasters and changing weather patterns. Thus,
truly sustainable urbanization should accommodate boththe unique and overlapping needs of each distinct group
and aim to provide meaningful economic, environmental
and social value (Table 2.1).

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Table 2.1: Groups and priorities in urban settings
GroupsEconomic Value

Environmental Value

Social Value

Connection to SDG and NUA

Youth appropriate educationand skills for productive
participation in society productive employment
and livelihood
opportunities healthy and productive
environment for their
future coordinated local climate
action and sustainableurban infrastructure hope and aspiration for
future connection tocommunity and sharedvalues safe, healthy, inclusive and secure cities effective participation in decision-making
 full and productive employment, decent
work and livelihood opportunities
 access to education, skills development,
and employment for increased productivity

Children environment that
protects children’s ability
to attend school and not
be forced into labour safe and secure urban
environment
 healthy and productive
environment for their
future access to age
appropriate play andrecreation facilities andopportunities

 access to basic needs
such as education, food,water, sanitation, etc.
 protection fromtrafficking, exploitation,
violence and abuse equitable access to sustainable basic
physical and social infrastructure; housing,
drinking water, food, health care, education
 safe, healthy and secure cities

Urban Poor
Women

 empowerment indecision making
 recognition ofdisproportionate
amount of domestic
responsibilities

 protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns

 gender equality, enablingthem to participate andbenefit equally in society improve maternal
health and access to
reproductive health reducing inequalities and discrimination
 security of land tenure enabling all to live, work and participate inurban life without fear of violence full and productive employment, decent
work for all and livelihood opportunities

Urban Poor
Migrants

 access to incomeearning opportunities
 enhanced and protectedworking conditions

 protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns

 access to knowledge,
skills upgrading,
educational and training
facilities affordability,
accessibility and safety promote non-discriminatory access to legal
income-earning opportunities to promote
full and productive employment, decent
work for all and livelihood opportunities
 ensuring full respect for human rights

Urban Poor
Elderly mobility and access tothe city opportunities tocontribute protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns

 access to social
protection programs

 equitable access to sustainable basic
physical and social infrastructure; housing,
drinking water, food, health care, culture
and information technologies
 opportunities for dialogue with government

Residents
of slum or
informalcommunities -security of land tenure
and other assets-recognition of informal
economy -protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns-participate in proactiveplanning for a justtransition to zero-carbon
sustainable cities

 Access to amenities(e.g. sanitation, water,electricity, etc.
 representation indecision-making for land
tenure and upgrading strengthening and retrofitting all risky
housing stock to make it resilient todisasters
 address the multiple forms of
discrimination
 improve the living conditions
 security of land tenure

Physically,
mental anddevelopmental
challenges

 Access to transportation
and adequate mobility
options (e.g. paved andcleared sidewalks) mobility is prioritized
during extreme weather
conditions
 compact, connected, andclean cities that address
climate change access to basic andaffordable healthservices integrated into a societythat welcomes andrespects them as humanbeings sustainable mobility and transport
infrastructure that is responsive todifferent levels of physical, mental anddevelopmental challenges
 full and productive employment, decent
work for all and livelihood opportunities
 addressing multiple forms of discrimination

50

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

GroupsEconomic Value

Environmental Value

Social Value

Connection to SDG and NUAPeople livingwith HIV/AIDS
and related
immunedeficiencies

 Protection fromstigma and rejection
from employment
opportunities healthy and urban
friendly environment for
active living
 environmental designthat reduces stress levels

 access to basic andaffordable healthservices relevant to theirneeds
 protection from stigma

 addressing multiple forms of discrimination
 prioritize health and well-being
 build just and inclusive communities
 ensuring full respect for human rights

Refugees,
Asylum Seekers,
and InternallyDisplaced
Persons Access to productive
employment
 Legal protection for
employees

 protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns

 welcoming environment
and non-discrimination
 Legal and social
protection

 promote non-discriminatory access to legal
income-earning opportunities to promote
full and productive employment, decent
work for all and livelihood opportunities
 ensuring full respect for human rights

Small Holder
Farmers(Rural urban
connection)

 Access to market– physically (e.g.
transport) and throughreduced regulations
 Access to basic input
and services
 Fair market price “Pay as you earn” (PAYE)
for market access environmental leadership
focused on adaptationand mitigation to climatechange access toenvironmentally
sustainable inputs andtechnology
 proactive planning for ajust transition that centres
the role of rural farmers

 celebration of “farmers
feed cities”
 safety net in case of
economic downturn facilitate effective trade links across theurban-rural continuum
 ensures that small-scale farmers are linked
to local, subnational, national, regional andglobal value chains and markets

PeopleExperiencing
Homelessness

 subsidized housing built
into future developments
 sufficient rental units
and rent control

 protection from natural
disasters and changing
weather patterns
 compact, connected, andclean cities that address
climate change access to decent andaffordable housing
 social protection andadequate services

 addressing multiple forms of discrimination
 support policy that progresses towards
the right to adequate housing for all and toprevent arbitrary evictions
 facilitate full participation in society
and eliminate the criminalization ofhomelessness

Indigenous
People adequate culturally
appropriate employment
opportunities
 support for indigenous
business development

 effective management ofenvironment and natural
resources
 recognition of a cultural
tie to land
 share in urban prosperity
while participating
in a just transition tosustainability

 respect for culture andlanguage accuracy in the telling of
history equitable access to sustainable basic
physical and social infrastructure; housing,
drinking water, food, health care, andculture recognizing the role that natural andcultural heritage plays in strengtheningsocial participation

People withdiffering sexual
identity andorientation(LGBTQ2+)

 Protection fromstigma and rejection
from employment
opportunities

 quality environment,
including access toamenities such as green
spaces, public spaces,
entertainment, etc.

 promotion of just andinclusive societies
 celebration of difference legal rights andprotections

 addressing multiple forms of discrimination

Retirees andOlder Persons

 ability to meet basic
needs (i.e. housing andnutrition)
 protection of
investments (i.e.
property) healthy and urban
friendly environment for
active living
 benefit from connected,
clean and compact cities
built to address climatechange reduced isolation orenhanced integration
programs

 equitable access to sustainable basic
physical and social infrastructure; housing,
drinking water, food, health care, culture
and information technologies
 opportunities for dialogue with government51

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

GroupsEconomic Value

Environmental Value

Social Value

Connection to SDG and NUA

Wage Labour -productive, decent andsecured employment
 ability to meet basic
needs (i.e. housing andnutrition)
 fair wage vis-à-vis costof living in cities

 equal opportunities,
allowing people to live
healthy, productive,
prosperous and fulfillinglives
 benefit from connected,
clean, and compact cities
built to address climatechange safety net in case of
economic downturn ability to achieve hopeand aspirations

 access to income-earning opportunities,
knowledge, skills and educational facilities
 full and productive employment and decent
work and livelihood opportunities

Middle Class Strong economy to growinvestments
 Addressing challenges
faced by local
businesses

 quality environment,
including access toamenities such as green
spaces, public spaces,
entertainment, etc.
 proactive plan foradapting and mitigating
the effects of climatechange respect for culture andlanguage ability to achieve hopeand aspirations

 address the challenges faced by local
business community by supporting micro-,small and medium-sized enterprises andcooperative throughout the value chainRich and elites

 Property protection-Investment security
 Enabling environment forbusiness and innovation
 Sustainable economic
growth quality environment,
including access toamenities such as green
spaces, public spaces,
entertainment, etc.
 proactive plan foradapting and mitigating
the effects of climatechange opportunities andspaces for socializing
and networking
 overall prosperity leading
to pride in their city
 ability to promote theirideology and values

 increasing economic productivity
 promoting an enabling, fair andresponsive business environment basedon the principles of environmental
sustainability and inclusive prosperity,
promoting investments, innovation andentrepreneurship

In practice, ensuring that the value of urbanization
responds to the needs of all groups may pose somechallenges, including the capacity of urban governments toaddress competing priorities. Although local governments
and their governance networks cannot possibly focus on
all distinct groups within their city, they can intentionallyplan their urbanization processes and services to address
the most complex challenges, which will ultimately yield
benefits for a larger swath of the population. UNICEF,
in a report on urban development for children, suggeststhat designing child-responsive urban settings will meet

In practice, ensuring that the value of
urbanization responds to the needs ofall groups may pose some challenges,
including the capacity of urban
governments to address competing
priorities

the needs not only of families but also other vulnerable
populations like women and older persons.11

2.4. Economic Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
The economic dimension is the most visible feature of
the value of urbanization.12 For decades, economists
have argued for the importance of cities to economic
development. Around the world, national prosperity ordevelopment continues to be largely dependent on theeconomic performance of cities. No country has achieved
sustained economic growth and transitioned to middleor high-income status without substantial and sustained
urbanization. Moving from low-income to middleincome country status is almost always accompanied bya rural-to-urban economic transition.13 In most emerging
and some developing countries, cities are contributing to52

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Cairo, Egypt, overflowing streets and chaotic trading in thebazaar. © Byleshiy985/Shutterstock53

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Cities have the capacity to generate local
economic activity and attract foreign
investment, which is a key contributor to
economic growth and development
productivity growth and job creation as their economy
transitions from primary to secondary and tertiaryindustries.14
Fostering economic development and enhancing
competitiveness are key goals for many cities around theworld. Cities have the capacity to generate local economic
activity and attract foreign investment, which is a key
contributor to economic growth and development. At amacro level, the value generated by urban growth, such as
the appreciation of land, housing and real estate values,
constitutes a key feature of the economic dimension of thevalue of urbanization. The following section examines the
economic value of sustainable urbanization at three levels:
national, individual and physical properties.
2.4.1. National economy

The performance of national economies largely depends
on the performance of urban economies.15 Highly
urbanized countries have higher incomes, provide better
opportunities for investment and employment, boast
stronger institutions and are better able to withstandthe volatility of the global economy than those with lessurbanized populations.16 Urbanization geographicallyconcentrates both people and economic activity. The valueof concentration includes increased productivity and job
creation, specifically in services and manufacturing, as
well as higher standards of living. Overall, cities generate
productivity and thereby enhance the agglomeration
impacts of urbanization.17 For instance, it is estimated that
Asian urban productivity is more than 5.5 times that ofrural areas.18

Cities generate productivity
and thereby enhance theagglomeration impacts ofurbanization

Cities benefit from agglomeration effects when firms
and talent locate near one another. These agglomerations
drive innovation, oftentimes leading to clusters of similarindustries. Successful cities thus develop brands tied to
specific fields—finance, health care, software, fashion,
biotechnology, entertainment, higher education andmedia—that attract investment and businesses, generating
benefits for the local economy that drive national
economic figures.19 Cities are also important nodes that
articulate and shape the global economy. In advanced
nations, so-called “alpha world cities” such as New York,Paris, London and Tokyo have long powered not only
their national economies, but also the global economy.20
While their economic influence as the leading world cities
continues, they have been joined by growing a list of cities
whose economic profiles have risen over the last two
decades, including Bangkok, Beijing, Dubai, Guangzhou,
Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Kuala Lumpur, Mexico
City, Mumbai, Seoul, Shanghai and Sydney.21 In a changing
world economy, these recently certified world cities anda vast array of second-tier cities are playing an importantrole in the economic prosperity of nations. The role ofcities in propelling the economic growth of nations hastaken a new dimension in the evolving global economy.
This new dimension has confirmed a long-held view thatcities, rather than countries, are the key economic units
and motivates subnational policy prioritization.22

For many cities, their economic value has
been enhanced in the current era of rapid
urbanization and global competitivenessAs noted in Chapter 3, for many cities, their economic value
has been enhanced in the current era of rapid urbanizationand global competitiveness. Experience suggests that ascountries’ economies develop, urban settlements accountfor a larger share of national growth. Although urban
areas constitute 55 per cent of the world’s population,
they generate roughly 80 per cent of the world’s grossdomestic product (GDP).23 In some countries, a single
city is contributing a disproportionate share of national
economic growth—up to 50 per cent in certain cases, mostnotably the Republic of Korea where Seoul contributes
almost half, and Hungary and Belgium where Budapest andBrussels contribute about 45 per cent, respectively.24

54

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

For many cities, their economic value has
been enhanced in the current era of rapid
urbanization and global competitivenessSince the early 1990s, the “new economic geography” hasbeen instrumental in reemphasizing the downward force
on transportation costs engendered by increasing density
as a central agglomerative force.25 Alongside work in urban
economic and regional science, scholars associated with thisintellectual movement seeking to inject a spatial awarenessin economic analysis highlighted the relationship between
urban density and greater specialization, higher incomes
and increased worker productivity. But it has also beenrecognized that densification generates risks and negative
externalities. The influential 2009 World Bank Report,“Reshaping Economic Geography,” drew upon some ofthis work in making a strong case for the role of cities
within economic development, highlighting the need topromote densification and enhance the market forces ofagglomeration, migration and specialization while avoiding
the diseconomies of scale arising from congestion.26 Yet thetone was often celebratory. Economists’ renewed optimism
around urban areas is also captured in Edward Glaeser’s
Triumph of the City.27 In the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic, urban optimists are more tepid in their
enthusiasm, both reaffirming their faith in agglomeration
economies while also expecting some dispersal of economic
activity away from expensive “superstar” cities to moretertiary locations.28
Beyond the theoretically assumed benefits ofagglomerations, available evidence suggests that it is muchcheaper to provide services and infrastructure in urban
areas with high levels of concentration. The concentrationof individuals, particularly the skilled, facilitates theexchange of ideas and the sharing of knowledge, boosting
innovation and productivity.29 Urban concentrationencourages the start-up of new business enterprises. The
widely known Silicon Valley in the San Francisco Bay Area
(US) is a classic example. The area is home to thousands ofstart-up companies in high-tech innovation and scientificdevelopment (Chapter 6).
Generally, firms in urban areas enjoy the privilege of
having access to a large local market, which in many55

cases may also be well connected to the markets ofneighbouring cities and global markets. Access to larger
markets encourages a wider variety of goods and services,many of which are inputs into the production of otherfirms. Firms in cities that are within mega-regions haveeven greater advantage with respect to access to a wider
market and regional economy (Chapter 3). For example,
the Northeast Megalopolis (US) is a US$3.8 trillion
economy that stretches from Boston to Washington via
New York City. It is home to 44 million inhabitants andgenerates 20 per cent of national GDP while consuming
only two per cent of national land area.30 Europe has atransnational mega-region: the Rhine/Scheldt Delta
that spans Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
with a population of 26 million. Through infrastructure
investments like high-speed rail and the world’s longest
oversea bridge, China has stitched together the Pearl River
Delta cities of Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Shenzhen into
the Greater Bay Area, a mega-region with a population of
70 million.31 In these regions, agglomeration economies
create more value at the local level through proximityof the factors of production and the increased size andspecialization of markets.32
Despite agglomeration benefits, the spatial concentration ofpeople and firms has drawbacks as well. Rising land, housing,labour, congestion and pollution costs are all potential
outcomes from urbanization. These negative externalities
eventually make the costs of living and conducting businesschallenging and may limit the competitive advantage of agiven area. Spatially, agglomeration can intensify inequality
within and between cities in the national and global urban
system. National governments must properly manage theirsystem of cities across the urban continuum in order tobalance agglomeration benefits with the potential negative
consequences of “superstar city” formation that leaves
smaller cities and rural areas behind.
If properly planned, urban areas can also contribute tonational development through the synergies that exist

If properly planned, urban areas canalso contribute to national development
through the synergies that exist between
rural and urban economies

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

between rural and urban economies. Urban and rural
areas are not mutually exclusive, but rather a seamless
continuum of economic activities and settlements.33
Urban markets provide a powerful incentive for andsupport to increased rural production, and rural markets
have provided an equally powerful foundation forincreased urban production of goods and services.34
The concentration of economic resources in cities is an
important asset for national economies, including all rural
areas. If managed properly, the economic, environmental
and social benefits of sustainable urbanization will not belimited to metropolitan edges but will also benefit rural
areas. Ideally, sustainable urbanization will catalyse a longterm convergence in living standards between urban andrural areas.35 Indeed, empirical evidence shows strong
beneficial spillover effects from urban to rural areas forcountries such as India and Nepal.36
In the vast majority of countries, ongoing economic,
environmental and governance tensions make it difficult torealize the benefits of the interdependence between ruraland urban areas. The core tenets of sustainable urbanization
should embrace the enduring dynamic relationship that has
existed at all human settlement scales, from small towns
to metropolises, as well as between urban areas and theirsurrounding rural areas.37

Regrettably, in most countries, especiallythose in the developing world, theeconomic value of urbanization is
being undermined by unplanned andspontaneous urbanization
Regrettably, in most countries, especially those in thedeveloping world, the economic value of urbanization
is being undermined by unplanned and spontaneous
urbanization, which is reflected in the continuous
expansion of slums, sprawling development, risinginequality, inadequate services and poor environmental
management (Chapter 1). These conditions are undermining
the economic productivity of cities and liveability of urban
environments. Urbanization must be well-planned andproperly managed to ensure that urban growth becomesan opportunity to enhance productivity, ensure liveability,
promote equality and leave no one behind.38

2.4.2. Value of urbanization to residents

Urbanization offers economic value to those who choose to
locate in cities by providing richer market structures, jobs,
recreation and entertainment.39 Urban dwellers generally
have better access to financial resources and opportunities
to pursue creative ideas. They have a dense local consumer
market to support their efforts. Likewise, urban workers
often have better access to basic services like transportation,water, electricity and telecommunications including
mobile phone and internet access. The concentrationof economic activity in cities attracts a wider variety ofbusiness enterprises and offers employment opportunities
that provide higher incomes for workers. It also generates
opportunities for upward mobility and improved social
status.40 In most cases, the economic output per person incities is much greater than that of the country. In cities
such as Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Manila,
economic output per person varies between US$14,200
and US$66,800, although figures for Singapore will becoterminous with national figures.41 In Latin America,
cities such as Mexico City, São Paulo and Santiago havebeen attractive centres of investments for multinational
corporations and regional start-ups alike in recent years,
although the global recession occasioned by the pandemic
may change those cities’ fortunes.42
Residents of cities also derive value from the fact thaturbanization reduces poverty. Studies have found thaturbanization has helped lift the productive potential andstandards of living for billions of workers.43 In China,
urbanization has contributed to lifting more than 700
million people out of poverty in the last 15 years, withmore than 70 per cent of them migrants from rural areas.
The Asian Development Bank has also found that between
1990 and 2008, the number of urban poor dropped from
137 million to 37 million, despite a doubling of the urban
population.44 These figures reflect the transformative powerof cities and indicate that if managed properly, urban areas

In an uncertain global economic
environment compounded by frequentcatastrophic weather events and the
COVID-19 pandemic, urban poverty andunemployment are growing in scale andextent in many countries

56

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

can be adaptable and resilient by absorbing huge numbersof migrants without sliding into poverty. Although there
have been substantial strides in poverty reduction in urban
areas, life in cities is still challenging for large segments ofthe population (Chapter 1). In an uncertain global economic
environment compounded by frequent catastrophic weather
events and the COVID-19 pandemic, urban poverty andunemployment are growing in scale and extent in many
countries. Globally, nearly half a billion people are still
expected to live in extreme poverty by 2030, mostly in
Africa, where urbanization is largely unmanaged.45
While the composition of groups in poverty will varyfrom country to country and city to city, one consistently
underemployed or unemployed group in cities in bothdeveloped and developing countries is youth. Prioritizing

Prioritizing youth employment creates
benefits that will have significant impact
on the entirety of economic value
generated by cities around the world

youth employment creates benefits that will have significant
impact on the entirety of economic value generated bycities around the world (Table 2.2).
2.4.3. Urbanization and physical property

The concentration of people in urban areas increases
demand for housing and land. Higher demand and market
forces often lead to an appreciation of land, housing
and real estate values, constituting a key feature of theeconomic value of urbanization. Around the world, land
value generated by urbanization has been increasing. For
example, rapidly expanding urban areas such as Dhaka(Bangladesh) have experienced 74 per cent yearly increasesince the early 2000s.46 Fast growing cities appear to beexperiencing the most housing appreciation. The Global
Residential Cities Index for Q1 2020 shows a 4.3 per centaverage annual increase for the top 150 cities around theworld, with 85 per cent of the cities indexed experiencing
year over year price appreciation. The Philippine capital of
Manila saw the highest increase (22.2 per cent), followed by
Budapest, Hungary (16.3 per cent) and Izmir, Turkey (16.3
per cent).47

Table 2.2: The value of urbanization for youth
Value of urbanization

Plight of youth in cities

Economic
 Appropriate education and skills for productive
participation in society
 Productive employment and livelihood
opportunities

Youth unemployment and precarious jobs contribute to high levels of poverty in cities and countries.
Almost 74 million young women and men of working age are unemployed throughout the world. In
2018, one-fifth of the world’s youth were not engaged in education, employment or training programs.
In addition, many more youth are underemployed and working long hours for low pay. An estimated
59 million youth between 15 and 17 years of age are currently engaged in hazardous forms of work.
The under and unemployment of youth is a pressing economic issue in both developed and developing
countries alike.

Environmental
 Healthy and productive environment for their
futureClimate change will adversely affect future generations as they enter adulthood, leaving urban youth
particularly at risk of sea-level rise, extreme weather patterns and natural disasters. Unchecked
environmental degradation like poor air quality shortens life expectancies for youth who must endure
unhealthy particulate matter over the course of their lifetimes.

Social Hope and aspirations for the future Connection to community and shared values

For youth looking to enter the job market, sustained unemployment can make them more vulnerable
to social exclusion and prone to violence. Social policy in cities must specifically target the emerging
crisis of youth unemployment. For youth to experience the social value of sustainable urbanization,priorities must address their unique needs within urban areas. With adequate employment youth can be a
productive and socially responsible member of society that contributes to addressing the other challenges
faced in cities. Addressing unemployment and social exclusion is complex and the solutions in each city
will need to be tailored by local stakeholders according to the cultural context.

Source: https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/employment/

57

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Korail slum settlement in Dhaka, Bangladesh. © UN-Habitat-Kirsten Milhahn/UN-Habitat

58

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

At the macro level, the urban housing market is a major
economic sector that contributes significantly to GDP.
The supply and consumption of housing interacts closelywith economic growth through its impact on employment,
income generation, investment and savings. In Singaporeand Hong Kong, real estate plays such a major role in thefunctioning of the economy that one scholar describes
the two cities as “property states.”48 Real estate forms
an important part of the stock market and has enjoyedconsiderable growth while providing substantial revenue
for governments and wealth for individuals. There are alsosignificant interactions with financial systems, throughhousing banks, mortgage schemes, interest rates andconsumption of housing services.49
Despite its economic value, speculative interest in property
markets creates so-called “hedge cities” where global elites
park excess capital outside of their home country. This
trend excludes millions of urban residents and worsens
inequality in many cities. From Auckland to London,
Toronto to Sydney, cities with high quality of life locatedin stable countries are facing significant challenges
in providing safe and adequate housing for urban
residents. Rapid appreciation of real estate has fuelled
the construction of high- and middle-income housing byprofit-seeking private companies to the detriment of lowincome housing development. In Vancouver (Canada), themedian total income of households is US$72,662 while theaverage house price is roughly US$1.1 million, although
local authorities are fighting back with policy tools like aprovincial foreign buyer’s tax and municipal empty homes
tax.50 Rents are alarmingly high in most large and midsize cities, and out of line with incomes forcing many to
pay more than half of their monthly income on housing.51
In most countries, housing investment as a share of GDP
has not kept pace with urbanization. In low- and lowermiddle income countries especially, housing investment
as a percentage of GDP lags behind what is needed toaccommodate sustainable urbanization.52 About a third

In most countries, housing
investment as a share of
GDP has not kept pacewith urbanization

59of all urban dwellers worldwide—1.2 billion people—lackaccess to safe and secure housing.
As new housing is built, adequate infrastructure must
accompany to support urban growth. Infrastructure isseverely deficient in most urban areas, which is adversely
affecting the natural and built environments andexacerbating poverty because of its effects on the healthand living environment of the poor. The challenge facing
most urban governments is how to invest in infrastructure
provision to keep pace with rapid urbanization in a waythat is financially and environmentally sustainable, while
ensuring access to an adequate level of services for the poor.

2.5. Environmental Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
This Report conceptualizes the environmental value ofsustainable urbanization as the benefits derived fromactions taken to protect environmental assets, enhance
efficient use of resources and improve environmental
quality. It also involves efforts to reduce the negativeenvironmental externalities associated with urbanization.
The environmental value of sustainable urbanization
will not be realized by chance; rather, it requires theintervention of planned and managed urbanization. This
planning requires long-term vision and understanding
trade-offs, all supported by strong regulations andmonitoring frameworks, particularly international
agreements such as the Paris Agreement on climate change
and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Cities have the potential to improve disaster risk reduction,
as well as accelerate response and recovery. They can do soby enabling land-use planning, building codes, regulations,risk assessments, monitoring, early warning systems
and building-back-better response and reconstruction
approaches. Enhancing the environmental value of
urbanization depends largely on effective institutions,
governance, urban planning, infrastructure and a cultureof ecological conservation.
Urbanization is often seen as a threat to environmental
sustainability. As discussed in Chapter 1, unplanned
urbanization and poor land management can cause
irreversible land-cover changes, biodiversity loss andenvironmental degradation. Around the world, unmanagedUnpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

The environmental value of urbanization
improves quality of life, prosperity
and wellbeing. Planned urbanization
offers many opportunities to addressenvironmental sustainability and develop
resilience in cities
urban expansion, where urban footprints are growing fasterthan population, poses a tremendous threat. Uncontrolled
sprawl contributes to more private car ownership,
distance travelled by automobile, total road miles paved,fuel consumption, alteration of ecological structures andconversion of agricultural or rural land into urban uses
(Chapter 4).
However, when well-planned and governed, urbanization
can create tremendous environmental value. Cities generateenvironmental value by achieving harmonious and balanced
development, preserving nature, protecting biodiversity
and reinforcing environmental assets. Well-planned cities
use resources more efficiently and reduce energy use.53 The
environmental value of urbanization improves quality oflife, prosperity and wellbeing. Planned urbanization offers
many opportunities to address environmental sustainability
and develop resilience in cities.
2.5.1. Urban built environment

The built environment is a product of human infrastructuredevelopment. It refers to any physical alteration of thenatural environment, from hearths to cities, throughconstruction by humans.54 The built environment andits form have significant implications for the naturalenvironment. Urban areas that are not properly planned,
managed and governed will burden ecosystems. However,the built environment can be manipulated throughintentional planning and design to reduce the negative
impacts and generate environmental value. As discussed in
Chapter 4, environmentally sensitive planning brings aboutcompact cites, increased density, walkable neighbourhoods
and opportunities for active transportation.
The NUA favours compact, high density and mixed-use
urban development. Compactness has the potential totrigger economies of scale and agglomeration. Compact
and well-regulated cities with environmentally-friendly

public transport systems have positive environmental
impacts.55 Urban form and density directly influence
the extent of energy consumption: compacts cities use
more clean energy, are less dependent on motorizedtransport and contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, cities that consume less energy are cleaner andprovide a higher standard of living, including well-paying
jobs. Estimates suggest that investments in low-carbon
measures in cities could support 87 million jobs annuallyby 2030.56
A comparison of transport-related carbon emission aroundthe world shows that emissions are highest in North Americaand Australia. North American urbanization is generally
characterized by sprawl-like development and transportation
systems rely heavily on the use of private motorized transport,
leading to high levels of carbon emissions. In contrast,
Western Europe produces approximately one-quarter of thetransport-related emissions of North America, a difference
that can be explained by the tendency of European cities topromote the use of clean energy and the more prevalent useof public transport in the region. Cities in Europe, notably
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen and Ljubljana are
the most bike‑ and pedestrian‑friendly in the world, withthat trend set to accelerate in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic as cities roll out new bike infrastructure toaccommodate commuters who now prefer cycling to public
transport due to the public health risk of contracting thenovel coronavirus.57 Most European cities have high-density
centres where residents are encouraged to walk or cycle,
which significantly reduces human stress on the naturalenvironment.58 When human-powered transport is notavailable, use of public transit systems is the next best option
to substantially reduce emissions.59 Governments that invest
in low-carbon cities can enhance economic prosperity,
make cities better places to live and rapidly reduce carbon
emissions.60
Indeed, energy and transport specialists have longseen cities as key to a post-carbon transition. For these
specialists, the urban transition presents opportunities
for positive systemic change linked to technologicalinnovations. Rapid urbanization in coal-based economies
like India and China presents opportunities to shift toward
a more energy-efficient mode of energy consumption
and development.61 In Africa, the application of off-grid

60

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table 2.3: The value of urbanization for poor women
Value of urbanization

Plight of poor women in cities

Economic
 Empowerment in decision-making
 Recognition of disproportionate amountof domestic responsibilities

Most of the world’s urban poor are women with limited employment prospects. When urban poor women do findwork, it is often precarious, and the wages are insufficient to escape poverty. Globally they earn 24 per cent lessthan men and there are 700 million fewer women than men in paid formal employment. They frequently work in theinformal economy where they are less likely to have employment contracts, legal rights and social protections. Urban
poor women shoulder disproportionate amounts of domestic responsibilities, limiting the amount of time they can
dedicate to earning money. The World Economic Forum has calculated that it will take women almost 100 years toreach gender equality at current earning rates.

Environmental
 Protection from natural disasters andchanging weather patterns

Urban poor women are at a disproportionate risk of negative impacts from climate change and the associatednatural disasters because they are increasingly forced to live in undesirable locations within cities, exposing themto more intense and frequent weather events. Their homes are often poorly constructed and maintained. If theirhome is damaged or destroyed, they face enormous challenges to recover and rebuild.

Social Gender equality, enabling them toparticipate and benefit equally in society Improve maternal health and access to
reproductive health

Progress on all the SDGs will be stalled if women’s empowerment and gender equality are not prioritizedin decision making. As cities develop and implement policy and actions to address to promote sustainableurbanization, the unique plight of urban poor women must be considered. By taking a gender mainstreaming
approach that centres the needs of poor women in cities when formulating public policy, local authorities canredress systemic inequities.

Source: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf

energy and sanitation technologies creates the potential
for a wider array of actors to provide cost-effective urban
services in a manner that promotes economic growth andreduces poverty.62
Additionally, the design of the built environment
offers opportunities where local authorities can respectmultiple groups’ right to the city by providing value
to their most vulnerable residents (Table 2.1). For
example, poor women in cities often bear simultaneous
responsibilities for childrearing, household management
and income generation outside the home. Urban policy
needs to recognize the disproportionate risk that womenface from climate change and natural disasters and theimpact that unplanned urbanization has on women andtheir ability to provide for their immediate and extended
families (Table.2.3).

Urban policy needs to recognize thedisproportionate risk that womenface from climate change and natural
disasters and the impact that unplanned
urbanization has on women and theirability to provide for their immediate andextended families

61

2.5.2. Cities and climate change

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of thetwenty-first century. Cities consume over two-thirds ofthe world’s energy and account for as much as 70 per centof human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, primarily
through the consumption of fossil fuels for buildings andtransportation.63 Thus, climate change in the absenceof investment in resilience and adaptation can erode
the environmental value of urbanization. However, as
described in Chapter 1, an investment in climate resiliencestrategies could have a triple dividend: prevent future
losses; generate economic benefits through reducing risk,increase productivity, and driving innovation; and deliversocial and environmental benefits.64
Nearly 10,000 cities and local governments have set
emissions reduction targets with accompanying policies
and programmes to meet those targets.65 An increasing
number of cities are becoming centres of innovation inalternative energy, developing resources that may reduce
dependence on fossil fuels and make our societies moresustainable. In 2017, for instance, 158 city authorities,businesses, non-governmental organizations and research
institutions signed the Nagano Declaration, committing toincrease cooperation and accelerating the transition to 100
per cent renewable energy.66

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Climate change in the absence ofinvestment in resilience and adaptation
can erode the environmental value of
urbanization
Urban planning can play a key role in designing effective
mitigation and adaptation strategies, which in turn will
enhance the environmental value of urban areas. Urban
economies of scale make it cheaper and easier to takeactions to minimize both emissions and climate hazards atthe city level.67
Cities have the necessary population size, technologicalcapability and institutional knowledge to adopt green
economy initiatives at scale, like switching to renewableenergy. Beyond its environmental value, alternative energy
initiatives constitute an emerging economic sector fornational economies. Global investment in renewableenergy in 2018 totalled US$288.9 billion. Worldwide, thenumber of jobs in renewable energy, such as researchand development, project development, engineering,
installation, and operation and maintenance continue
to increase, reaching an estimated 11 million by the endof 2018.68 If cities follow through on their pledges andadopt renewable energy at scale, they could fuel national
economic transformations.69
Climate scientists have become among the most influential
voices to stress that cities play a central role in the fightagainst climate change. Under the auspices of the IPCC,
city leaders convened in Edmonton (Canada) for a
conference in March 2018 to inspire the next frontierof research focused on the science of cities and climatechange, which will inform a special IPCC report in 2028.70
Cities themselves continue to take centre stage in arguingfor concerted attention to the relationship between
urbanization and climate change. For example, the C40
Cities Climate Leadership Group launched a COVID-19

Urban planning can play a key rolein designing effective mitigation andadaptation strategies, which in turn will
enhance the environmental value of
urban areas

recovery task force stressing than the post-pandemic world
cannot return to “business as usual” on pace for 3ºC or
more of overheating.71
Both in their relationship to natural areas beyond theirgeographical limits and through the open spaces intermixed
with metropolitan areas, cities are co-dependent withliving systems. Natural scientists acknowledge that urban
processes drive changes to patterns of biodiversity andecosystems services globally, which were made all themore visible during coronavirus lockdowns as urban
flora and fauna thrived in the absence of humans.72 This
understanding has helped to reframe urbanization as botha challenge and opportunity to manage ecosystems at theplanetary scale.73 There are urban areas located withinall 36 biodiversity hotspots identified by the Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund.74 Twenty-two cities shareideas about enhancing urban biodiversity through their
participation in the Biophilic Cities Network. Bothecologists and climate scientists see cities as laboratories
in which emerging technologies, new social practices
and alternative economic and governance models can be
introduced, tracked and refined.

2.6. Social Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
This Report conceptualizes the social value of sustainableurbanization through transformative commitments thatenhance social inclusion and reduce poverty. It is further
conceptualized through the framework of ensuring
the “right to the city,” an intellectual vision with legal
recognition in some countries built on the pillars of“spatially just resource distribution, political agency, andsocial, economic, and cultural diversity.”75 This Report
also embraces the notion of “cities for all,” or the belief
that all people on the urban-rural continuum should haveequal rights, opportunities and fundamental freedoms tobenefit from the value of sustainable urbanization. These
approaches are reflected in the NUA transformative
commitment to “leave no one behind, by ending poverty inall its forms and dimensions.”76
For centuries, people have congregated in cities to pursue
their aspirations and dreams, leading to increased individualand collective wellbeing. However, realizing the social value

62

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020of sustainable urbanization is not a natural consequence ofa city’s economic growth, as increasing investment in urban
areas does not automatically address poverty and inequality.
Mounting evidence suggests that economic growth in itself
does not reduce poverty or increase the collective wellbeing
if it is not accompanied by equitable polices that allow
low-income or disadvantaged groups to benefit from suchgrowth.77 In fact, as cities grow larger and produce greater
economic value, they have also become places of increased
inequality and poverty (Chapters 1 and 5). This widening gap
is due to the absence of institutional mandates to implement
egalitarian policies, limited capacity and resources atdifferent levels of government and a lack of community
participation in urban development and decision-making.
There is a need for transformative change towards peoplecentred and sustainable urban development that enhances
social value. Cities provide opportunities to create andmaintain inclusive and just social systems and to produce
services and experiences. A city is only sustainable tothe extent that it addresses poverty, inequity, precarious
housing and slums, among other pressing needs. While nocity or country has completely addressed the complexityof sustainable urban development, some are making
tremendous efforts, like Mexico City’s embrace of Central
American migrants.78

Realizing the social value of sustainableurbanization is not a natural consequenceof a city’s economic growth, as increasing
investment in urban areas does not
automatically address poverty and inequality
The intersection of inclusivity, equality and prosperity
frames how the social value realized from sustainableurbanization is conceptualized. These broad andinterconnected themes need to be unpacked to understandhow individuals within unique social groups experienceor are excluded from the value derived from sustainableurbanization.
2.6.1. Inclusivity

Inclusive and visionary urban planning and governancethat includes slum prevention and upgrading, combinedwith pro-poor urban development policies that expand

63

and improve opportunities for employment, are key
ingredients for sustainable urban development and integral
to the NUA and SDGs.

Many individuals and population groups
in cities around the world are excluded
from the benefits of urbanization
Many individuals and population groups in cities aroundthe world are excluded from the benefits of urbanization.
Sustainable urbanization should include underrepresented
and underserved populations in participatory civic processes.
For example, the negative consequences of urbanization arelikely to disproportionately impact women in terms of safety,
inadequate mobility in cities and unequal access to resources.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, over half of public
transportation users are women.79 However, transportation
systems are not always designed with women’s needs inmind. Indirect routes lead to long walks to commercial
and employment centres with few accommodations forchildren.80 For instance, in Puebla (Mexico), more than
two-thirds of the families living in affordable housing units
located 30 or more kilometres away from the city centre areheaded by women. These women commute very early in themorning when transportation options are limited in poorly
lit public spaces where they may be exposing themselves torisks. The long hours also limit their ability to participate
in civic life.81 If a city like Puebla wished to upend thisparadigm, it could develop a response that included adequatetransportation and secure housing options. A prime exampleof planning for gender equity is Vienna (Austria), where
the city’s urban planning department created the “Manualfor Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban
Development” based on the experience of female residents.
It incorporates gender considerations into planning public
spaces, land-use planning and design, public washrooms,
recreation facilities and transportation.82
Rural migrants are another population group that isfrequently excluded from the benefits of urbanization.
Often, in low- and middle-income countries, thesemigrants relocate due to unprofitable agriculture, limited
livelihood options, poor living conditions and inadequate
infrastructure and services.83 City authorities focused on
the inclusion of rural migrants need to develop policies

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

A young woman walks down a staircase. Zanzibar, Tanzania. © Eduardo Moreno

64

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Simple design of urban scenery withpeople in various everyday scenes.
© Danielle Parentoni/Shutterstock

Rural migrants are another populationgroup that is frequently excluded fromthe benefits of urbanizationand initiatives to address their housing needs and ensurethat migrants understand their rights to access public
spaces and services. To this end, Argentina has introduceda land titling program through which inhabitants ofvulnerable neighbourhoods can acquire a “Family Housing
Certificate” that allows them access to basic services andcertifies their address.84 Cities in Italy and South Africa are
implementing basic income and living wage legislation toensure the inclusion of vulnerable populations.85
The reforms necessary to address the exclusion of groups
and individuals is context-specific, as a city in Côte
d’Ivoire will have different priorities than a city in Canada.
There are examples of cities embarking on initiatives toachieve their commitments through the NUA by building
partnerships that create opportunities for residents toparticipate in the urban development decisions that
impact their lives. In Ghana, the Accra Metropolitan
Assembly, with the help of Cities Alliance and People’s
Dialogue, launched a programme to engage slum dwellers
in improving their living conditions. The programme
works with residents to map slums and obtain information65

on the number of inhabitants, access to basic services andsanitation systems.86 The programme highlights that many
local government attempts to create an environment forinclusive civic participation will involve residents that havehistorically contentious relationships with government-led
urban development.
2.6.2. Equity

While urban stakeholders often advocate for equity,
meaningful and tangible changes through planning arelimited. As UN-Habitat has previously noted, “Thechallenges for urban planning in addressing inequality
are particularly difficult, as urban planning alone
cannot counter market forces. Urban planning should,
therefore, seek ways to promote social integration andcohesion.”87 Equity can be understood as the intersectionof representation, recognition and distributive justicein cities.88 Specifically, representation is the politicaldimension, recognition is the cultural dimension andredistribution is the economic dimension of equity. Any
urbanization process, regardless of the country or context,that does not actively address institutionalized obstacles
to full representation, recognition and redistribution isinequitable, unjust and therefore undermines the value
associated with urbanization. The State of the World Cities
Report 2012/2013 proposed two necessary conditions for anequitable city: providing the conditions that enable everyUnpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Any urbanization process, regardlessof the country or context, that does not
actively address institutionalized obstacles
to full representation, recognition andredistribution is inequitable, unjust andtherefore undermines the value associatedwith urbanizationindividual and social group to realize their full potential
and harness the collective benefits and opportunities
that cities offer; and removing any systemic barriers that
discriminate against any individual or social group.89
These proposed conditions for an equitable city draw animportant distinction between the concept of “equity” andthe oft used “equality.” For historically underserved andunderrepresented groups, applying an equal and consistent
approach to every service or support for every resident
merely serves to maintain the status quo. Elsewhere, it has
been shown that the best policies for poverty reduction
involve more redistribution of influence, advantage andsubsidies away from wealthier, more powerful groups tothose that are disadvantaged.90

Equity in urban development demands the rejection ofa universal approach that ignores the reality of different
groups within a city who are situated unequally relative
to support systems and societal resources.91 Equitable
access to adequate housing, basic physical and social
infrastructure, livelihood opportunities, safe andaffordable drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, safety,
food security and recreation requires developing targeted
strategies that recognize the unique challenges of thosewithin underserved and underrepresented populations. A
recent report in the US found that communities of colour,
low-income communities, non-native English speakers
and communities that lack transportation and/or live incrowded conditions had less access to clean drinking water
than more affluent communities. In fact, race had thestrongest correlation to slow and inadequate enforcementof water quality laws.92 Such inequities have also playedout in the COVID-19 pandemic with observable racialdisparities in the US and UK.93 The failure to protect
vulnerable communities is not happenstance; it is theresult of social and political factors and decisions resulting
in public policies that disadvantage communities of colour
and indigenous communities.94

Children with special educational needs in an inclusive city park, Dnipro, Ukraine. © Shultay Baltaay/Shutterstock66

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table 2.4: The value of urbanization for children
Value of urbanization

Plight of the children in cities

Economic
 Environment that protects children’s ability toattend school and not be forced into labour

Children are the most vulnerable population group in urban areas globally. At the extreme, an estimated
300 million of the global population of slum dwellers are children. The most disadvantaged children andtheir families are challenged with the high costs of living, unequal distribution and access to services,and poor characteristics of the built environment. Building on SDG targets for children, the New Urban
Agenda commits to creating safe, healthy and secure cities for children. It promotes equitable access tosustainable basic physical and social infrastructure like housing, drinking water, public recreation space,
health care, food and education.

Environmental
 A safe and secure urban environment Healthy and productive environment for their future Access to age appropriate play and recreational
facilities and opportunities

Children’s behaviour is moulded by lived experiences in their formative years. A child’s ongoinginteraction with their urban environment will have a significant impact on their ability and desire toparticipate in shaping sustainable urban development in the future. Stakeholders within urban areas
need to be informed about how children’s vulnerabilities are related to the built environment and ensureurban policy reflects their needs in planning and development.

Social Access to basic needs such as food, water,
sanitation, etc.
 Protection from trafficking, violence and abuse

When children are marginalized and excluded from urban planning and development processes, their
voices are silenced. Meaningful inclusion of families requires local government to invest in building
the capacity of children and their parents so that they can participate in the whole process of urban
development. Community collaboration to co-produce better outcomes ensures that children benefit
from the social value of sustainable urban development.

Source: UNICEF, 2018.

The greatest challenge to ensuring equity is not in theamount of resources directed at a problem; rather, it isensuring that the lives of vulnerable and other marginalizedgroups are valued within public policy and process. Inequity
is addressed through redistributive policies, developedin consultation with people with lived experience, thatgive priority to excluded or marginalized groups in theprovision of services and opportunities. A poignant
example of the importance of equity vs. equality can beseen within the plight of children in urban environments(Table 2.4). Ensuring that the unique needs of children are
addressed in an equitable and sustainable manner provides
value to other groups within urban areas.
It is only when equity is put forward as a main concernthat cities will thrive as places of economic strength
while contributing to environmental resilience.95

The greatest challenge to ensuring equity
is not in the amount of resources directed
at a problem; rather, it is ensuring that the
lives of vulnerable and other marginalizedgroups are valued within public policy
and process

67

Countries that have attempted toaddress inequality by investing in thehealth, housing and education of theirmost vulnerable populations tend to
perform better on all human development
indicators, including GDP
Countries that have attempted to address inequality by
investing in the health, housing and education of theirmost vulnerable populations tend to perform better on
all human development indicators, including GDP.96
Such countries include Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Sri Lanka,
Thailand and Tunisia, which have performed relatively
well on many human development indicators and havemanaged to contain or reduce slum growth largely due topolitical commitment—backed by resources—to invest in
the urban poor. Evidence shows that urbanization thatis centred in the principle of equity can have tangible
outcomes for marginalized groups within the city.97 A
critical component to achieving equity is through inclusive
civic participation and ensuring that underserved
and underrepresented populations are involved in thedecision-making that impacts them.

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

2.6.3. Quality of life

Generally, urban residents enjoy a better quality of life.
However, the social value of urbanization should largely beviewed in terms of how vulnerable and marginalized groups
have access to quality services and improved standards ofliving. Quality of life indicators consider a broad set offactors that influence people’s lives. They include housing,health and education, as well as participation in local
decision-making and availability of cultural assets andamenities.98 Urban development experts suggest that
effective urban planning and management, being proactive
rather than reactive, are key factors in improving thequality of life for urban residents.

Effective urban planning andmanagement, being proactive rather thanreactive, are key factors in improving thequality of life for urban residents
As the world becomes increasingly urbanized and national
governments cannot always be relied upon to deliver
services at the local level, cities must increasingly provide
their own safety nets in order to ensure a decent qualityof life for their most vulnerable residents. Such city-levelsocial safety net programs are emerging in cities around theworld. For instance, Delhi has a social pension programme
for older persons, which the city government doubled at
the onset of the coronavirus lockdown. Emerging researchsuggests that with the close proximity of urban areas, social
security programs can play an integral role in supporting
the poorest residents in benefitting from the value of
urbanization.99 China’s social security system has adapted
mechanisms from developed countries to suit the Chinesecontext. Recent reforms have attempted to extend coverage
to include former rural areas and all urban residents. As
a result of their efforts, China is witnessing a decrease inregional disparities, but is still contending with inequalitythat is not decreasing as expected (Chapter 1).100
When urbanization is well-planned, it is associated withgreater productivity, opportunities, improved quality oflife and prosperity for all. Unfortunately, many cities haveinadequate infrastructure and inequitable access to social
services, while marginalized populations are excluded
from the inherent value of urbanization. The inequity

in the degrees of prosperity are highlighted by the stark
contrast between well-serviced, planned and secured
neighbourhoods and inner-city, peri-urban, slum-like andinformal settlements. A city is only prosperous if all its
residents are thriving, where inequality, abject poverty anddeprivation is minimal. Cities that are integrating a focus on
improving quality of life into their urban planning provide
adequate social services in the form of education, health,recreation, safety and security to improve living standards
and help all residents realize their maximum potential.
UN-Habitat advocates a vision of the twenty-first century
city that is people-centred, capable of producing prosperity
and sheds off the inefficient and unsustainable patterns of
the previous century.101
2.6.4. Governance system

Sustainable urbanization requires a functioning
deliberative body to develop legislation, then a capablebureaucracy to implement it in order to make cities andhuman settlements safe, inclusive, resilient and sustainable.
Underpinning this process is a municipal finance structurethat provides the necessary resources to fund operations. To
accomplish this ideal, the public sector must work closelywith governance stakeholders at all levels of government,
civil society, community associations, indigenous peoples,marginalized groups, private investors, academics and otherpartners. Though all levels of government are necessarily
represented in this system, sustainable urbanization will
be most successful when adhering to “subsidiarity,” or theorganizing principle that political decisions should betaken at the most localized level possible, as emphasizedin the NUA.102
Subsidiarity acknowledges that there is a baseline capacity
required for successful devolution of decision-making. This
capacity is often dictated by the enabling environment
within which local governments operate. Globally, local
governments have varying levels of institutional capacity tomake their own urbanization decisions due to incomplete
decentralization, among other factors (Chapter 7). However,in decentralized democracies it is the responsibility of thecentral government to provide the necessary resourcesthat support the ability of local governments to fulfil theirfunction as the level of government closest to citizens.
There is also a role for higher levels of government toensure that local processes are not co-opted by local elites.

68

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

While there is no substitute forgovernment leadership in addressing
issues of inclusion and equity, civilsociety participation is a necessarycomponent of sustainable urbanization
While there is no substitute for government leadershipin addressing issues of inclusion and equity, civil society
participation is a necessary component of sustainableurbanization. An active and informed civil society has
the potential to equip and empower communities toparticipate in the development of their city, build social
capital and influence urban design. Similarly, business,academia, trade unions and professional associations allneed to contribute to the design and implementation ofpolicies and regulations to keep cities moving on paths ofsustainable prosperity for all. The process of negotiation
with local stakeholders can forge new partnerships thatstrengthen national governments.103 The active andmeaningful participation of governance stakeholders
and residents is an outcome of the intangible value ofsustainable urbanization.
2.6.5. Urban policy coherence

The economic, social and environmental value createdthrough the process of urbanization is the result ofdecisions that are made at all levels of government,in business and by supranational organizations. These
decisions should be guided by “national urban policy,” or acoherent set of guidelines developed with all stakeholders
in a collaborative way that promotes transformative,
productive, inclusive, equitable and environmentally
resilient long-term urban development (Figure 2.1). The
increasing adoption of national urban policies (NUPs)
is an important step forward in managing urbanization.
Over the past two decades, at least one hundred and fifty
countries have developed NUPs that support sustainableurbanization and nearly half (73) are being implemented.
NUPs are key policy tools which governments at all levels
can use to enhance the value of sustainable developmentthat cuts across urban, peri-urban and rural areas.104
To ensure urbanization is inclusive and equitable requires
NUPs that consider the rights of the most vulnerable andmarginalized. These policies must also prioritize a sense of69

belonging and identity, collective values, participation inpolitical and social life, and women’s empowerment anddevelopment. For example, policies must support the rights
of women, including property rights, access to services
and civic participation; youth empowerment, including
education and employment; older persons, including policies
to promote healthy ageing; and a broad focus on the urban
poor and indigenous populations.105 The pervasive nature of
informal settlements and slums caused by rapid urbanization
with limited planning and insufficient infrastructure is
a complex problem with very tangible negative effects.
City governments must leverage their skills, knowledge ofcontext, resources and political will to improve the lives of
all residents, including those in slums.
For local governments regardless of context, managing
sustainable urbanization requires internationallydeveloped policies to align with domestic policies that act
together as a cohesive force for change.106 Timely support
must be mobilized across all levels of government to ensurea cohesive approach to planning and managing cities andtheir interactions across jurisdictional boundaries andwith rural areas. Local governments alone cannot address
the complex challenges facing modern cities. While the
NUA and international agreements relevant to sustainableurbanization were signed by national governments,
many of the commitments are within the purview of
local governments. It is vital for national governments toequip local government with the capabilities, appropriate
decision-making authority and necessary financial
resources.107 It is equally important that local and national
governments collaborate on decision-making with regard
to efficient and effective service delivery and movement
towards achieving international development agendas.108
Efforts to promote sustainable urbanization must be
responsive to the national context. At the same time, theymust be sensitive to a local area’s political and cultural
readiness for policies supporting inclusion and equity
over unconstrained sprawl and elite economic growth. It

City governments must leverage theirskills, knowledge of context, resources
and political will to improve the lives of allresidents, including those in slums

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Aerial view of Yick Fat Building, Quarry Bay,
Hong Kong. © Tavarius/Shutterstock70

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Tribal Indian Healers, Zocalo, Mexico City, Mexico. © Dowraik/Shutterstockis therefore vital to understand the distinctive context ineach city, including the role of other national, territorial,
rural and regional policies.109 For too long in developing
countries, regulatory frameworks have been imposed orimported with externally derived standards unsuitable
for the local context.110 Changing course entails a major
review of policy, codes and institutional restructuring tosupport progressive measures that address complex urban
challenges in an inclusive and equitable manner.

2.7. Intangible and Cultural Value
The intangible value of urbanization can be conceptualized
as the synergy of effective governance and institutions thatgenerate a sense of pride in one’s overall perception of thecity. For instance, sound institutions—a constitution, laws,

71

regulations, social norms, customs and traditions—provide
the superstructure for the value of urbanization to be fully
realized and lead to inclusive prosperity and an increase inquality of life.
In sustainable urbanization there are two concurrent
processes occurring: building the political, institutionaland stakeholder support for a concerted effort tointentionally shape and direct urban growth in an equitable
and inclusive way; and developing the institutional
capabilities, network collaboration, technical capacity,
legal frameworks and financial instruments to manage
urban growth. Government at all levels must regain
control of urbanization with a renewed commitment
to sustainable, people-centred urban development that
equips residents to collectively influence the direction of
their city.

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Habima Square, a public space that is home to cultural institutions, Tel Aviv, Israel. © ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock

Culture is a related intangible value that is the lifebloodof vibrant urban areas. Creative expression helps define
residents’ perceptions of the city and empathize with
their neighbours by seeing through the eyes of others.
Cultural diversity contributes to the social, economic andenvironmental value of urbanization through improved
learning and health, increased tolerance and understanding,and opportunities to come together with others in public

Cultural diversity contributes to thesocial, economic and environmental
value of urbanization through improved
learning and health, increased tolerance
and understanding, and opportunities
to come together with others in public
spacesspaces.111 The quality of cultural life in a city brings acompetitive edge, attracts businesses and drives economic
development, but more importantly it strengthens thesocial fabric of a city.112 Investments in culture preserve
history and heritage and provide value to residents throughthe relations and processes that happen in the contexts of
their individual networks of families, communities, and in
publicly funded institutions.113 Participation in publicly
available arts and culture opportunities can relieve
isolation and promote identity formation and interculturallearning, understanding and appreciation.114
In the developed world, rising migration has led toincreased culturally diverse populations in cities (Chapters
1 and 5). In most of these cities, diversity is celebrated, andcity authorities are developing programmes and creating
the environment to make those who come from other72

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

cultures feel that their values and background are not only
accepted but celebrated. Not only are major metropolises
dotted with vibrant international cultural neighbourhoods,
but also ethnic retail stores, diverse religious landscapesand regular multicultural events such as Drongo Festival in
Amsterdam, Caribana in Toronto, Notting Hill Carnival
in London, Chinese New Year Festival and Parade in
San Francisco and Living in Harmony in Sydney. Urban
practitioners are increasingly recognizing the intangible
value of culture to creating a sense of place and fulfilment,
improving quality of life and reducing inequity throughmulti-level cultural planning.

2.8. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
PolicyThis chapter has conceptualized the value of sustainableurbanization
along
four
dimensions—economic,
environmental, social, and intangible—all of which will
be addressed in more detail in the next four chapters. It
notes that although urbanization has value, the way andmanner stakeholders articulate and promote the value of
urbanization is crucially important. The chapter notesthat any discussion of value should be people-centred andshould serve the diverse interests, needs and aspirationsof the people who reside in cities. Further, the chapter
articulates that urbanization has value, but the benefits
do not occur by chance. They require proper planning,
effective management and sound urban governance.
With these caveats, the chapter offers the following as
lessons for policy:
 If well planned and managed, urbanization can help
countries accelerate their economic growth and serve
as a channel to global markets by creating productive
environments that attract international investment
and increase economic efficiency.
 It is the economic growth and prosperity offered bycities that will provide the basis by which countries
can contribute to achieving the targets of the SDGs,
including enhancing economic and social opportunities
for the urban poor. In the absence of a healthy urban
economy, the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development will be difficult to attain.

73

 Policies should strive to achieve pro-poor economic
development but also to reduce the environmental
impact of economic growth and urban production on
the environment.
 It is important for cities to continue to be at theforefront of solutions to climate change. Urbanization
offers many opportunities to develop mitigation
and adaptation strategies to deal with climatechange, especially through good urban planning andmanagement practices.
 Sustainable urbanization has social value when it
enhances gender equality, protects the rights ofunderserved and underrepresented groups and ensures
inclusive civic participation.
 Sustainable urbanization is experienced throughthe intangible value of urban culture. As the world’s
cities become more heterogeneous, there are more
opportunities for celebrating cultural diversity as partof a city’s brand or identity.
 Urbanization will continue to be the driving force
for global growth. However, given the pace ofurbanization, the process requires effective planning,
management and governance if it is to become a truly
transformative asset.
 Internationally developed policy must be adaptable
to local context to ensure policy coherence. Local
governments need to be invited into international
agenda setting to contribute their unique perspectives.

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Endnotes

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Turok and McGranahan, 2013.
United Nations, undated.
Johnson, 2016.
Johnson, 2016.
Gelles, 2020
NUA, paragraph 26.
Landry, 2006.
Sefa Dei et al, 2000.
Porter, et.al, 2018.
McGranahan et al, 2016.
UNICEF, 2018.
Glaeser, 2012; Krugman, 1996;
Scott, 2000, 2001; Turok and
McGranahan, 2013.
UN-Habitat, 2010a.
OECD, 2006; Turok and Parnell,
2009; World Bank, 2009.
Martin et al, 2014.
UN-Habitat, 2006.
Ferreyra and Roberts, 2018.
ADB, 2013.
Cleave et al, 2017.
Financial hubs like Hong Kong andSingapore have also powered theglobal economy but do not anchor
larger national economies.
Globalization and World Cities
Research Network, 2018.
Jacobs, 1984.
World Bank, 2015a.
UN-Habitat, 2010a.
Krugman, 1991.
World Bank, 2009.
Glaeser, 2012.
Muro, et al, 2020; Muro, 2020;

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.

37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

Porter 2020.
Ferreyra and Roberts, 2018.
Regional Plan Association, 2017.
Routley, 2018.
World Bank, 2009.
Mumtaz and Wegelin, 2001.
UN-Habitat and DFID, 2002.
World Bank, 2009.
Cali and Menon 2013; Fafchamps
and Shilpi 2005; cited in Ellis andRoberts, 2016.
UN-Habita and DFID, 2002.
Arku, 2009a; United Nations,
undated.
Arku, 2009b; Bloom et al, 2008.
World Bank, 2009.
Florida, 2017.
Gutman and Patel, 2018.
Bouchet et al, 2018.
Ellis and Roberts, 2016.
Brown, 2020.
Ellis and Roberts, 2016.
Frank Knight, 2020.
Haila, 2000; Arku and Harris, 2005;
Harris and Arku, 2006; Harris andArku, 2007.
Arku, 2006; Tibaijuka, 2009.
Pearson, 2019.
Arku, 2009c; World Economic
Forum, 2019.
Dasgupta et al, 2014.
UNEP, 2019/
Lawrence and Low, 1990.
UN-Habitat, 2008.
Coalition for Urban Transitions,

57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

2019.
Alderman, 2020.
Satterwaite, 2010.
UN-Habitat, 2008.
Coalition for Urban Transitions,
2019.
Glaeser, 1994.
Cartwright et al, 2013.
UN-Habitat, 2011c.
Global Commission on Adaptation,
2019.
Coalition for Urban Transitions.
2019.
ICLEI, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
https://www.ren21.net.
Barbier, 2009.
IPCC, 2018b.
C40 Cities, 2020.
Asher, 2020.
Elmqvist, et al, 2013.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund, 2020.
United Nations, 2017b.
NUA, paragraph 14a.
World Bank, 2014b.
Pskowski, 2018.
IADB, 2016.
IADB, 2016.
Urban 20, 2018.
City of Vienna, 2013.
Cobbinah et al, 2015.
Buenos Aires Action Plan, 2018.
Buenos Aires Action Plan, 2018.
Kurth, 2016.

87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.

UN-Habitat, 2009.
Fraser, 2007.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
World Bank, 2018b.
Powell, 2016.
NDRC, 2019.
CDC, 2020); Public Health England,
2020.
NDRC, 2019.
UNICEF, 2018.
UNDP, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
Gilmore, 2014.
Gentilini, 2015.
Gentilini, 2015.
Gentilini, 2015.
NUA, Paragraph 89
UN-Habitat, 2013
United Nations, undated.
WUP 2018 report
Zeigermann, 2018
Chatwin, and Arku, 2017
UN-Habitat, 2018
UN-Habitat, 2014
Chatwin et al, 2019
Gilmore, 2014
Florida, 2002
Gilmore, 2014
Ripley, 201074

Chapter 3
The Economic Value of
Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity andOpportunities for All

Cities do not merely symbolize the dreams, aspirations and hopes of individuals and communities, they are
the primary catalysts or drivers of economic development and prosperity across the world. Urban areas
generate enormous economic value as they are the world’s platforms for production, innovation and trade,
generating both formal and informal employment. This chapter, while providing a recap of the foundational
mechanisms that enable cities to serve as growth accelerators, highlights the risks embedded within the very
structure that enable cities to generate economic value. These risks have been magnified by the coronavirus
pandemic and its adverse socioeconomic impacts.

75

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Quick facts
1. Well-planned and managed urban growth improves the
economy across a range of scales (local, regional and national)
through employment creation, contribution to GDP and FDI
attraction among others.
2. Sustainable urbanization is a generator of inclusive prosperity;
it allows for economic opportunities for all, including
marginalized groups.
3. The informal economy is the lifeblood of many cities indeveloping countries. Yet, informal sector enterprises generally
fly under the radar of public policy interventions.

Cities are the foundation upon which the prosperity ofmodern societies and past civilizations has been built.
They have been the primary catalysts and drivers of
economic development across the world. Today, cities
generate enormous economic value. They are the world’s
platforms for production, innovation and trade, generating
both formal and informal employment. They underpin
the economic development and prosperity of nations,as clearly evidenced by their significant contribution to
global economic output.

4. The very dense interaction networks of people, which are
the factor behind cities’ potential as economic growth
accelerators, also carry embedded risks, as evidenced by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
5. Property rights, land use regulations and poor transportsystems are limiting the generation of economic value in citiesof developing countries.

Policy points
1. Urban and territorial planning supported by adequate governancestructures will enhance the economic value of urbanization.
2. Cities can enhance their productive capacities by reforming
legal and regulatory frameworks and adopting measures thatprovide greater security to workers, particularly those in theinformal economy.
3. Adequate measures to facilitate the transition of workers
and economic units from the informal to formal economy are
fundamental to achieving sustainable and inclusive urban
development in developing countries.

While cities are concentrations of wealth and productive
capacity, they can also be sites of exclusion (Chapter 1
and 5). The urban divide has never looked so wide, as thebenefits of urbanization have not been widely shared by
all segments of society. In addition, while cities occupy
little land globally, urban activities often pose massive
sustainability challenges that go beyond their own spatial
boundaries (Chapter 1 and 4).
The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda not only placed
urbanization at the forefront of international development
agenda, it also set conditions for the necessary paradigm
shift to sustainable urbanization. The NUA recognizes that“sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth,with full and productive employment and decent work for
all, is a key element of sustainable urban and territorial
development and that cities and human settlements shouldbe places of equal opportunities, allowing people to live
healthy, productive, prosperous and fulfilling lives.”

4. Building resilience in the aftermath of COVID-19 is the foundation
for managing future pandemic and driving economic growth.
5. Governance, institutional, policy and regulatory frameworks
should be aligned to the local realities and should not hinder
economic growth.

As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, sustainable urbanizationmeans that cities are being planned, developed, andmanaged considering: their costs, not just benefits; qualityof life, not just income; their social and environmental,

76

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Street market, Fa Yuen Street at mong kok, kowloon,
Hong Kong. © SS pixels/Shutterstock

77

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

not just economic, benefits; their global, not just local,
effects; and their long-term, not just short-term, impacts.
Indeed, achieving sustainable and inclusive urban
economies that ensure prosperity and opportunities for
all requires: leveraging the agglomeration benefits ofwell-planned urbanization, including high productivity,
competitiveness and innovation; promoting full andproductive employment and decent work for all; ensuring
the creation of decent jobs and equal access for all toeconomic and productive resources and opportunities; andpreventing land speculation, promoting secure land tenure
and managing urban shrinking, where appropriate.
As stated above, cities generate a substantial share of the
global economic output—over 80 per cent of global GDP—yet concentrate half of the world’s population on about three
per cent of the Earth’s land area.1 As a result, economic output
per capita is invariably high in urban areas, and countries
that are more urbanized tend to be wealthier, as illustrated
by the strong positive relationship between urbanizationand income in various countries (Figure 3.1).

However, the economic value generated by cities varies
depending on the local context. As shown in Table 3.1,
the percentage share of urban activities—industry andservices—in GDP is high across all areas, from about 70
per cent in the developing countries of Oceania to 90
percent in developed countries. Strikingly, urban areas
generate this output using little land, from about one percent of land area in Africa to 10 per cent in the developing
countries of Oceania.
Urban productivity—proxied by the total GDP
generated by industry and services divided by total
urban population—is the highest in developed countries,
reaching almost US$50,000 per capita. It is relatively
lower in ex-transition countries (about US$30,000)
and the developing countries of Asia (US$20,000), theAmericas (US$15,000), Oceania and Africa (US$10,000each). In other words, the urban areas of developing
countries generate less output per capita than the urban
areas of developed countries.

Figure 3.1: Urbanization and economic development
BMU HKG KWT
MAC
CYM
SGP
QAT
SMR
MLT
URY
PRI ISLARG TCA ISRJPN NLDJORLUXGAB
CUW BHR DNKVEN CHL
LBN
NZL
SWE
BRA
FIN AUS SAU ARE
GBR
BHS
USA
KOR OMNNOR
COL LBY MEXESP FRA CAN
DOM PLW
DJI
GRC
PER
DEU
BRN
BLR RUS
CRI
MHL
PSE
MYS
CHE
CZE
IRN BGR
TUR
DZA
SLV
GNQ
HUN
DMA
STP
IRQ
ITA
LVA EST
BOL
UKR
MNG
BWA
TUN
CYP
COG
ZAF SUR MNE PAN LTU
AGO
CPV
PRT
ARM ECU
IRL
MAR
PRY
POL
TUV
GMB
ALB
MKD
NIC
AUT
KAZ
GEO
HRV
SRB
SYC SVNJAM
HND
FJI CHNCMRAZE ROU
GHA
TTO
IDN
HTI
SVK
KIR
MRT
VCT
UZB
TKM
GTM
LBR
CIV
THA
NGA
NAM BIH
PHL BLZ
SEN
BEN
ABW
EGY
COD
MDA
GNB
ZMB
MUS
SLE
CAF
TGO MLI
BTN
ERI
MDV
KGZ
GRD
PAK
MOZ MDG GIN YEM
BGD SDN VNM
LAO
ZWE
IND
TZA
BRB
KNA
MMR
TLS
COM
LSO
BFA
TJK
GUY
KEN
ATG
AFG
VUT
TCD
SWZ
TON
UGA
SLB FSM KHM
ETH
LCASSD NPL
WSM
LKA
RWA
NER
MWI

100
90
Urbanization Rate in 2015 (Percentage)

SXM

NRU

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

PNG

BDI

6

BEL

7

8

9

10

11

12

Log Per Capita GDP in 2015 (PPP, constant 2011 international $)Sources: United Nations, 2018b; World Bank,2019d.
6

Northern Africa and Western Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa

3
5

31
33
29

33

78

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table 3.1: Contributions of urban-based sectors to GDP and land use, 2015

Industry and Services in GDP (%)

Developed
Regions

Ex-Transition
Countries

92.5

85.2

Asia*

Latin America
and theCaribbean

Oceania*

Africa

87.3

85.4

70.7

80.7

10.1

1.1

10,3879,436

BMU HKG KWT
MAC
CYM
SGP
QAT
BEL
Urban Land in Total Land (%)
5.3
1.6
4.2
2.4
SMR
MLT
URY
PRI ISLARG TCA ISRJPN NLD
90 GDP (US$) / Urban
Industry and Services
48,24428,514JORLBN GAB VEN20,162CUW BHR DNK 15,978 LUX
CHL NZLSWE
BRA
FIN AUS SAU ARE
Population
GBR
BHS
KOR OMN CAN USA NOR
LBY
COL
MEX
ESP FRA80
DOM PLW
DJI
GRC
PER
DEU
Notes: *Developing countries
BRN
BLR RUS
CRI
MHL
PSE
MYS
BGR
CHE
Sources: United Nations, 2018b; World Bank, 2019d.
CZE
IRN
TUR
DZA
SLV
GNQ
HUN
DMA
STP
70
IRQ
ITA
LVA EST
BOL
UKR
MNG
BWA
TUN
CYP
COG
ZAF SUR MNE PAN LTU
AGO
CPV
PRT
ARM ECU
IRL
MAR
PRY
POL
TUV
60
GMB
ALB
MKD
NIC
AUT
KAZ
GEO
HRV
SRB
SYC SVNJAM
HND
FJI CHNCMRAZE ROU
GHA
TTO
IDN
HTI
SVK
KIR
MRT
VCT
UZB
TKM
GTM
50
LBR
CIV
THA
NGA
NAM BIH
PHL BLZ
SEN
BEN
ABW
EGY
COD
MDA
GNB
ZMB
MUS
SLE
CAF
40
TGO MLI
BTN
ERI
MDV
KGZ
GRD
PAK
MOZ MDG GIN YEM
BGD SDN VNM
LAO
ZWE
IND
TZA
BRB
KNA
30
MMR
TLS
COM
LSO
BFA
TJK
GUY
KEN
ATG
AFG
VUT
TCD
SWZ
TON
UGA
SLB FSM KHM
20
ETH
LCA
SSD NPL
WSM
LKA
RWA
NER
MWI

100

SXM

Urbanization Rate in 2015 (Percentage)NRU

The urbanization process of more developed regions is also
relatively more sustainable, underscoring the connection
between sustainable urbanization and development. As
compared to developing countries, developed countries
score higher on selected indicators that monitor progress
towards the attainment of SDG 11. As shown in Figures
3.2– 3.4, developed regions have smaller shares of their urban
population living in slums; higher shares of people with accessto controlled waste disposal facilities; lower mean levels offine particulate matter in their cities; and a larger PNG
share of
BDI
population with convenient access to public transport. As
678

cities in all regions make progress toward realizing the SDGs
and the NUA, the more the economic value of urbanizationis enhanced. For instance, expanding access to public
transport—a vital service for urban residents—not only
catalyses economic growth, it also enhances social inclusion.

As cities in all regions make progress
toward realizing the SDGs and the
NUA, the more the economic value of
urbanization is enhanced

9

10

11

Log Per Capita GDP in 2015 (PPP, constant 2011 international $)Figure 3.2: Share of the population with convenient access to public transport, 2019 (percentage)
6

Northern Africa and Western Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Central and Southern Asia

31
33

3

29

5
12

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean

World

35

38

8

49
50
32

Europe and Northern America
Australia and New Zealand

33

32
34

72

11

75

75

11

82
83

47
50

Access to high-capacity systems within 1,000 metres
Access to low-capacity systems within 500 metres
Share of urban population with access to public transport
Source: United Nations, 2020d.

Sub-Saharan Africa

79

Oceania*
Northern Africa and Western Asia

32

52
60
61
79

12

Latin America and the Caribbean

32

Europe and Northern America
Europe and Northern America

4950
50

72

32

72 75
75

11

Australia and New ZealandAustralia and New Zealand

11

75

11

World
World

75

47
4750

11

82
83
82

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

83

50

Access to high-capacity systems within 1,000 metres
Access to high-capacity
systemswithin
within500
1,000
metreslow-capacity systems
metresAccesslow-capacity
systems
within to500
metresShare oftourban
population
with accesspublictransport
Share of urban population with access to public transport

Figure 3.3: Share of municipal solid waste collected, 2001-2010 and 2010-2018 (percentage)
32
32

Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa

52
52

Oceania*
Oceania*
Northern Africa and Western Asia
Northern Africa and Western Asia

60
61
60
61

Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America and the Caribbean

79
75 79
75 80

7780
77 85

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia

81 85
8184

Central and Southern Asia
Central and Southern Asia

85
84
85

Europe and Northern America
Europe and Northern America
Australia and New ZealandAustralia and New Zealand
World
World

97
9497
94 99

99
99

76
76 81
81

*Excluding Australia and New Zealand*Excluding Australia and New Zealand
2001-2010
2001-20102010-20182010-2018

Source: United Nations, 2019a.

Figure 3.4: Concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in urban areas 2016
Australia and New ZealandAustralia and New Zealand
Oceania*
Oceania*
Northern America and Europe
Northern America and Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America and the Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Northern Africa and Western Asia
Northern Africa and Western Asia
Central Asia and Southern Asia
Central Asia and Southern Asia

7.1
7.1

11.3
11.3
12
12

16.8
16.8

35.5
35.5

World
World *Excluding Australia and New Zealand

39.6
39.6

51.3
51.3

62.8
62.8

39.6
39.6

*Excluding Australia and New Zealand

Source: Based on WHO Global Health Observatory data repository, 2018.

rage
e LogLog
Residual
Residual
Wage
Wage
(2007
(2007
Rand)
Rand)

Overall, these facts raise questions that cities must learn
from in order to become sustainable growth acceleratorsand generators4 of inclusive prosperity. What are the4mechanisms bywhich cities can generate so mucheconomic output per capita and by land area? In other2
words, what makes
density so productive and how it can
2remain so in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? How0
do cities contributeto prosperity and inclusiveness across
0

-2
-2
-4

spatial scales? Why do the urban areas of different regionsof the world
generate different levels of economic output?
Cape Town
Are all developing
regions experiencing a sustainable
Cape Town
urbanization
process,
and if not, how could this affect the
Tshwanelong-term
output generated by their urban areas? Finally,
Tshwanewhat conditions
eThekwini and policy measures are necessary foreThekwini
urban areas
to be as sustainably productive as those indeveloped countries?Johannesburg
Johannesburg

Ekurhuleni
Ekurhuleni

80

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

3.1. Cities: Sustainable Growth Accelerators
Since the seminal work of Jane Jacobs,2 many studies haveshown that urban areas increase the productivity, and thus
income, of their residents.3 For a given income level, cities
also improve consumption possibilities, contributing tolife satisfaction.4 But what steps can cities take to realize
their growth and consumption potential?
The mechanisms by which cities achieve such benefits
are referred to as “economies of agglomeration”: byconcentrating resources in a small geographical area,
cities help residents and businesses save time, money andeffort on production; facilitate acquisition and exchange
of knowledge and ideas, thus helping improve innovationand human capital; and provide convenient points ofconsumption.5 Ultimately, through economies of scale
and agglomeration economies, cities enable accelerated
growth and socioeconomic development. Essentially, they81

are the intrinsic (natural) productivity growth factors fora city (Table 3.2).
Economies of scale in production are perhaps the bestknown of these mechanisms. This phenomenon has spurred
the creation of denser human settlements throughout
history. Across the world, many cities have grown fromtheir initial organization around one factory or businessservice centre. For example, many towns in Industrial
Revolution-era England developed around one cotton mill
where cotton would be transformed into yarn or cloth.6
More recently, large call centres are being established insmall towns in India, accelerating the growth of thesetowns and expanding access to economic opportunities.7
There are then economies of scale in marketplaces: cities
exist because there is trade between regions and cities serveas physical places for the exchange of goods. For example,
many trading towns emerged along the Silk Road between
Europe and Asia.8 Likewise, today’s largest cities are port

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Hyderabad, the fourth most populous city and sixth most populous
urban agglomeration in India. © Snehit Photo/Shutterstock

Table 3.2: City-specific factors determining a city’s productivity
Intrinsic (natural) productivity
growth factors

Agglomeration economies
 Matching Sharing Learning

Economies of scale Production
 Consumption
 Provision of urban services

Extrinsic productivity
growth factors

Technical efficiency
 Structural efficiency
 Land management policies
 Space efficiency
 Infrastructure investment
 Taxation
 Disaster prevention (resilience) Operational efficiency
 Day-to-day urban management Service delivery
 Emergency management

Institutional scaffolding Sound local institutions (e.g.,
decentralization)
 Sound governance Ease of doing business

Quality of life (quality ofeducation, safety, cultural life,
liveliness) Attractiveness to knowledgebased industries
 Attraction and retention of the‘creative class ‘ Learning-based efficiency
 Creativity and innovation
 Research and development andtechnological development
 Entrepreneurship Vision Local leadership Local governanceSource: UN-Habitat, 2013.

82

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

cities. While the link between port and city growth has
arguably become weaker over time, some cities, particularly
in Asia, have over the past few decades continued toexperience strong population growth alongside the hightraffic to their cargo ports—for example, Shenzhen, Dubai,
Shanghai, Singapore, Mumbai and Kolkata.9 Lastly, there
are economies of scale in consumption, distribution,
public good provision and recreational opportunities. For
example, supermarkets, hospitals and stadiums tend tobe located in larger cities. Cities make the consumptionof some goods and services cheaper for residents, thus
generating purchasing power.
Over the years, theoretical frameworks have provided
explanations of the basic mechanisms by which
agglomeration generates gains for cities. It is because firms
and urban residents recognize the economic value derived
from cities that they are willing to compete for the more
expensive space in cities. These benefits of cities relate
to the sharing, matching and learning processes in cities.10
By concentrating firms and urban residents in the same

Pedestrian crosswalk on a city road. © Ultramansk/Shutterstock83

location, cities give access to a bigger and improved rangeof “shared” services, achieve joint economies of scale inprovision of infrastructure and services, incentivize firms
and workers to ultra-specialize in few products or tasks
and achieve resilience to firm- or sector-specific shocks.
Cities enable businesses to “match” their distinctive
requirements for labour, premises and suppliers because
a wider choice is available. Owing to a large densityof actors, cities promote “learning”: they are primarycentres of innovation, science, arts and creativity. Cities
are laboratories of experimentation, which explain theirimportance in the fourth industrial revolution, facilitatedby the rise of computing power (Chapter 6).
Close proximity in cities provides opportunities for greater
human interaction, thus enabling formal and informal
networks of experts to emerge which promote comparison,competition and collaboration.11 Cities also facilitate
the diffusion of knowledge across broader populations.
Indeed, if cities have large shares of educated workers, andif ideas are more likely to be exchanged after a face-to-faceinteraction between skilled or educated individuals, thenknowledge will diffuse faster in cities. The effects, often
qualified as human capital spillovers, imply that cities withhigher shares of often young, highly skilled and educatedworkers—the “creative class” alluded to in Chapter 6 (andTable 3.2)—grow faster.12
As a result of these fundamental dynamics, many workers
are more productive, and thus receive relatively higher
wages (even for low-skilled jobs), in urban areas thanelsewhere—the urban wage premium. The generation of thiswage premium is, however, shaped by the characteristics of
the urban system in a given country. For instance, recent
studies in Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda show that only
the latter’s workers experience an urban wage premium
across all urban areas. In Nigeria and Tanzania, the urban
wage premium is largest for workers in the primate cities
and, in some cases, non-existent for workers in secondary
cities.13 The primate cities in developing countries usually
have the highest economic mass, primarily because they
are the location for national headquarters of financial andhigh-level business services. These cities also have a large
number of government offices, with those working for the
public sector generally enjoying much higher incomes thanthose in the private and informal sectors.

35.5

Sub-Saharan Africa

39.6

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia

51.3

Northern Africa and Western Asia

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity
and Opportunities for all
62.8

Central Asia and Southern Asia
39.6

World
*Excluding Australia and New ZealandFigure 3.5: Labour productivity and city population density, South Africa, 2007
Cape Town

4

Average Log Residual Wage (2007 Rand)

Tshwane2
eThekwini
Johannesburg

0Ekurhuleni
-2

-4

-6

0

2

4

6

8

Log Urban Population Density (Inhabitants per Sq Km)
Source: 2007 Community Survey of South Africa. The residual wage is the estimated wage after controlling for individual characteristics such as educational attainment, age, gender, marital status,
industry and occupation.

Osaka and Nagoya).17 In South Africa, doubling of urban
population density leads to a similar rise in average wages—
the five largest, densest cities offer relatively higher wages
compared to other cities (Figure 3.5).

For the sustained economic value of
urbanization0.50
to be realized, human capitaldevelopment is crucial. Cities must offer
equal opportunities for all residents
to access appropriate
education and
0.00
further develop 0their skills for5000
productive
participation in society

In addition, how cities are built and spatially organizedis key to delivering agglomeration economies and reaping
productivityShenzhen
benefits. Poorly planned and managed
ZhuhaiurbanizationBeijingtranslates to low densities, separation of land
Shanghaiuses (high Tianjin
spatial fragmentation), mismatches between
25000
15000
infrastructure
provision 20000
and residential concentration,
inadequate street networks and a lack of reliable transportsystems. These negative conditions diminish the potential

Number of COVID-19 confirmed cases per 10,000 people

Likewise, larger, denser cities often offer relatively higher
wages than other cities. The wage differential exists evenfor work of equal value; similar workers are simply more
2.50
productive in larger
cities.14 Past studies have also shownthat increases in employment density often lead to a rise inaverage labour productivity. In the US, for instance, a study
Wenzhou
2.00
found that a doublingof employment density increases
average labour productivity by around six per cent.15
Another study found that workers living inXinyang
the 30 largest
Zhumadianmetropolitan areas
1.50 in the US earned 33 per cent more than
16 Similar observations
Yueyang
workers living outside these areas.Xinyu
ofhigher incomes in larger and denser cities have been madefor the three major
metropolitan areas in Japan (Tokyo,
1.00

-0.50

10000

y = -6E-06x + 0.2791= 0.0025
While there is a strong R connection
between labour
productivity and large cities, the agglomeration effects havebeen observed to be much stronger for cities with more skills.18
Thus, for the sustained economic value of urbanization to
be realized, human capital development is crucial. Cities
must offer equal opportunities for all residents to accessappropriate education and further develop their skills for
productive participation in society.
2

Population Density (Number of people per square kilometer)

84

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

How cities are built and spatiallyorganized is key to delivering
agglomeration economies and reaping
productivity benefits
to leverage the economies of scale and agglomeration.19 In
Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, urban areas suffer fromhigh costs, affecting not just households but also firms.
Urban households in Sub-Saharan countries pay 20–31 percent more overall than urban households in other countries
at similar income levels. Notably, rental housing is 55 percent more expensive compared to urban areas of otherregions. These effects have been attributed to coordination
failures, poorly designed policies, weak property rights andother factors that lower economic density.20
Recent years have shown that the very dense interaction
networks behind cities’ potential as economic growth
accelerators also makes them vulnerable to disasters andpublic health threats such as infectious disease. They areoften viewed as a factor in the rapid spread of epidemics
and pandemics throughout history. Today is no different.
The risk of such infectious disease is embedded within
the structure and patterns of contemporary society,and requires both the ability to adapt quickly as well as
more complex long-term responses at the local, nationaland global levels.21 The coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic, for instance, has had significant impact onurban economies across various regions (Box 3.1). Essential
services to the economic functioning of the city, forexample transport systems, have been deemed as potential
petri dishes for contagion.22 Besides the high fatality rates
in some of the world’s megacities, the pandemic has put
countries, and the world at large, in an economic crisis.
Swift measures adopted to combat the spread of thevirus such as closing borders, lockdown restrictions
and requiring people to stay at home have resulted in
reduction of economic activities, production and supply
chain disruptions, and sharply reduced demand. Some of
the unintended consequences of these measures have been
reduced income and loss of livelihoods. The pandemic has
clearly exposed the inequalities discussed in Chapters 1 and
2 and has further shown how such inequalities dictate theeconomic impact of the pandemic on various sectors of85

the urban population. Populations living in overcrowded
informal settlements and slums have been more economicallyvulnerable because of their reliance on daily earnings fromthe informal sector. For example, millions of informal
workers in India returned to their villages when urban jobs
dried up.23 As of May 2020, at least 170,000 Peruvians inurban areas requested assistance from local governments toreturn to the countryside.24 In Kenya, the economic pinchof the pandemic has forced urban households unable toafford rents to downgrade to cheaper housing or relocate
to rural areas.25 Given such profound economic and social
consequences, if such pandemics are not well-managed—
particularly in such deeply fragile contexts—there lies huge
obstacles on the path to realizing the SDGs and the NUA.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance ofleveraging the upside of density afforded by urban areas
while protecting against its downsides.26 Density supports
economies of scale in the provision of critical public services
like health care. As a result, the capacity for public healthsurveillance, control programs, prevention and publicknowledge programmes is far better in cities, provided
governments allocate the necessary resources to build out
this infrastructure.27 In some cases, the novel approaches
devised in urban areas have been transformational. The
drive-through test centres for COVID-19 in urban areas
across Republic of Korea, for instance, have provided a safeand efficient screening system that, to date, has averted
massive community outbreak.
Although urban density has come under fire in criticalobservations of COVID-19’s spread, it has been observedthat it is not density in and of itself that seems to make cities
susceptible, but the kind of density and the way it impacts
daily work and living.28 Household crowding, such as thenumber of people per dwelling unit, matters more than
the simple fact of a dense number of residents per square
kilometre.29 A study of urban density and COVID-19 in
the US found that while denser locations were more likely
to have an early outbreak—due to interconnectedness withother locations—they did not necessarily suffer more in

Density supports economies of scale in
the provision of critical public services
like health care

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

the long run when compared to smaller towns or sparsely
populated peripheries; the time-adjusted number of
COVID-19 related deaths was not affected by density.30
Urban forms can be dense and still provide places forpeople to isolate and practice physical distancing in
the face of a highly contagious disease.31 Indeed, wellplanned and managed cities are uniquely well-equipped
to respond to all hazards, including public health threats.
The capacity to respond rapidly is also a factor of good
governance and the financial health of the local andnational governments. In China, some dense cities (suchas Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin and Zhuhai) were
found to have markedly outperformed less populated
places in combating the virus as illustrated in Figure 3.6.
This has partly been explained by their ability to mobilize
enough fiscal resources to cope with the coronavirus.32
In Republic of Korea and Germany, good governanceand fiscal health enabled quick responses in urban areas
and ensured low death rates.33 Proactive governanceand adequate financial resources are important inappropriately combining necessary health responses likeinvestments in testing and quarantine facilities withsocioeconomic mitigation measures—such as disaster
responsive safety net programs like unemployment
insurance or targeted cash transfers—to support those
whose livelihoods have been upended by the containment
and mitigation measures.

Well-planned and managed
cities are uniquely wellequipped to respond to all
hazards, including publichealth threats

A man sanitizing interior surfaces on a train in Mexico City, Mexico. © Eduardo Moreno

86

-6

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

0

2

4

6

8

Log Urban Population Density (Inhabitants per Sq Km)

Figure 3.6: Urban density and COVID-19 infection rates in China

Number of COVID-19 confirmed cases per 10,000 people

2.50

Wenzhou

2.00
Xinyang
Zhumadian

1.50
Xinyu

Yueyang

1.00

0.50
Shenzhen

0.00

Zhuhai

Beijing
Tianjin0-0.50

Source: Wanli and Wahba, 202087

y = -6E-06x + 0.2791
R2 = 0.0025

5000

10000

15000

Population Density (Number of people per square kilometer)

Shanghai
20000

25000

-0.50Population Density (Number of people per square kilometer)
The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Box 3.1: Economic impacts of COVID-19 pandemic in various regions
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the world with a crisis like no other. As highlighted in Chapter 1, the global economy isexpected to contract by three per cent due to the impacts of COVID-19, making it the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Estimates also suggest that the pandemic will push between 71 and 100 million into extreme poverty.34 Global remittances arealso projected to decline sharply by about 20 percent in 2020.35 Global value chains have been significantly affected and there is a
general decline in investor confidence, foreign direct investment is expected to decline by 30–40 per cent in 2020.36
At the centre of some of these economic impacts are measures to contain COVID-19. The transmission control policies of various
levels of governments (local, regional and national) as well as the preventative behaviour of individuals have driven the economic
costs of the pandemic across various geographic regions. As stated in Chapter 1, the pandemic is reinforcing urban inequalities;
workers in the informal economy and migrant workers have been particularly affected by the economic consequences of COVID-19.
Notably in some regions, high levels of poverty, informality and unprotected jobs have made it more difficult to implement some of
the transmission control policies.37

Economic impacts of COVID-19

Lower demands for goods and services
 Tourism Hospitality
 Transport

PeopleMeasures tocontain COVID-19nd
g a cenin enar ﬁdr e onwe r cLo owelSupply chain disruptions

Laying off employees

Firms

SMEs are more
vulnerable

pro Low
du er
cti
on

Lower demandfor commodities

Restricted people mobility
affect other countriesr
we s
Lo ningraeTravel restrictions, suspension of
production, quarantine, lockdowns
etc.

Lo
w
low erer inco
co m
nﬁ es
de an
nc d
e

Affect commodity
importers and exporters

Higher demand for healthcare(Resulting in extraordinary burden
on insufﬁcient fragmented systems)

Financial markets

Stock markets and foreign exchange markets

Financial market channel

Potential ﬁnancial
contagion

Short-term impacts






Demand side channel
Supply side channel

Affect other countries
manufucturers in supply chain

Cross-border channel

Medium and long-term impacts

Higher unemployment
Lower wages and incomes
Increasing poverty and extreme poverty
Health systems: fragmentation and inequalities of accessAccelerated digital transformations







Bankruptcies
Downturn in private investments
Weaker economic growthLess integration into value chain
Erosion of productive capabilities and human capital

Source: Adapted from UNESCAP (2020) and ECLAC (2020a.)
Northern Africa and Western Asia

6

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Europe and Northern America
Latin America and the Caribbean

17
25

6
2
1
4

19

88

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The economic impacts of COVID-19 are playing out differently in urban areas of various regions of the world. In Africa, the effects of
COVID-19 on employment are likely to be severe in cities as urban-based sectors of the economy (manufacturing and services) are
expected to be hit hard, resulting in substantial losses in productive jobs. In addition, the livelihoods of approximately 250 million
people in informal urban employment in Sub-Saharan African will be at risk. The effects of the pandemic will increase the vulnerabilityof businesses in African cities, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for 80 per cent of employmenton the continent. Consumption in large cities, which is, on average, 80 per cent higher than the national level, is likely to decline withattendant impacts on domestic value chains, including rural areas. A fall in revenue streams for local authorities is anticipated as well asa decline in intergovernmental and national transfers due to immediate national response and recovery requirements.38
The Latin America and the Caribbean region, where eight out of every 10 people reside in cities, is bearing the brunt of the global
impacts of the COVID-19 crisis: a reduction in international trade, a fall in commodities prices, the intensification of risk aversion
and worsening of global financial conditions, lower demand for tourism services and a reduction in remittances. As a result, theregion’s GDP is projected to drop by 5.3 per cent. The forecasts also indicate that South American economies will contract by 5.2
per cent owing to lower activity in China, an important export market. Central American economies are projected to contract by 2.3
per cent, due to a drop in tourism as well as reduced economic activity in the United States, its main trading partner and source ofremittances. Finally, the reduced demand for tourism services will see Caribbean economies contracting by 2.5 per cent.39
The projections also show an increase in the unemployment rate to 11.5 per cent in 2020, a 3.4 percentage points increase from2019 levels, or a 37.7 million rise in the number of unemployed persons. The negative impact of COVID-19 on employment is also
visible through its harsh effects on SMEs as they account for more than 50 per cent of formal employment. Many such businesses
are struggling to remain solvent.40 On the whole, the drop in GDP and the rise in unemployment is expected to have a direct
negative effect on the income of households. As a result, the poverty rate in the region is projected to rise to 34.7 per cent in 2020,
a 4.4 percentage points rise from 2019 levels; implying that 29 million more people will find themselves in situations of poverty.
Meanwhile, extreme poverty is seen rising by 2.5 percentage points, going from 11 per cent to 13.5 per cent, which represents anincrease of 16 million people.41
In Asia and the Pacific region, as the measures to contain the spread of the virus took effect there was a general decline in aggregate
demand, with particular impacts on service sectors (such as tourism, retail, hospitality and civil aviation). International demand forcommodities also fell, especially for oil, further contributing to economic and financial uncertainty and instability.
The drop in global demand is expected to cost the region an estimated US$172 billion from trade alone, equivalent to 0.8 per centdrop of the GDP of the region.42 In South Asia, regional economic growth is expected to fall to a range between 1.8 and 2.8 percent
in 2020. The region has experienced disruptions in flows of remittances and loss of work for people in the hospitality and transport
sectors. The negative impact of COVID-19 on poverty rates is expected to be higher in urban centres.43 In East Asia and the Pacific, asharp economic contraction is expected, lowering 2020 growth to 2.1 percent, from 5.8 percent in 2019. Growth in China is projected
to decline to 2.3 percent from 6.1 percent in 2019 while the rest of the EAP region is projected to slow to 1.3 percent from anestimated 4.7 percent in 2019. Poverty in the subregion is estimated to increase by about 11 million people.44
In Western Asia, the Arab region’s GDP is projected to decline by at least US$42 billion in 2020. The pandemic, coupled with an oil
price war, has led to a continual decline in oil prices, causing the Arab region to lose nearly US$11 billion in net oil revenues between
January and mid-March 2020. During this period businesses in the Arab region lost a massive US$420 billion in market capital— anequivalent to eight per cent of total regional wealth. The region is projected to lose 1.7 million jobs in 2020, thus increasing theunemployment rate by 1.2 percentage points— as the severely impacted service sector is the main employer. Further, the economic
slowdown caused by the pandemic is expected to negatively impact wages and the flow of remittances. As a result, an estimated89

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

8.3 million people will be pushed into poverty. COVID-19’s negative effect on the global supply chains, production, transport anddistribution is projected to impact food security in the region.45
The GDP of Europe and North America is projected to fall by 6–7 per cent in 2020 as a result of the crisis. Fiscally speaking,countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia have been hit the hardest. Declining remittances from labour
migrants, massive capital outflows from emerging markets, plunging oil prices and worsening conditions for external financing havetaken a heavy toll on economies and societies in these subregions.46

As illustrated in this section by a recap of foundational
concepts, cities can effectively serve as growth accelerators.
However, it is critical that the growth and consumption
potential of cities is managed in ways that supports theachievement of sustainable development outcomes andbuilds resilience. Outcomes resulting from the economic
value associated with urbanization should accrue toall by ensuring inclusive prosperity and widespread
opportunities. Recognizing that sustainable urbanization isa transformational journey requiring specific collaborative
elements is a pathway to achieve these outcomes in cities.
The NUA and UN-Habitat’s Strategic Plan 2020-2023
identifies these elements as fundamental drivers of change:
policy and legislation; governance; financing mechanisms;
and urban planning and design.

 Policy and legislation: Development and implementationof urban policies at the appropriate levels, including
local and national, provide a vital framework toharnessing the economic potential of cities. National
urban policies, for instance, bring together theotherwise disjointed energies and potential of urban
centres within national systems of cities.

It is critical that the growth andconsumption potential of cities ismanaged in ways that supports theachievement of sustainable development
outcomes and builds resilience Financing mechanisms: Effective, innovative andsustainable financing frameworks and instruments
strengthen municipal finance and local fiscal systems
that create, sustain and share the economic value
generated by sustainable urban development in an
inclusive manner.

These elements provide a framework for action in response
to multiple challenges confronting urban areas and arehence vital for leveraging the economic value generated
by urbanization to achieve inclusive prosperity andopportunities for all. They constitute a framework forbalancing the economic value of urbanization with otherinherent values: social, environmental and intangible.
They have a direct bearing on the discussions on various
sections of this chapter— and this report in general— andUN-Habitat regards them central to the achievement ofobjectives its strategic plan.

 Urban and territorial planning and design has an inherent
and fundamental economic function. Reinvigorating
long-term and integrated urban and territorial planningand design is key to optimize the spatial dimensionof urban forms and deliver positive outcomes ofurbanization such as promoting economic growth. The
multiscale continuum of spatial planning ensures better
integrated and connected cities and territories that
foster sustainable urban development. Economic value
is thus generated beyond city boundaries into regions,as discussed in the next section.

 Strengthening urban governance: Effective urban
governance is a prerequisite for economic resilience.
Effective institutions and governance mechanisms
determine how people, public and private sector
organizations make decisions of an economic,
social or political nature, maximizing potential andoptimizing resources.

90

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Modern sustainable neighbourhood in Almere, The Netherlands.
© Pavlo Glazkov/Shutterstock91

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

3.2. How Cities Contribute to National
Prosperity and Inclusiveness
Cities are the world’s economic platforms for production,
innovation and trade.47 At the same time, when wellplanned and managed, cities are also where populations
realize their productive potential. In examining the role ofurban areas in contributing to prosperity and inclusiveness,this section begins with an overview of how cities improvethe economy across a range of scales. It then presents theunique role cities play as “advertisers” of foreign direct
investment as well as their key role in poverty reduction
and inclusion for marginalized groups in countries withdifferentiated access to opportunities.
3.2.1. Economic growth across spatial scales

Well-planned and managed urban growth improves the
economy across a range of scales: local, regional and national.
As pointed out in the previous section, urban areas generally
increase the productivity of their residents. By promoting
local economic development, they create employment
opportunities that build on the comparative advantages
and unique qualities of their localities and communities.
As countries urbanize, a larger share of the population
enjoys the economic benefits provided by cities. Overall
productivity thus increases regionally and for the whole
nation. Rural hinterlands, for instance, experience positive
spillover effects from urban areas. A variety of urbanrural linkages in production, consumption and financial
relationships have profound impact across the urbanrural continuum. Given the magnitude of these linkages,sustainable urban growth has large economic benefits fornearby rural areas.48 Strengthening these reciprocal flows is
also vital for achieving sustainable urbanization.
There are also spillovers between cities of the same
region.49 In addition to trading goods with each other,
cities also trade ideas. Any innovation originating in one
city appears quickly in other cities, from the emergence ofshared mobility like ride-hailing or bikeshare to pandemic
responses. Urban systems are integrated knowledge
creation and diffusion networks, which raise productivity
in the aggregate. In particular, there is evidence thatmajor economic activities are increasingly concentrated
in large urbanized regions, or “mega-regions,” that are
centred in and around global cities. These mega-regions

often encompass cities, towns, villages and rural areas,
with some crossing national boundaries in the form ofplanned or unplanned urban corridors. Oftentimes, they
operate as single economic entities that set in motion
self-reinforcing, cumulative growth patterns that make asignificant contribution to the world’s economic activity—
as their economic power and boundaries now sometimes
surpass those of their nation-states. Table 3.3 presents 29
such mega-regions identified using satellite and economic
output data.50
These regions account for almost 40 per cent of world
GDP. As can be seen in Table 3.3, 11 of them are in Asia, 10
are in North America and six are in Europe (Latin Americaand Africa only have three mega-regions combined). The
five largest mega-regions in the world comprise Bos-Wash(from Boston to Washington D.C. via New York City),
Par-Am-Mun (from Paris to Munich via Amsterdam), ChiPitts (from Chicago to Pittsburgh), Greater Tokyo, andSoCal (from Los Angeles to San Diego).
If more productive mega-regions can afford to makelarger investments in infrastructure, they capture
economic activity from less productive mega-regions. Yet,such competition is “healthy,” to the extent that moreproductive mega-regions are likely to grow faster than lessproductive mega-regions, making the whole urban system
on average more productive. However, mega-regions canover-compete with each other, leading to a geographic
imbalance whereby mega-regions absorb economic activity
and leave other regions impoverished. Another concern
is that two-thirds of these mega-regions belong to thedeveloped world. This “winner take all” approach propels
developed countries to keep growing economically as
fast, or sometimes even faster, than developing countries,
which widens spatial inequality. Oftentimes, these urban
configurations result in unbalanced regional development
and severe urban primacy due to their self-reinforcing
nature—they bolster ties to the existing economic centres,
thereby creating more localized development as opposed
to allowing more diffused spatial development acrossterritories. Such asymmetrical development has thepotential to compound the urban divide.51
Already, evidence suggests that such city clusters indeveloping countries may not be generating increasing

92

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

economic returns as they get larger due to the slow
development of endogenous growth industries and risingexternality costs.52 This is further worsened by theirvery fragmented governance systems, extending acrossmunicipal and sometimes national boundaries. In orderto realize the economic value for sustainable urbanizationand ensure inclusive prosperity, developing countries
need strategies that ensure integrated spatial growth anddevelopment—to nurture nascent mega-regions within
their territories, as well as those spanning neighbouring
countries, so as to facilitate economic activities. For
instance, it is vital to develop and implement national
urban policies that maximize the benefits of urbanization
and respond to these forms of interconnectivity and urban
interdependence, as well as anticipating and managing thenegative consequences of urban and regional growth.

Table 3.3: Largest Mega-Regions in the World, 2015
Rank

Mega-Region

Cities

Output (Billions)

Population (Millions)1

Bos-Wash

New York; Washington, D.C.; Boston

US$3,650

47.6

2

Par-Am-Mun

Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Munich

US$2,505

43.5

3

Chi-Pitts

Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh

US$2,13032.9

4Greater TokyoTokyo

US$1,800

39.1

5

SoCal

Los Angeles, San Diego

US$1,424

22

6Seoul-San

Seoul, Busan

US$1,325

35.5

7Texas Triangle

Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin

US$1,22718.4

8

Beijing

Beijing, Tianjin

US$1,226

37.4

9

Lon-Leed-Chester

London, Leeds, Manchester

US$1,177

22.6

10

Hong-Shen

Hong Kong, Shenzhen

US$1,043

19.5

11NorCalSan Francisco, San Jose

US$925

10.8

12Shanghai

Shanghai, Hangzhou

US$892

24.2

13

TaipeiTaipei

US$827

16.7

14

São PauloSão Paulo

US$78033.5

15Char-Lanta

Charlotte, Atlanta

US$656

10.5

16

Cascadia

Seattle, Portland

US$6278.8

17Ista-Burs

Istanbul, Bursa

US$626

14.8

18

Vienna-Budapest

Vienna, Budapest

US$55512.8

19Mexico City

Mexico City

US$52424.5

20

Rome-Mil-Tur

Rome, Milan, Turin

US$51313.8

21Singa-Lumpur

Singapore, Kuala Lumpur

US$493

12.7

22

Cairo-Aviv

Cairo, Tel Aviv

US$472

19.8

23

So-FloMiami, Tampa

US$4709.1

24

Abu-Dubai

Abu Dhabi, Dubai

US$431

5

25

Osaka-Nagoya

Osaka, Nagoya

US$424

9.1

26

Tor-Buff-Chester

Toronto, Buffalo, Rochester

US$4248.5

27Delhi-Lahore

New Delhi, Lahore

US$41727.9

28

Barcelona-Lyon

Barcelona, Lyon

US$3237

29

Shandong

Jinan, Zibo, Dongying

US$24914.2

Source: Florida, 2019.

93

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

3.2.2.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) attraction
Cities are important drivers of FDI, which in turn canboost national economic prospects. With the exceptionof the natural resource sector, most FDI is often in
manufacturing or knowledge-intensive service sectors.53
Studies also show that the biggest factors attracting FDI
are trade regimes, quality of institutions, labour force
talent and infrastructure.54 Since cities are where thesefactors are the most visible to potential investors, and also
where the most commonly invested-in industries tend to
be concentrated, they are important “advertisers” for FDI
in their countries.55

FDI. Urbanization in Asia, especially South-East Asia,
has been strongly linked to economic transformationand greater integration into the global economy as many
cities have become FDI recipients. In Africa, FDI stock has
created the largest number of jobs in South Africa, Nigeria,
Egypt and Morocco.56
3.2.3

Poverty reduction and inclusion for
marginalized groupsLow
low erer inco
co m
nﬁ es
de an
nc d
e

pro Low
du er
cti
on

nd
g a cenin enar ﬁdr e onwe r cLo owelCities are where aspirations, ambitions and otherintangible aspects of life are realized for all, including
economic opportunities
forfor goods
marginalized
Lower demands
and services groups. For Tourism
those at the bottomof the economic ladder, the value of Hospitality
urbanization lies inTransport
its contribution to poverty reduction,
There is a snowball effect as FDI attracts similarpeople mobility
commodity
whether through formal or informal employment. WhileRestrictedinvestment. As FDI grows, a virtuous cycle is Affectestablished:affect other countries
importers and exporters
er sw
most urban dwellers
do not enter the informal economy
when a few cities are economically successful, they are able
Lo ningrea
by choice, studies
show Laying
thatoff employees
earnings from informal
to make additional investments that boost the country’s
Firms
Lower demand
SMEs are more
Peopleemployment
arerelatively
potentcontributors to poverty
competitiveness internationally, in turn attracting
more
for commodities
vulnerable
57
reduction (Box 3.2). In Measures
the samevein, estimates oftocontain
COVID-19
multidimensional poverty,
whichtakes into accountTravel restrictions, suspension of
overlapping deprivationsin quarantine,
education,
production,
lockdownshealth and living Higher demand foretc.
in extraordi
standards, show that poverty is
generally lower in urban on(Resulting
insufﬁcient fragmen
Supply chain disruptions
58
areas than in rural areas (Figure 3.7). Access to improved
Financial markets
markets
and foreignhealthexchange markets
infrastructure (suchStockas
betterand education)
Demand side
in
urban
areas
generallyenhances
qualityof life and is
Supply side c
Affect other countries
manufucturers in supply chain
associated with lower levelsPotentialof poverty.
Financial ma
ﬁnancial
contagion

Short-term impacts






Cross-border

In countries where women, people with disabilities,
and ethnic, religious and/or sexual minority
groupsface
Medium andlong-term
impacts
 Bankruptcies
discrimination in the education systemandthelabour Downturn in private investments

Higher unemployment
Lower wages and incomes
Increasing poverty and extreme poverty
Health systems: fragmentation and inequalities of accessAccelerated digital transformations

 Weaker economic growth Less integration into value chain Erosion of productive capabilities and human capital

Figure 3.7: Percentage of the population living in
multidimensional poverty, 2018
Northern Africa and Western Asia
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Europe and Northern America
Latin America and the Caribbean

17

6

25

6
2
1
19

4

Central and Southern Asia

28

10

Sub-Saharan Africa

An elderly woman from an informal settlement. Georgetown, Guyana.
© UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

Rural

Source: UNDESA, 2020a.

71

31
Urban

Informal employment in non agricultural employment (%)
-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

94

Northern Africa and Western Asia
Eastern and South-Eastern AsiaWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Europe and Northern America
Latin America and the Caribbean

17

6

25

6
2
1
19

4

Central and Southern Asia

28

10

Sub-Saharan Africa

Box 3.2: Informal economy: A lifeblood for many cities
The informal economy has become the lifeblood of many cities.
Sustainable and inclusive urban development is impossible in mostdeveloping countries without addressing the plight of informal
workers. In 2020, over 2 billion people are earning their livelihoodsin the informal economy, accounting for 62 per cent of the world’s
workforce. Informal employment represents 90 per cent of total
employment in low-income countries, 67 per cent in middle-income
countries and 18 per cent in high-income countries.
Informal employment comprises more than half of non-agricultural
employment in most regions of the developing world: 82 per centin South Asia, 66 per cent in Sub-Sahara Africa, 65 per cent inEast and South-East Asia, 51 per cent in Latin America and the
Caribbean and 45 per cent in the Middle East and North Africa.
The informal economy in all its aspects is also a major challenge
for the rights of workers. As such, inclusive prosperity calls fora rights-based approach built on effective partnership between
informal workers and local governments as well as a radical
rethink of governance and urban planning paradigms to facilitate
the transition of workers and economic units from the informal
to the formal economy. Doing so aligns with the priorities in the
Decade of Action to deliver the Global Goals, particularly SDG 8,
which commits Member States in part to “…build economies forthe future and ensure decent work for all.”

71

31
Rural

Urban

Informal employment as a percentage of
total non-agricultural employment
Informal employment in non agricultural employment (%)
-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

82
83
82

South Asia
66

Sub-Saharan Africa

61

74

65
64
65

East and South-East Asia
(excluding China)
51
54
48

Latin America andthe Caribbean

Middle East andNorth Africa

35

China

33
36
30

Eastern Europe andCentral Asia

7
-20

0

45
47

10
13
20

40

60

80

100

Gender gap (% points)
Total

FemaleMale

Gender gap

Source: UN-Habitat, 2018b; UN-Habitat, 2016c; ILO, 2017; ILO, 2019; ILO, 2020emarket, the productive potential of a significant shareof the population becomes constrained.59 Studies haveshown that living in cities causes residents to become
more accepting of these groups.60 Thus, within a country,
cities offer a less discriminatory environment forminority groups, allowing the members of such groups
to access human capital development and employment
opportunities that otherwise they would not easily accesselsewhere (Chapter 5). For instance, some cities havededicated formal channels and programs for persons
with disability to access gainful employment like Accessto City Employment in San Francisco and EmployAbilities
in Edmonton.

Asia and theOverall, urbanization
generates economic value in many
Paciﬁcways. However, all too often the generation of this value
is constrained
Europeasand is evident in instances where increased
North America
urbanization
is not associated with economic growth. As
highlighted
in andthis section, well-planned and managed
Latin America
the Caribbean
cities can be catalysts for inclusion and powerhouses of
equitable Sub-Saharaneconomic growth. It is imperative, therefore,
Africathat the urbanization
process be sustainable in order tomaximize the economic benefits that urban areas are
Western Asia andable to provide.
North AfricaFurther, at this time when the world isgrappling with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,
cities have a key role to play in inclusive and sustainableWorld
economic recovery as engines of growth.
0

20
Yes

95

40
Varies

60

80
No

100

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Aerial view of beautiful city Helsinki at spring, Finland. © Subodh Agnihotri/Shutterstock

3.3. Sustainable Urbanization is Crucial toReap the Economic Benefits of Cities
While urbanization has historically been associated witheconomic development, this relationship has become
weaker over time.61 Various explanations have been
advanced for this phenomenon of “urbanization without
growth,” for example globalization and food imports
contributing to lower food prices or rapid demographic
growth pushing people into cities in poorer countries.62
Likewise, some regions of the world appear to haveurbanized almost to the same extent while experiencing

different growth and industrialization patterns, forexample Africa versus Asia (see Chapter 1).63 Countries
with similar urbanization and income levels may havedistinct urban economic structures, thus suggesting thatthe urbanization process has different determinants acrosscountries. Finally, even in cases where urbanization isassociated with economic growth, there are ways to makethe process more sustainable. These various scenarios are
outlined in more detail below and should inform urban
and territorial planning processes in order to enhancethe economic value of urbanization in existing and new
urban settlements.

96

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

3.3.1. Urbanization rate and the absorptive capacityof cities

The world continues to rapidly urbanize even if the
COVID-19 pandemic has created unforeseen consequences
to that global mega-trend. If projections hold true, 90
per cent of the urban growth expected by 2050 will occur
in less developed regions. As highlighted in Chapter 1,
rapid urban growth presents an important opportunity,
but it also poses challenges to the implementation of
the NUA, the urban dimensions of the SDGs and otherglobal development frameworks relevant to sustainableurbanization. If urban population increases too fast,
particularly in settings with weak planning systems andcapacities, there is a risk of “uncontrolled urbanization.”In this scenario, the benefits of concentration are offset byrising congestion, overcrowding, overloaded infrastructure,pressure on ecosystems, higher costs of living and highproperty costs in cities, all of which harm productivity.64 If
urban areas do not have the capacity to absorb this growing
population, the increase in population scale will decrease
productivity.65 For example, transport networks become
overcrowded and congested, with an attendant increasein costs for all. The surge in demand for housing causes
neighbourhoods to develop haphazardly and cities lose theeconomic gains associated with well-planned urbanization.
This urban growth pattern results in urban sprawl, with
development occurring prior to the layout of infrastructure
for basic services and local authorities playing catch-up
or incurring increased service provision costs due to low
densities. Finally, services vital to the enhancement ofquality of life in urban areas are not adequately provided.
In such a scenario, there will be inadequate schools andhealth facilities, as well as insufficient trained teachers andhealth personnel, to cope with rapid population growth,thus curtailing human capital formation in the economy.
Besides enhancing efficiency in existing city footprints
through planned infill development, it is vital that urban
expansion be planned for, in particular by reserving land

If urban areas do not have the capacity
to absorb this growing population, theincrease in population scale will decrease
productivity

97

that can be developed to meet this future demand.66 This
land would have to be: (i) at the periphery of existing cities
to promote compact, contiguous development and thus
avoid having to create whole new cities ex nihilo, which is
expensive; (ii) of lower environmental value, in order tominimize the environmental impact of such expansion;67
and (iii) properly designed and serviced, with clearlylaid-out blocks, streets, and protected pavements andpublic spaces.68 The pavements, streets, squares and parks
should remain publicly owned, but there should be welldefined private property rights for the parcels of landcomprising the blocks. As the economy of these cities
grows, developers will acquire the parcels, build structuresof various heights and subdivide these structures into
housing units or commercial spaces. But if local authorities
do not pursue this pathway, they will be ignoring the futureneeds of urban residents and the costs of redeveloping
these areas at a later date will be higher.69
As cities plan for future growth, they may have to reassess
their development controls, such as floor-area ratios, plot
coverage and height limits, other among other restrictions.
A study by UN-Habitat found that an overwhelming 85
per cent of cities report one or more regulations that limit
building size in their expansion areas (Figure 3.8). Of these,
68 per cent had maximum floor area ratio regulations,59 per cent had maximum building height regulations
and 57 per cent had maximum plot coverage regulations.
Strikingly, 62 per cent of all cities, and 72 per cent of
cities in less developed regions, reported that multifamily
buildings were either not allowed, or allowed only in a smallpart of the city. Such restrictions reduce housing supply(thus increasing housing prices), limiting opportunities fordensification and consequently the absorptive capacitiesof these cities.70 Most African cities still retain regulatory
standards passed on from the colonial era that are illequipped to address present-day needs, making housing
unaffordable to a majority of the population.71
Therefore, in order for the economic benefits ofurbanization to be realized, such exponential growth mustbe accompanied by the relevant governance, institutional,
policy and legal frameworks necessary for a city thatplans.72 Otherwise, weak planning or overly restrictive
development controls will result in land regulation crises
marked by rampant speculation and growth of informality.

Eastern Europe andCentral Asia

7
-20

0

10
13
20

40

60

80

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

100

Gender gap (% points)
Total

FemaleMale

Gender gap

Figure 3.8: Presence of building size regulations acrossvarious regions

The demographic trends highlighted in Chapter 1 clearlypoint to the changing population composition of cities.
Cities across the world dramatically vary in their age
structure and their share of workers vis-à-vis non-workers.74
For example, while New York City had an average of two
adults per child in 1850, it now has four adults per child.
Most cities in China and Japan have 10 adults per child,an extremely low child dependency ratio. At the opposite
extreme, cities such as Dhaka (1.5 adults per child) andBamako (one adult per child) have high child dependency
ratios. Finally, in many developed countries, cities areageing. Milan, Munich, Orlando and Tokyo have threeworking-age adults per older person, while by comparison
Bogotá, Istanbul, La Paz and Manila have 10 working-age
adults per older person.

Asia and the
PaciﬁcEurope andNorth America
Latin America andthe Caribbean
Sub-SaharanAfricaWestern Asia andNorth Africa

World

0

20
Yes

40

60

Varies

80

100

No

Source: UN-Habitat, 2016c.

It is therefore important that the objectives of legal
frameworks be aligned to local realities so that legislation
is not overambitious, setting unrealistic targets irrelevant
to local needs and conditions. UN-Habitat has developed
an assessment tool for cities and countries to systematically
identify the strengths and weaknesses of urban planninglaw within their contexts. The Planning Law Assessment
Framework looks at the laws, regulations and decrees thatare applicable in a city, and enacted at different levels.
It has been tested in Colombia (2012), Philippines (2013),
Rwanda (2014), Mozambique (2014), Egypt (2015) and
Saudi Arabia (2016).73

It is important that the objectives of legal
frameworks be aligned to local realities
so that legislation is not overambitious,
setting unrealistic targets irrelevant tolocal needs and conditions
6

7

3.3.2. Demographic composition and growth
implications

8

9

Log GDP Per Capita in 2010 (PPP, cst 2005$)

10

Higher age dependency ratios could impact a city’s
economic growth through a variety of negative channels.75
The economically active population and the overall
economy might bear a greater burden to support andprovide the social services needed by children and older
persons, both of whom are often economically dependent
on working-age adults. Low dependency ratios promoteeconomic growth. In rapidly urbanizing regions like Africa,
for instance, studies have also shown that a one percentage
point change in the working-age population could cause
up to a 1.1 percentage point increase in GDP. However,this benefit is conditional on major investments in humancapital and labour-intensive industry and services.76
Local authorities and national governments can support
low dependency ratios by adopting family planning policies
and programmes, as well as expanding education andlabour force participation policies that ensure sustained
economic growth and higher levels of productivity to help
economies navigate through demographic transitions.
Such policies are typically more efficient to implement inurban areas. In the short- and medium-term, cities shouldcollect data on their age structure and fertility, mortality
and migration trends in their population, in line with Key
Item 1.1 of the Action Framework for Implementation of
the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA).77 Cities can use thisinformation to forecast how their total population andits composition will evolve, which will inform urban and
11

12

98

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Women stitch clothing at training centre in Savar city, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
©UN-Habitat-Kirsten Milhahn

99

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

territorial planning processes, for instance, in planningtheir future neighbourhoods and adapting public services
to the current needs of the population.
For example, regions with high percentages of children
should put in place strategies that will expand youthemploying sectors so as to leverage demographic dividends
resulting from the window of opportunity afforded by thisincrease in working-age population. These children will
eventually enter labour markets, consequently improving
the city’s economy if there are jobs available to them.78 Suchefforts align with the New Urban Agenda, where Member
States committed themselves “to harnessing the urban
demographic dividend, where applicable, and to promoting
access for youth to education, skills development andemployment to achieve increased productivity and shareprosperity in cities and human settlements.”79
As highlighted in Chapters 1 and 5, the proportionof older people living in cities is rapidly increasing inboth developing and developed regions with important
implications for economic and social development andfor environmental sustainability. Planning for an ageing
urban population requires innovation as well as devoting
adequate resources to geriatric care and other social
services. In Asian countries, for instance, age-related
public expenditures, such as pensions and health care,are projected to increase, eroding public finances by up
to 10 percentage points of GDP by 2050.80 Nevertheless,Member States must support their ageing populations inline with the SDGs’ overriding principle of “leave no one
behind” and the New Urban Agenda’s commitment “toaddressing the social, economic and spatial implications ofageing populations…and harnessing the ageing factor as anopportunity for new decent jobs and sustained, inclusive
and sustainable economic growth, while improving thequality of life of the urban population.”81 In the same vein,
the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities
initiative is fostering mutual learning between cities andcommunities worldwide (Chapter 5). Indeed, ensuring
access to age-appropriate health care services, lifelong
learning opportunities and formal and informal support
networks is essential for the better health and wellbeingof ageing persons. Better health provides access to more
economic opportunities that allow older adults to continue
to contribute creatively to sustainable development.82

3.3.3. Consumption cities vs production cities

Economies of agglomeration are typically stronger inmanufacturing and high-skilled service sectors, both ofwhich tend to be found in most Asian or Latin Americancountries, but not in Sub-Saharan African, Middle Easternor North African countries.83
Patterns of urbanization and industrialization vary acrossregions of the world. Kuwait, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, Libya,
Algeria, Angola and Nigeria are as urbanized as Uruguay,
Republic of Korea, Mexico, Malaysia, South Africa andChina, and yet “the former countries have not industrialized
to the same extent as the latter.”84 Indeed, urbanization
does not have to be necessarily associated with an industrial
or service revolution because other factors like natural
resource exports can drive urbanization. As countries
discover natural resources, whether oil, diamonds or
cocoa, their income level increases. As the recipients of theproceeds from resource exports (“resource rents”) in thesecountries spend a large share of their income on goods
and services produced in cities, economic opportunities
are created in cities. In addition, if resource rents are used
to import food and cities serve as trading stations for theexports and imports, living in cities becomes cheaper. As aresult, more migrants will be attracted to cities.
Figure 3.9 confirms that the relationship between
urbanization and income that was shown in Figure 3.1 is not
significantly different between resource-rich and resourcepoor countries. In other words, wealthier countries are more
urbanized, no matter whether industrialization (and/or
services) or natural resources are behind their higher income
level. Figure 3.10 then illustrates the relationship between
industrialization and urbanization in resource-exporting
countries versus non-resource-exporting countries. For
non-resource-exporting countries, urbanization is strongly
associated with industrialization. The same relationship is
not seen in resource-exporting countries.
Urbanization in resource-rich countries is driven by the
income effect of these endowments; people consume theresource rents in cities. Since a large share of urban workers
in these countries work in non-tradable service sectors(specifically, commerce, transport, personal services
and government services), these cities are referred to as100

Western
Asia and
Sub-Saharan
North Africa
AfricaWestern Asia andWorld
North AfricaWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

80

100

World
Yes

Varies

0

20

40

No
60

VariesYes

No

Figure 3.9: Urbanization-income relationship for resource exports and other countries

UrbanizationUrbanization
Rate in 2010Rate(Per incent)2010 (Per cent)

100

80
100

60
80

40
60

20
40

0
20
5

6

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

Log GDP Per Capita in 2010 (PPP, cst 2005$)

0

7

8

9

Resource Exporters

Non-Resource Exporters

Log GDP Per Capita in 2010 (PPP, cst 2005$)

Source: Gollin et al, 2016.
Resource Exporters

Non-Resource Exporters

Figure 3.10: Urbanization and manufacturing and service output
100

GAT

Urbanization Rate
Urbanizationin 2010 (Per
Ratecent)
in 2010 (Per cent)

GAB
80
100

LBY GAT

40
60

GNQ

20
40

GNQ

200

0

ARE

KWT
CHL

KWT PER
CUB
MYS
VEN
CNM
IRN
BHR
ECU CHL SUR
MNG
IRQ
GAB
ARE
COG
BOL
SAU
NIC
BWA
AGO
ZAF
LBY
PER
SYR
BRN
CMR
CUB
MYS
CNM
DZA
FJI
IDN
NGA
SUR
IRN
LBR
ECU
MNG
IRQ
GHA
CIV
BLZ
CAF
COG
BOL
MUS
MRT ZMB
NIC
BWA
SLE
AGO
ZWE
NAM
TGO
ZAF
SYR
CMR
BNT
YEM
FJI
ZAR GIN
VNM IDN
NGA
LBR
GHA
CIV
BLZ
GUY
SLB
CAF
TCD ZMB
MUS
SWZ
MRT
SLE
ZWE
NAM
TGO
LKA
BNT
TTO
PNG
UGA YEMZAR GIN
VNM
DZA

60
80

SAU

VEN
BHR

BRN

GUY

TCD
20

30
PNG

20

30

40

SLB

50

60
70
TTO
UGA
Share of Manufucturing and Services in GDP in 2010 (Per cent)Resource Exporters
40
50

Non-Resource Exporters
60
70

Share of Manufucturing and Services in GDP in 2010 (Per cent)Resource Exporters
100%

Source: Gollin et al, 2016. 90%
100%
80%

101

90%
70%
80%
60%

Non-Resource Exporters

LKA80

80

SWZ
90

90

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Consumption cities, because of theireconomic structure, will not generate
the same kind of productivity growth
associated with production cities“consumption cities.” Cities in resource-poor countries,
on the other hand, tend to be “production cities,” withmore workers in manufacturing or in tradable services likefinance and business services. For example, in the urban
areas of resource-rich Angola, Ivory Coast, Kuwait, Nigeria
and Saudi Arabia, 60–70 per cent of individuals work in
non-tradable service sectors (as defined above) versus 5–10
per cent in manufacturing and tradable services.85 In theurban areas of countries with a relatively poor resourcebase such as China, Lesotho, Malaysia and Mauritius, theseshares are more balanced, reaching about 35–40 per centand 35–45 per cent respectively. In addition, within the
non-tradable service sector, government services represent
5–10 per cent of workers in resource-poor countries, 10
per cent in African resource-rich countries and 20 per
cent in resource-rich countries of the MENA region. Thus,
consumption cities, because of their economic structure,
will not generate the same kind of productivity growth
associated with production cities.
In addition, some resource-rich countries have the national
government as the primary agent for urban growth and as
result their urban systems are often skewed towards theirprimate city. That is the case in resource-rich Angola,
Chile, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Mongolia, where
the primacy rate is in the range of 40–60 per cent. Oil-rich
Gulf countries also have very high primacy rates. Indeed,
resource rents are disproportionately “spent” on goods
and services (including government services) produced in
the most administratively and/or economically importantcities. Owing to their centralized governance structures,
resource-rich countries also often lack clearly articulated
mechanisms for inclusion and public stakeholder
participation in urban governance. In turn, their topdown approaches tend to adopt urban-biased policies
or policies favouring the primate city.86 More generally,such policies resulting from centralized planning limit
proactive management of urbanization at lower tiers ofgovernment thus leading to unsustainable patterns suchas urban sprawl, which result in inefficiently oversized

cities. In some of the cities in oil-rich Gulf countries,
for instance, planning practices have encouraged low
urban density due to land availability in some countries,
preference for single-family detached housing and also an
inability to control development on land designated forplanned uses.
Cities increase productivity because of economies ofscale in productive infrastructure and agglomeration
effects. However, in consumption cities, the absence ofthe necessity to focus on optimizing the conditions forprivate sector production provides limited incentive toinvest in productive infrastructure such as roads, hospitals
and schools. Instead, there are more frequent public
investments in high-profile building projects such as publicmonuments, conference centres, and sports venues that
may not have high payoffs. Likewise, the economic sectorsof consumption cities do not benefit from the knowledge
generation and diffusion potential of cities because they
are not particularly knowledge intensive.
Cities have the potential to become engines of growth,
but only when they have productive industries within theprivate sector that can benefit from the economies of scale
and agglomeration that cities offer. Historical examples
show that the development of these industries should not
be driven by large and generally inefficient public subsidies.
As the 2016 edition of the World Cities Report puts it,
governments need to move “from sectoral interventions tostrategic urban planning and more comprehensive urban
policy platforms.”87 To create an enabling environment

Cities have the potential to become
engines of growth, but only when they
have productive industries within theprivate sector that can benefit from theeconomies of scale and agglomerationthat cities offer

102

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

for these industries to grow organically, investments in
productive infrastructure are needed, along with strong,
responsive institutions (Chapters 1 and 7). There areindeed cases when strong institutions have helped toachieve long-term development from resource production.
For example, gold rushes led to the growth of cities suchas San Francisco, Denver and Seattle in the 19th century,
while oil booms explain why Calgary, Dallas-Ft. Worthand Houston are large North American metropolitan areas
today. In both Canada and the US, federal institutions had
been established before the discovery of natural resources.
As such, resource rents were used to invest in productive
infrastructure that bolstered the sustainable developmentof these cities and their national economies. Supported evenfurther by policies that enabled and encouraged private
sector growth, these cities all ultimately industrialized andCompact neighborhood aerial view © Jaggat Rashidi/Shutterstock103

are now specialized in tradable services, notably technology
in the case of the former gold rush cities.
In these contexts, national policies should be aimed at
mitigating the effects of the so-called “Dutch disease,” where
the discovery of natural resources can paradoxically harma country’s broader economy as other sectors slow down.
Ways to counteract Dutch disease include strengthening
institutions and ensuring citizens have the freedom to pursue
new economic opportunities. Additionally, in countries
with bureaucratic inefficiency or corruption at the national
level, local governments will be less able to deal with thechallenges arising from rapid population growth in theircities. Finally, resource-rich countries must focus on creating
the conditions for their cities to become centres of private
production, rather than centres of public consumption.

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

3.3.4. Affordability, compactness, and connectivity

As cities grow, a larger population is able to access thebenefits cities offer. Indeed, because cities offer economic
benefits, firms want to be located, and residents wantto live, in urban areas. However, as cities become larger,
externality factors often arise, complicating accessto affordable housing, labour and services.88 There isincreased pressure on land, commercial real estate andhousing markets. There is also increased pressure ontransport networks, contributing to congestion—and thenegative environmental and health effects associated with
it. In addition, the urban poor are less likely to enjoy the
economic benefits of increasingly unequal and less sociallymobile cities, thus limiting the economic value they
contribute to the urban economy (Chapter 5). They are also
more likely to suffer from high housing costs, congestionand pollution (Chapters 4 and 5).
A study by UN-Habitat found only 13 per cent of theworld’s cities have affordable housing.89 Urban households
across various regions spend a disproportionate portion of
their incomes on housing. The poor in urban areas are at
most risk of becoming cost burdened for housing. In 16
OECD countries, for instance, more than 40 per cent of
low-income owners with a mortgage spent over 40 per centof their disposable income on housing in 2016. The same
was true for low-income renters in private rentals in 14
OECD countries.90 As housing prices increase, priced-out
residents have to seek housing further away from cities,
especially the urban poor who have to live in peri-urban
slums like Ciudad Bolivar in Bogotá or low-income housing
projects in peripheral areas such as RDP houses in South
Africa and HLMs in France.91 As a result, cities are bothless productive and less equitable, making them less likely
to meet SDG Target 11.1: “by 2030, ensure access for all toadequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services
and upgrade slums.”92
The fact that cities are too expensive for the poor to live inendangers their “right to adequate housing” and thus their“right to the city” (Chapter 5).93 While slum upgrading, land
titling and other social housing programs directly improve
the lives of poorer urban residents (Chapters 2 and 5), cities
cannot meet the fast-increasing demand for urban space
without managing densification. Sustainable densities that

ensure an upward rather than outward expansion can beachieved through multi-storey dwellings and commercial
buildings. At the same time, cities can work to reconfigure
already dense settlements to make them more liveable andproductive.94 This modification is particularly important
to meet the physical distancing needs necessitated by the
COVID-19 calls for reimagining public space both during
and after the pandemic.
Inefficient land use exacerbates land-intensive
urban sprawl. Studies have shown that the rate ofland consumption through urban expansion exceeds
population growth in recent decades, a trend that has
profound repercussions for environmental sustainability
at various scales. For instance, between 2000 and 2014,
land areas occupied by cities grew 1.28 times faster thantheir populations.95 Alongside falling densities, cities
are facing a decrease in the proportion of planned areas(Figure 3.11).96 The implication, if this trend continues,
is that there will be a steady increase in the real unit
area operating costs of servicing urban areas. Cities that
continue to experience a rapid fall in population density
will see aspects of their competitiveness reduced.

Cities that continue to experience a rapid
fall in population density will see aspectsof their competitiveness reduced
The ratio of land consumption rate to population growthrate is indicative of cities’ planning and management
capacities (SDG Target 11.3), namely their ability toachieve compact integrated and connected development.
It is therefore vital that adequate investments be madeto enhance institutional capacities so as to realize wellplanned and designed cities, among other aspects ofsustainable urbanization (Chapter 8). Well-planned anddesigned cities can optimize economies of agglomeration
as well as anticipate expansion with sound policies—suchas planned city extensions—that will encourage compact
growth as well as control the speculation associated withurban sprawl.
Another key component to a successful compact urban
form is sustainable mobility, yet only half (50 per cent) of
urban residents have convenient access to public transport

104

U

ZAR

GIN

VNM
TCD

20
WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

0

GUY

20

TTO

PNG

30

40

YEM

SLB

SWZ
LKA

UGA

50

60

70

80

90

Share of Manufucturing and Services in GDP in 2010 (Per cent)Resource Exporters

Non-Resource Exporters

Figure 3.11: The evolution of planning in the expansion areas of cities, a sub-sample of 30 cities
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
Before 1900

1900-1930
Planned Areas

1930-1960
Informally Planned Areas

1960-1990

1990-2015

Not Planned Areas

UN-Habitat, 2016c.

(Figure 3.2). As workers spend significant amounts of timecommuting, they lose time that they could use to work,
recreate, take care of household tasks or be with family andfriends. Traffic data indicates that drivers in the five mostcongested cities in the world—Mumbai, Bogotá, Lima,
New Delhi and Moscow—spend an average of 55–65 percent extra travel time stuck in traffic.97
Given the impacts of traffic congestion on productivity
losses, investments in public transport systems can havelarge economic benefits, especially for the urban poor
whose access to economic opportunities is limited bysocio-spatial segregation (Chapter 5). Mass public transit
is key for the transition to a low-carbon, resilient andinclusive cities (Chapter 4).98 In regions with low access topublic transport, informal transport modes have emerged.
However, such modes are less efficient, less safe and lessenvironmentally friendly than public transit. Underthe right conditions, public transit can reduce the total
amount of time commuting and promote an efficient
distribution of the population and economic activity ina city. Such transformations are possible even in cities
with strong informal transport networks. UN-Habitat

105

is thus working with such cities to strengthen transport
policies and guidelines for sustainable and equitable access.
UN-Habitat has developed a toolkit to support the creationof safe, sustainable and accessible public transport spaces
for women and vulnerable groups.99 With the ongoingpandemic, the inclusion of informal transport operatorsin the COVID-19 recovery efforts provides an opportunityof making “these services, safer, and more efficient, while
protecting millions of jobs.”100
Finally, as mentioned in the previous sections, the drivers ofchange identified in the New Urban Agenda are fundamental
to achieving sustainable urbanization. For example, urban
and territorial planning is a catalyst for sustained andinclusive economic growth, which provides an enabling
framework for new economic opportunities, regulation

The particular ways cities are planned,
designed and built says much about what
is valued there, and planning processes
can either help or hinder development ofopportunities for all

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Box 3.3: Public transport networks: BRT and the economic benefits of cities
Cities in developing countries are increasingly investing in mass transit to manage congestion associated with rapid urban
growth. The Bogotá TransMilenio (opened in 2000) is seen as the gold standard of BRT, with a daily ridership of about 2.5 million
passengers. The TransMilenio has had large economic benefits, allowing workers greater mobility and achieving significant
reductions in travel time for commuters. Similar benefits have been observed in cities that have recently implemented BRT
projects. In Dar es Salaam, the BRT system (DART) has been transformational, both socially and economically; it has achieved
travel time savings of about 16 days per year for commuters. At the beginning of 2020, there were 172 cities across the world
operating BRTs with a daily ridership of 34 million passengers.
Global BRT data
Regions

Passengers per Day

Number of Cities

Length (km)491,5785

131

AfricaAsia

9,471,593

44

1,624

Europe1,613,580

44

875

Latin America

20,939,780

55

1,835

Northern America

912,59819

588

Oceania

436,200

5

109

Sources: https://brtdata.org/ (Version 3.48, January 13, 2020); ITDP (https://staward.org/winners/2018-dar-es-salaam-tanzania)

of land and housing markets and the timely provision ofadequate infrastructure and basic services.101 The particular
ways cities are planned, designed and built says much about
what is valued there, and planning processes can either
help or hinder development of opportunities for all.102 If
housing and transport costs are high—for instance, due topoorly defined property rights and land use regulations that
limit housing supply, underinvestment in public transportsystems and policies that do not promote transit-oriented
development, among other factors—the economic growthof cities will be constrained. Sustainability and productivity
go hand in hand. While making cities more affordable,
inclusive, compact and connected are desirable goals on
their own, they also have important economic effects.

The particular ways cities are planned,
designed and built says much about what
is valued there, and planning processes
can either help or hinder development ofopportunities for all

3.4. How Various Levels of Government
Can Help Cities Thrive
Local, regional and national governments all have a role toplay in ensuring urban areas contribute to economic growthand inclusive prosperity. Indeed, economic inclusion isstrongly associated with the planning functions of all levelsof government, as well as with the active participation ofvarious actors that advocate for stronger political will,
freedom of expression and human rights. The connection
between economic inclusion and social and political
freedoms comes as a response to extensive rent-seekingby the political and economic elites that often dominate
the urban economy, resulting in the economic benefits
accruing from urbanization realized only by a few.103
Therefore, national and local governments need to
explore ways to strengthen the productive capacities of all
inhabitants by reforming legal and regulatory frameworks
as well as integrating urban planning and design withmeasures that provide greater security to workers,

106

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

particularly those operating in the informal economy.104
These measures should be in line with the rights-based
approach to formalization that has been recommended
by ILO for transition from informal to the formal
economy.105 In this regard, several countries have started
institutionalizing participatory governance. India, forinstance, enacted The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood
and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which requires
cities to establish town vending committees to regulate
street vending, with at least 40 per cent representationof vendors on the committee.106 Cities can also support
alternative economic models to develop decent jobs in linewith SDG 8 and the NUA, while fostering small, medium
and micro enterprises (Chapter 7).
The COVID-19 pandemic has further brought to the fore
the vulnerability of the urban informal economy. Informal
micro and small enterprises that constitute 80 per centof enterprises worldwide are generally out of reach of
public policies, for instance, government measures to savejobs and enterprises, and provide workers with income
support. Various levels of government need to put in placemechanisms that ensure equitable and inclusive policy
responses during such crises. For instance, income support
could be extended through non-contributory social security
schemes or existing cash transfer programs.107 In Mexico
City, for instance, the city government has launched a cashtransfer program for non-salaried workers.108
How urban areas are spatially configured is directly
connected to their generation of economic value, namely
their capacity to improve productivity and expand
wealth. All levels of government also play a crucial rolein organizing cities in the most efficient and sustainable
way to ensure sustained economic growth. For example, by
effectively implementing integrated urban and territorialplanning and design that delivers compact urban forms,
a city is set on the course to generate externalities alignedwith sustainability goals. These functions are in line

How urban areas are spatially configured
is directly connected to their generationof economic value, namely their capacity
to improve productivity and expand
wealth107

with the New Urban Agenda’s clarion call “to optimize
the spatial dimension of the urban form and deliver the
positive outcomes of urbanization.”109 Moreover, according
to the AFINUA, “good urbanization does not happen bychance, but rather by design.”110
In terms of planning for urban expansion, these levels ofgovernment—working in coordination and collaboratingwith other public entities and stakeholders—have at
minimum three fundamental roles to play: (i) creating
realistic projections of future urban growth based on
available demographic information as well as the historicalspatial expansion of an area; (ii) identifying expansion
areas in direct proximity within existing urban fabrics andin relation to natural features and risks; and (iii) planning
the routes for wide arterial roads and sustainable mobility.
Malaysia, for instance, has taken a proactive approach indevelopment of an economic corridor in Iskandar (Box3.4). The forward-looking planning functions of these levelsof government are especially important to avert haphazard
development, which is characterized by curvilinear loop
or cul-de-sac street designs and poorly-defined property
rights. These can be observed in the slums of developing
countries, from Kibera in Kenya to Dharavi in India, tothe exurban communities of North America and Australia.
Indeed, once an area is already developed, with the landand structures subdivided, it becomes more expensive toredevelop in an efficient way.111 Moreover, well-planned
cities offer a higher quality of life, thus attracting theright capital and talent to maximize the benefits ofagglomeration economies.
Cities that offer a low quality of life usually have limited
growth relative to their potential. Thus, besides provisionof necessary infrastructure and social services, local
governments are at the front lines of addressing challenges
relating to sustainability. As a result, local and national
governments need to incentivize companies and residents
to minimize any social costs they generate, for example
their contributions to traffic congestion or pollution. Local
governments may, at times, employ the use of relevant
land-use regulations such as zoning and greenbelts toensure sustainability. To ensure affordable housing, cities
may adopt strategies that increase supply for the local
population. Paris, for example, tripled taxes on 100,000
second homes to incentivize homeowners to either sell or

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Cities that offer a low quality of life
usually have limited growth relative totheir potential
rent their properties so as to open up more housing for fulltime city residents.112 Similarly, Vancouver has an Empty
Homes Tax (Vacancy Tax) whose proceeds are reinvested
into affordable housing initiatives.
Subnational administrative structures can catalyse orhinder the full realization of agglomeration economies.
Urban agglomerations, while part of a broader
economic system linking them to other agglomerations,towns and villages, are usually their own independent
economic entities. As localities expand and becomede facto combined, city-regions develop. In places
where subnational administrative structures are notreformed to be responsive to such dynamics, oftentimes
overlapping functions, (dis)economies of scale andpolicy fragmentation become the norm. This increased
fragmentation has been shown to have negative impact
on regional economic growth (as indicated by per capita

GDP).113 New governance arrangements across existing
administrative boundaries and sectors are needed toreinforce institutional coordination at all levels. It is thus
vital to enable metropolitan governance structures andcollaboration mechanisms (see Chapter 7).
Sustainable urbanization calls for sustainable municipal
finance. As highlighted in previous sections, urban areas
are the biggest contributors to wealth generation in mostcountries. Yet, in most developing countries, cities arefinancially constrained as locally generated annual revenue
ranges from US$100 to US$500 per inhabitant. The figure
is even lower (less than US$50) in smaller cities of Africa
and South Asia.114 Consequently, they invariably rely ontransfers from the central government to make necessary
infrastructure investments and provide services. In Africa, forinstance, these transfers account for 70–80 per cent of local
authorities’ finance.115 On the other hand, cities in developed
countries rely less on intergovernmental transfers. In cities

Sustainable urbanization calls forsustainable municipal financeBox 3.4: Iskandar Malaysia: a catalyst development corridor
Designated as a catalyst development corridor, Iskandar Malaysia is one of Malaysia’s fastest growing areas in terms of populationand economic activity. By 2025, the population is expected to have doubled from 1.6 million in 2006 to 3 million, while GDP is
expected to grow at an annual rate of change of over seven per cent. Established in 2006, Iskandar Malaysia was largely funded by
the federal government’s investment arm, Khazanah Nasional Berhad. The objectives for Iskandar Malaysia’s establishment were tostrengthen Malaysia’s economic competitiveness and improve the quality of life for its citizens.
The Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA) was established under the IRDA Act (Act 664) of 2007 to oversee thedevelopment of Iskandar Malaysia. Act 664 assigns IRDA the power to facilitate the planning and implementation of spatial andeconomic development program in support of the vision for Iskandar Malaysia. IRDA has formulated a Comprehensive Development
Plan and several sectoral blueprints, including the Transportation Blueprint 2010-2030 and the Low Carbon Society Blueprint for
Iskandar 2025.
Due to its strategic geographical location as the southern gateway to Malaysia and neighbouring Singapore, Iskandar Malaysia is well
positioned to increase its transboundary economic activity. The economic region is divided into five flagship zones. Each flagship zone isa priority area for major investments and new developments including industrial parks, education hubs and health parks.
Source: UN-Habitat, 2019c.

108

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

such as New York, Stockholm, Seattle and Tokyo, locallybased revenues are more than US$3,000 per capita each year.
Such cities are better equipped at attracting multinational
corporations that benefit from strong property rights andcontribute to municipal and national revenue streams.116
Local governments in developing countries need to build
productive capacities and leverage endogenous sources offinance as well as exercise prudent financial management
practices to ensure sustained finances (Chapter 8). In areas
where taxation and fees are levied, equity considerations like
progressive revenue must be taken into account to ensure
inclusive prosperity.
Finally, as highlighted in Chapter 6 and 8, local authorities
also need to leverage the potential offered by technologicaladvancement to improve operational efficiency in theface of declining revenues. Besides enhancing efficiency,
employing such technologies appropriately can make acity “smart” in terms of being more responsive, as well as
enhancing its capacity to provide better and new services
critical to meeting the SDGs and New Urban Agenda.

3.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
PolicyAlthough the COVID-19 pandemic represents anunprecedented course correction, world history strongly
suggests that continued urbanization is inevitable. Inturn, chapter suggests that sustainability and productivity
in cities can go hand in hand. Cities both large and small
have the potential to create sustained economic prosperity
and improve quality of life for all. For cities to be enginesof growth and the economic benefits of sustainableurbanization to be realized by all, this chapter has placedemphasis on the following key areas for various levels ofgovernments to unlock the economic value of sustainableurbanization:
 Strengthen the productive capacities in cities andensure that the legal and regulatory frameworks areequitable.
 Ensure that cities are spatially organized in the mostefficient and sustainable way that will increase theirabsorptive capacities and sustain economic growth.

109

Local governments in developing
countries need to build productive
capacities and leverage endogenous
sources of finance as well as exercise
prudent financial management practices
to ensure sustained finances Assess development controls to ensure that theobjectives of legal frameworks are aligned to the local
realities and not a hindrance to economic growth.
 Pursue strategies that increase the supply of affordable
housing and, where appropriate, employment selfcontainment to reduce commuting distances.
 Regularly collect disaggregated demographic data
to forecast how total population and demographic
composition is evolving so as to inform labour force
participation policies, as well as urban and territorialplanning processes.
 Adopt family planning, education and labour force
participation policies that ensure sustained economic
growth and higher levels of productivity through thedemographic transitions from youth booms to the“silver tsunamis” of ageing cities.
 Establish clear property rights to facilitate the efficient
functioning of land, housing and commercial real estatemarkets.
 Take advantage of economies of scale in the provisionof various types of infrastructure and social services.
 Encourage good urban governance and investments
in productive infrastructure, especially in resourcerich countries and countries experiencing rapid
demographic urban growth.
 Leverage endogenous sources of finance.

The Economic Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Inclusive Prosperity and Opportunities for all

Endnotes
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.

Using data from World Bank, 2019d,
cities occupied 2.85 per cent ofearth land area in 2010. Whenconsidering cities above 50,000
inhabitants, this share drops to
0.1 per cent of the world’s landarea (using data from European
Commission, 2019). However, theirenvironmental effects go beyond
their own spatial boundaries (UNHabitat, 2017a).
Jacobs, 1961.
Rosenthal and Strange, 2004;
Combes et al, 2012; Combes andGobillon, 2015; Duranton, 2016;
Chauvin et al, 2017; and Quintero andRoberts, 2018.
Glaeser et al, 2001; Albouy, 2008;
and Albouy and Stuart, 2014.
Rosenthal and Strange, 2004; andDuranton and Puga, 2004.
Rimmer, 1970.
The Economic Times, 2016.
Coulibaly et al, 2012.
OECD, 2014.
Duranton and Puga, 2004.
MIER, 2015.
Rauch, 1993; Glaeser, 1999; Glaeser
and Mare, 2001; Moretti, 2004a;
Moretti, 2004b; Moretti, 2004c.
Jones et al, 2017.
Larger cities foster greater rates ofhuman capital accumulation on thejob, especially for more highly skilledworkers (Baum-Snow and Pavan,
2008; Baum-Snow and Pavan, 2012).
Ciccone and Hall, 1996.
Glaeser and Maré, 2001.
Kondo, 2015.
Glaeser, 2009.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Lall et al, 2017; Nakamura et al,
2016.
Benson and Faiez, 2020.
Florida, 2020.
Agarwal et al, 2020.
Nolte, 2020.
Kivuva, 2000; As of May 2020, 37
per cent of households were unable
to pay rent. Reduced income andearnings were cited as the main
reason for the inability to pay rentby 61 per cent of these households(Kenya National Bureau of Statistics,
2020).
Florida, 2020.
Neiderud, 2015.
Florida, 2020.
UN-Habitat considers a dwelling
unit not overcrowded (i.e. providing

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

49.
50.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.

67.

sufficient living area for thehousehold members) if not morethan three people share the same
habitable room.
Carozzi et al, 2020.
Florida, 2020.
Wangli and Wahba, 2020.
Ahn, 2020; Jowett, 2020.
Mahler et al, 2020.
World Bank, 2020b.
QiangYan et al, 2020.
ILO, 2020d.
UNECA, 2020.
ECLAC, 2020b.
Boston Consulting Group, 2020.
ECLAC, 2020b.
UNESCAP, 2020.
World Bank, 2020c.
World Bank, 2020d.
UNESCWA, 2020.
UNECE, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Cali and Menon, 2013; UN-Habitat,
2016a; Vandercasteelen et al, 2018;
Asher et al, 2019.
Abdel-Rahman and Anas, 2014.
Mega-regions are defined as “areasof continuous light that contain atleast two existing metro areas, have
populations of five million or more,
and generate economic output of
more than US$300 billion” (Florida,2019).
UN-Habitat, 2010a.
Tsen and Furuoka, 2005.
Wall and Van der Knaap, 2011;
Burger et al, 2012.
Wall and Stavropoulos, 2016; UNHabitat, 2018a.
UN-Habitat 2016b, pp33-34.
UN-Habitat, 2018a.
Rogan and Cichello, 2017.
United Nations, 2020b.
Badgett, 2014; World Bank, 2015b;
Panter et al, 2017.
Wirth, 1938; Stouffer, 1955; Tuch,
1987; Huggins and Debies-Carl,2015.
Jedwab and Vollrath, 2015; Glaeser,
2014; Fay and Opal, 2000.
Glaeser, 2014; Jedwab et al, 2017;
Jedwab and Vollrath, 2019.
Gollin et al, 2016.
Turok and McGranahan, 2013; UNHabitat 2016b, p3.
Jedwab and Vollrath, 2019.
Angel, 2012; Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy, 2016; Lamson-Hall etal, 2018.
Key Item 1.2 of the AFINUA

68.

69.

70.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.

stipulates that “the supply ofurbanized land must be sufficientto accommodate urban growth
while protecting sensitive areas andavoiding uncontrolled sprawl” (UNHabitat, 2017, p5).
Key Item 2.2 insists on theimportance of distinguishing “public
space from buildable urban land”(UN-Habitat, 2017b, p7). Key Item
3.5 stipulates that urban design
must provide “livable spaces,
walkability and a sense of place”(UN-Habitat, 2017b, p10); In the
projected areas of expansion,
the routes for wide arterial roads
should be spaced no more than
one-kilometer apart. That spaceshould have a clear “iron” (like New
York City) or “radial” (Washington,DC) grid with well-defined blocks,
pavements, streets, pavements, andpublic spaces, consistent with Key
Item 3.3 of the AFINUA.
Lamson-Hall et al, 2018; focus on
the case of Ethiopia to document
how making room for urban
expansion can be implemented in
African cities, where on average
78 per cent of the new residential
areas developed since the 1990s are
informal, of which 27 per cent were
not within walking distance of anarterial road.
UN-Habitat, 2016c; Key Item 2.4of the AFINUA stipulates that the“area and proportion of a plotthat may be built upon and thepermitted building height and floor
space are fundamental to valueand have a significant impact
on street dynamics and service
demands. These elements shouldbe effectively regulated and actively
managed to fairly balance burdens
and benefits” (UN-Habitat, 2017b).
While cities with fewer tall buildings
offer a higher quality of life due tonatural light being less obstructed,
the same residents may preferhaving access to cheaper housing,and taller, denser cities can provide
social and other services at a lower
cost per capita due to returns toscale.
Visagie and Turok, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2018c.
Jedwab et al, 2019.
Jedwab et al, 2019.

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

92.
93.
94.

95.
96.
97.
98.
99.

100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.

109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.

Drummond et al, 2014.
UN-Habitat, 2017a.
UN-Habitat, 2016a, p9.
United Nations, 2017a, p18.
IMF, 2017.
United Nations, 2018d; United
Nations, 2017a, p18.
Stakeholder Group on Ageing, 2018.
Rosenthal and Strange, 2004;
Combes and Gobillon, 2015.
Gollin et al, 2016, p55.
Gollin et al 2016.
Ades and Glaeser, 1995; Davis andHenderson, 2003; Campante, Do and
Guimaraes, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2016a, p27.
Glaeser, 1998.
UN-Habitat, 2016b.
OECD, 2019a.
RDP stands for “Reconstruction
and Development Programme” andHLM for “Habitation à Loyer Modéré”(“Moderate Rent Lodging”).
United Nations, 2015.
United Nations, 2017.
Visagie and Turok, 2020; The
importance of relaxing such
regulations has been highlighted
in the previous WCR (UN-Habitat,
2016a, p35).
United Nations, 2019d.
UN-Habitat, 2016b.
TomTom, 2018.
Calnec-Sugin and Heeckt, 2020.
Gender Sensitive Mini-Bus Services& Transport Infrastructure for
African Cities: A Practical Toolkit.
Calnec-Sugin and Heeckt, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2015a.
UN-Habitat, 2010a.
UN-Habitat 2010.
UN-Habitat, 2018b.
ILO, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2016d.
ILO, 2020d.
Noteworthy, domestic workers
in Mexico have secured multiple,
historic victories over the past
few years, including a Supreme
Court ruling making social security
protections obligatory for domestic
workers in late 2018 (WEIGO, 2020).
United Nations, 2017a, p8.
UN-Habitat, 2017b.
Henderson et al, 2016.
O'Sullivan, 2017.
Bartolini, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2017b.
UNECA, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2017b.

110

Chapter 4
The Environmental Value of
Sustainable Urbanization: Building
Resilient Urban Development

Current international debates are characterized by urban optimism, as sustainable urbanization is recognized asa transformative force to harness environmental value. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
are embedded in this urban optimism. There is also the implicit agreement that actions at the local level willbridge the gap between intended contributions from countries and the actual emission reductions required tokeep global average temperature change within safe levels. The adoption of these global development agendas
as well as the ushering in of the Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs presents an opportunity for pragmatism
whereby urban actors have to demonstrate the effectiveness of existing actions.
Unplanned and unmanaged urbanization represents a threat to environmental sustainability, including
unbridled urban sprawl, irreversible land-use changes and biodiversity loss, resource and energy-intensive
consumption patterns, and high levels of pollution and carbon emissions. However, when well-planned andmanaged, urbanization provides opportunities to address these challenges and contribute to environmental
value through energy innovation, sustainable settlement patterns, changes in human behaviour and lifestyles,
environment-related improvements to health and wellbeing, and resource efficiencies.

111

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Quick facts
1. Nature-based solutions represent an integrated approach todeliver environmental value across the urban-rural continuum.
2. While environmental and conservation projects are adding
value to the urban environment, some are having unintended
impacts particularly on marginalized groups who are being
pushed out by the changing conditions for habitation such as
the appreciation of property values and rental costs.
3. Sustainability policies to unlock the environmental value of
urbanization depends on the ability of different actors to
tailor options to the context in which they operate as well as
incorporate the principles of justice.
4. Despite its ravaging impacts, COVID-19 has shown that a green
urban future is possible due to behavioural change; COVID-19induced lockdowns have resulted in a fall in carbon emissions
and short-term improvement in air quality in cities.
5. While there have been improvements in global coverageof basic services over the past two decades, which haveenvironmental benefits, particularly for slum dwellers, moreneeds to be done for this population most at risk of being left
behind.

Policy points
1. Harnessing the environmental value of urbanization requiresa more participatory approach to planning. An intersectional
approach is thus key to understanding the needs and concernsof different groups.
2. Urban greening initiatives enhance the environmental valueof urbanization, but adequate measures are needed to ensurethat they do not exacerbate inequality and social vulnerability.
3. A green economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic
involving investment in clean technologies such as renewableenergy can yield long-term environmental benefits while
reducing emissions.
4. The environmental value of sustainable urbanization cannot
be realized without prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged
groups.
5. Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda is
key to enhancing the environmental value of urbanization.

Urbanization transforms society’s relationship with its
environment. Urbanization presents environmental
challenges, including land-use changes and biodiversity
loss,1 resource and energy-intensive consumption patterns,2and high levels of pollution and carbon emissions.3 At
the same time, urbanization in the 21st century opens up
opportunities to address these challenges and contribute toenvironmental value through energy innovation, sustainable
settlement patterns, changes in human behaviour andlifestyles, environment-related improvements to healthand wellbeing, and resource efficiencies. Debates on theenvironmental impacts of urbanization are often polarized
between those who see cities as an opportunity to reduce
global environmental footprints and those who view urban
growth as leading to irreconcilable environmental tradeoffs.4 While this Report acknowledges the environmental
harm of unplanned, poorly managed urbanization, thischapter focuses on how to harness the transformative powerof sustainable urbanization to enhance environmental value
and advance the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable
Development Goals.
Scientific models have linked urbanization withenvironmental impacts on a global scale.5 Developing theworld’s infrastructure to the level of industrialized countries(those included in Annex 1 to the Kyoto Protocol) has
been estimated at 350 Gt of CO2 equivalents only frommaterials production (or between 35–60 per cent of the
carbon budget available before 2050, if the increase in global
average temperatures remains under 2ºC).6 Unsustainableurbanization’s impacts on land transformations andaccelerated biodiversity loss are also documented.7
Moreover, evidence suggests that the environmental impactsof urbanization are increasing, not only on climate but
also on air pollution, ecosystems, land use, biogeochemical
cycles, water pollution and solid waste management, withdevastating impacts.8 In the US, the expansion of thewildland-urban interface (WUI) contributes to ravaging
wildfires as sprawling cities encroach on forests.9 In Europe,
one in every eight (or 13 per cent) of deaths is attributed
to poor quality environments; the urban environment ischaracterized by the presence of multiple stressors, with112

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 4.1: COVID-19 pandemic and the glut in plastic waste
The COVID-19 pandemic has furthered the collapse of oil prices, a major constituent of most plastics, making them cheaper toproduce. The pandemic increased the consumption of single-use plastic, for example by an estimated 250–300 per cent in the US.
Cities such as Athens, Greece, have recorded a 150 per cent increase in the amount of plastic found in the general waste stream. In
low-income countries, the situation might be precarious as 93 per cent of waste goes into open dumps.
Source: The Economist, 2020b.

people in cities being more exposed to air pollution, noiseand chemicals while also having less access to green spacethan people in rural environments.10 Further, the disruption
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate some ofthese environmental challenges (Box 4.1). Urban lifestyles
are also blamed for eroding traditional and indigenous
knowledge that prizes more harmonious engagements withland, biodiversity and ecosystems.11
There is, however, an alternative outlook that views
urbanization as a powerful force to foster an alternative
engagement with the planet that moves humanity towards
more sustainable socio-ecological relations. In this view,
urbanization can mediate the radical change required fora sustainable society.12 Indeed, well-planned and managed
urbanization contributes to environmental sustainability
by mitigating and adapting to climate change whilebuilding long-term resilience that enhances the wellbeingof urban and rural dwellers alike in a prosperous economy.
Chapter 1 outlines how well-planned and managed
urbanization adds environmental value, including bypromoting clean energy; sustainable land-use patterns
in urban development; ecosystems and biodiversity
protection; healthy lifestyles in harmony with nature;sustainable consumption and production patterns;
building urban resilience; disaster risk reduction; andclimate change mitigation and adaptation. However,urbanization patterns are also highly uneven.13 Harnessing
the environmental value of urbanization depends on theability of multiple actors to deliver an array of actions
at the urban scale that respond to context-specificchallenges, whose impact can expand across scales.
The notion of value introduced in Chapter 2 emphasizes
that the relative worth of something depends on multiple

113

dimensions. The question “value for whom?” formulated
in Chapter 2 emphasizes that social positions, needs andinterests determine values. Environmental value depends
on existing social and ecological relations, and it is closely
linked to questions of decision-making, social inclusion
and human rights.14 Environmental valuation has profoundethical dimensions.15 Determining how to calculate
environmental value requires understanding the multiple
interconnected challenges that affect cities and humansettlements, as well as how different social groups accessnatural resources and experience environmental impacts.
Active efforts to plan urbanization can integrate diverse
perspectives and produce shared proposals for action
towards sustainability. Such efforts must balance theperceived effectiveness of specific actions with the contextspecific challenges that different social groups face in cities
and human settlements. This definition of environmental
value is consistent with the findings of the 2016 World
Cities Report, which emphasized how principles ofenvironmental justice, including the recognition ofmultiple scales of valuation and the participation ofdiverse publics in decision-making, constitute a useful andpractical paradigm for urban management.
Well-planned and managed urbanization can enhanceenvironmental value in many ways. Still, the effectivenessof different initiatives will depend on the capacity ofdifferent actors to maintain long-term processes ofsustainability governance and planning that integratesocial and environmental needs. Resilient urban
development depends on establishing the enabling
conditions to deliver on long-term sustainability visions.
International initiatives such as the New Urban Agenda
highlight the importance of action across multiple levels ofgovernance, including cities and human settlements, andThe Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Separation of household waste in a recycling factory,
Lampang Province, Thailand. © Gigira/Shutterstock114

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

the role they play in delivering the SDGs.16 For example,
the transformative power of urbanization is central
to deliver climate change adaptation and mitigation.17
Pioneering reports such as UN-Habitat’s Cities andClimate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011
revealed the full range of policy initiatives available toaddress climate change in cities and human settlements.18
Since then, new approaches to governing climate change
in cities and human settlements have led to numerous
technical, social and policy innovations.19 The adoption of
the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015 has led toa pragmatic turn in climate governance, with a focus on
the evaluation of action on the ground.20 The New Urban
Agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
provide an enabling framework to harness the potentialof transformative urbanization. However, there still lacks
large-scale assessments of sustainability action and theirlinkages to urbanization. The perception that local action
is too fragmented to have a global impact is still pervasive
in international policy circles, although that attitude ischanging as subnational authorities engage assertively inclimate diplomacy (Chapter 7).

Resilient urban development
depends on establishing theenabling conditions to deliver onlong-term sustainability visions
Finally, not all environmental initiatives are benign. Someare merely superficial, or “greenwashing.” Others lead to“green gentrification,” exacerbating inequality and social
vulnerability in cities. For example, recent assessmentsof urban greening initiatives such as the High Line andBrooklyn Bridge Park in New York City indicate that, while
they have resulted in positive environmental outcomes(increase in green space, reduction of pollution), they havebeen associated with the displacement of low-income
residents.21 Similarly, green urban enclaves promotingsocial and spatial exclusion have emerged whereby highincome population groups are able to securitize land andresources to the exclusion of other groups.22 The New
Urban Agenda and SDG 11 place emphasis on inclusive
settlements and provide frameworks for unlocking theenvironmental value of urbanization for all, rather thanfor a rarefied elite.

115

The New Urban Agenda and SDG 11
place emphasis on inclusive settlements
and provide frameworks for unlocking theenvironmental value of urbanization for
all, rather than for a rarefied eliteThis chapter first focuses on the international imperative
to harness the environmental value of urbanization asenshrined in global policy agendas. It then discusses
challenges to realizing the environmental value of
urbanization. The chapter then maps the action space todeliver environmental value and discusses the principles
of environmental justice that must underpin efforts to
unlock the environmental value of cities and avoid thecontradictions of green urban development.

4.1. Environmental Values through theLens of the Global Development
AgendasThe United Nations system-wide strategy on sustainableurban development recognizes the intersection of SDG 11
with the other SDGs, noting, for example, that stronger
climate action is one of the overarching outcomes thatshould emerge from sustainable urban development
patterns.23 The IPCC has stated that it is difficult toimagine how a 1.5ºC world would be attained unless the
SDG on cities and sustainable urbanization is achieved indeveloping countries.24
Consequently, cities play a large role in the fight to limit
the worst impacts of global warming. As UCLG hasargued, the 2030 Agenda represents a “new social contract”
to co-create a sustainable future for the planet.25 Local
governments are key players in this act of co-creationand the SDG 11 targets provide a starting point for local
governments and partner institutions like regional andnational governments, community groups and the private
sector to launch the kind of initiatives that can deliveron those targets. Achieving those targets depends onharnessing the environmental value of urbanization
processes. Table 4.1 illustrates some context-specificexamples whereby a range of organizations can intervene
to deliver environmental value.

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Table 4.1: Examples of environmental values associated with the targets of SDG11, alongside existing projects that enhancethose values
SDG11 Target

SDG 11 Indicator

Relevance to deliverenvironmental value

Context-specific examples of actions

11.1
By 2030, ensure access for all
to adequate, safe and affordable
housing and basic services andupgrade slums

11.1.1
Proportion of urban
population living in slums,
informal settlements orinadequate housing

Access to adequate and affordable
housing and basic services
improves communities’ health andwellbeing; it also prevents informal
urban development in sensitive
ecosystems, as well as water,
soil and air contamination from
untreated sewage and improper
solid waste collection.

The Centre for Community Initiatives (CCI) in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania, supports community management
projects to provide access to water and sanitation.26
CCI is increasingly committed to intersectional andgender-based perspectives on development that reveal
the differential impacts of structural vulnerabilities.

11.2
By 2030, provide access tosafe, affordable, accessible andsustainable transport systems for
all, improving road safety, notably
by expanding public transport,with special attention to the needsof those in vulnerable situations,
women, children, persons withdisabilities and older persons

11.2.1
Proportion of population thathas convenient access topublic transport, by sex, age,and persons with disabilities

Public transit supports mobility
needs while reducing the overall
environmental impact (reducing
pollution of emissions, GHG
emissions and land consumption).

Bus rapid transit systems have proliferated throughout
the world as efficient, grade-separated mass transit
at a lower price point than rail projects. Hanoi, Viet
Nam launched its first 14.7 km busway in 2017,serving 14,000 riders daily. The Hanoi Urban Transport
Development Project estimates that 23 per cent of
those riders switched to BRT from driving private
vehicles, which will reduce the city’s carbon emissions
by 122,177 tons through 2025.27

11.3
By 2030, enhance inclusive
and sustainable urbanizationand capacity for participatory,
integrated and sustainablehuman settlement planning andmanagement in all countries

11.3.1
Ratio of land consumption
rate to population growthrate
11.3.2
Proportion of cities with adirect participation structureof civil society in urban
planning and managementthat operate regularly anddemocraticallyLand transformations represent oneof the main impacts of urbanization.
Increasing environmental value
thus requires incorporation ofmultiple perspectives in theplanning processes regarding
relative impacts and benefits.

The Dutch NGO Both ENDS has implemented a rightsbased approach to land governance called Participatory
Land Use Planning to recognize and secure land
rights.28 A pilot project to improve spatial planningin the Sanggau district of West-Kalimantan, Borneo,
Indonesia, showed that communities’ negotiations withcompanies happen on unequal terms because land
rights are not always officially recognized. Mapping
their land, communities have an additional tool toclaim those rights. Similar examples could help toresolve land conflicts in rapidly growing urban areas,
particularly to confront evictions.29

11.4
Strengthen efforts to protect andsafeguard the world’s cultural andnatural heritage

11.4.1
Total expenditure (public andprivate) per capita spent on
the preservation, protection
and conservation of all
cultural and natural heritage

Preservation of cultural and natural
heritage will ensure access for
future generations.

The Baiheliang Museum is an archaeological site in
Fuling, China submerged under the waters of the newly
built Three Gorges Dam. It displays some of the world’s
oldest hydrological inscriptions, recording 1,200 yearsof changes in the water level of the Yangtze River.30 The
project has received support from UNESCO, as a flagshipproject of their submerged heritage programme.

11.5
By 2030, significantly reduce
the number of deaths and thenumber of people affected andsubstantially decrease the direct
economic losses relative to global
gross domestic product causedby disasters, including waterrelated disasters, with a focus onprotecting the poor and people invulnerable situations

11.5.1
Number of deaths, missing
persons and persons
affected by disaster per
100,000 people
11.5.2
Direct disaster economic
loss in relation to global GDP,
including disaster damage
to critical infrastructure anddisruption of basic services

Responses to disasters may be
determinant on the extent to which
the city can recover from a disaster.
Effective strategies for managing
disaster risk lessen vulnerability incities and support the constitutionof more resilient settlements with
substantial additional benefits forpeople’s health and wellbeing.

The Peruvian Ministry of Environment developed an
Action Plan on Gender and Climate Change in 2015that employed a participatory approach to recognize
gender-led vulnerabilities and possible actions. On risk
management, the plan highlights the role of the Driving
Group of Management of Risks, Disasters and Climate
Change (GRIDES), a network of institutions aiming at
recovering traditional knowledge and integrating itwith expertise, which has made a deliberate effort tointegrate a gender perspective in their work.31

116

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

SDG11 Target

SDG 11 Indicator

Relevance to deliverenvironmental value

Context-specific examples of actions

11.6
By 2030, reduce the adverse percapita environmental impactof cities, including by paying
special attention to air quality
and municipal and other waste
management

11.6.1
Proportion of municipal
solid waste collected andmanaged in controlled
facilities out of total
municipal solid waste
generated by cities 11.6.2
Annual mean levels of fineparticulate matter (e.g.
PM2.5 and PM10) in cities(population weighted)

Reduction of pollution in urban
areas (solid waste, emissions)improves the immediate living
environment for urban residents.

The Seva Sahakari Sanstha (SWaCH), in Pune, India,
is a waste pickers’ cooperative owned and operated
by over 3,000 members, most of whom are womenand Dalits. They provide door-to-door waste collection
services to more than 2.3 million residents, including
more than 450,000 slum dwellers.32

11.7
By 2030, provide universal accessto safe, inclusive and accessible,
green and public spaces, inparticular for women and children,
older persons and persons withdisabilities

11.7.1
Average share of the built-up
area of cities that is open
space for public use for all,by sex, age and persons withdisabilities
11.7.2
Proportion of persons
victim of physical or sexual
harassment, by sex, age,disability status and place ofoccurrence, in the previous
12 months

Green and public spaces that areaccessible to all constitute a sharedcollective resource that not only
enhances community cohesion
but has direct benefits for health,wellbeing, and the ecologicalsystems.

UN-Habitat is currently implementing the Global Public
Space Programme to support cities in improving
the quality of public spaces (Box 4.2). In Kenya,
for instance, the programme is supporting the cityof Nairobi to revitalize public spaces. Already, aninventory and assessment of public open spaces has
been carried out. This inventory is part of a wider
collaboration to build the capacity of city staff, civilsociety and other stakeholders to enhance the qualityof public spaces for all.

11.a
Support positive economic, socialand environmental links between
urban, peri-urban and rural areas
by strengthening national andregional development planning

11.a.1
Number of countries thathave national urban policies
or regional development
plans that (a) respond to
population dynamics; (b)ensure balanced territorial
development; and (c)increase local fiscal

Urban and regional development
plans contribute to equitabledevelopment outcomes between
urban and rural areas by limiting
sprawling urban growth in orderto preserve working agriculturalland and natural areas that provide
ecosystem services.

Rapid urban growth in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, threatensthe city’s sustainability, which depends on managing
the subserviced Ger areas that surround the city. In
2014, the Urban Planning, Architecture and Design
Institute of Ulaanbaatar City proposed a master planthat recognized the city’s nomadic heritage while
seeking to resolve the complex relationship with its
hinterland.33

11.b
By 2020, substantially increase
the number of cities and humansettlements adopting andimplementing integrated policies
and plans towards inclusion,
resource efficiency, mitigation
and adaptation to climate change,
resilience to disasters, and develop
and implement, in line with the
Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic
disaster risk management at alllevels

11.b.1
Proportion of local
governments that adopt andimplement local disaster risk
reduction strategies in linewith the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030a11.b.2
Number of countries withnational and local disasterrisk reduction strategies

Inclusive strategies for disaster risk
reduction increase the resilienceof the city as a whole. A holistic
approach to disaster risk reduction
will include measures to reduce
exposure and vulnerabilities, in linewith the requirements of the Sendai
Framework.

Boston, US, has made racial equity the foundation of its
resilience strategy. One focus has been the racially andethnically diverse Dudley Square neighbourhood. The
city has partnered with a local community land trust,Dudley Neighbours Incorporated (DNI), to acquire land
to provide essential services within the neighbourhood,including community gardens and an urban farm, which
improve food security and strengthen the infrastructure
for close collaboration with the community in the eventof future shock or stress events.34
Birmingham, UK, held the first UK Citizens’ Assemblyon climate change. The assembly was commissioned
by six cross-party House of Commons SelectCommittees. It is looking at how the UK will reach its
net zero emissions climate target and what can bedone by members of the public to help reduce carbon
emissions.35

117

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

SDG11 Target

SDG 11 Indicator

Relevance to deliverenvironmental value

Context-specific examples of actions

11.c
Support least developed countries,
including through financial andtechnical assistance, in building
sustainable and resilient buildings
utilizing local materials

11.c.1
Proportion of financial
support to the least
developed countries
that is allocated to theconstruction and retrofittingof sustainable, resilient andresource-efficient buildings
utilizing local materials

The performance of the built
environment influences patterns ofconsumption and reduces carbon
emissions from buildings. Built
environment initiatives can havenumerous social and environmental
co-benefits.

“Reinventing Cities” is a competition organized by
C40, with the support of the European Institute of
Innovation and Technology Climate Knowledge andInnovation Community (KIC). The objective is to deliverurban projects to drive carbon-neutral and resilient
urban regeneration in sites in decline. All the projects
combine a design-led approach to retrofitting withprofound social concerns. The first 20 winners of
the competition include a social housing project inMilan (Italy), a market in Madrid (Spain) and an urban
community to support housing with a focus on people
with disabilities in San Francisco (US).36

Box 4.2: Creating environmental value through public space
Launched in 2012, and currently active in over 75 cities, UN-Habitat’s Global Public Space Programme promotes safe, inclusive andaccessible public space as a cornerstone of sustainable cities and communities. The programme’s focus areas include:• Public space assessment: A comprehensive citywide inventory and assessment of public spaces enables city leaders to know
the state of public spaces within their jurisdictions, understand the gaps, set goals, develop strategies and allocate financial
resources to meet the demand for public spaces.
• Capacity development: Enhancing knowledge and developing capacity of local governments and stakeholders on public spaceissues at the neighbourhood, city and national levels through a multi-faceted approach.
• Public space upgrading: Through an annual call for proposals supported by the Block by Block Foundation, UN-Habitat
supports a number of public spaces upgrading projects in developing regions. This upgrading process is participatory, engaging
the community and the users.
• Technology: The programme leverages digital technologies ICT to engage a wider audience—e.g. children and youth—in urban
planning and design processes. Technologies such as Kobo Toolbox and the Minecraft video game are harnessed as tools forcrowdsourcing ideas; and• Policies: UN-Habitat supports national governments to mainstream public space in national urban policies as well as local
governments in developing local public space frameworks and strategies.
In Nairobi, Kenya, for example, the programme is implementing pilot projects that demonstrate participatory and integrated public
space development approaches.

118

l pr
oce
sses

Transitions
in cities

1

Industry interests
Conflict/

np
olit
ica

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Socio-technical experimentation

2
3

Urb
a

Transitionsof cities

Alignment
Territorial priorities

2

Socio-spatial (re)configuration

CITY-WIDE PUBLIC SPACE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

Figure A: citywide inventory and assessment across various regions
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan• KabulUnited Arab Emirates

Occupied Territory of• Sharjah• Khan Younis, Gaza Strip• Bethlehem Cluster, West Bank
• Jenin, West Bank
• Jericho, West Bank
• Nablus, West Bank

Mongolia• Ulaan Batar!

Green infrastructure interventions for resilience
Resilient living shorelines and berm landscapes
Dominican Republic!
• Santo Domingo
Resilient greenways and parks!
!
Raingardens, trees, and permiable pavements!
Colombia
Ecuador• Valledupar!
IbarraCameroon!!
Resilient green• roofs/walls
andlandscaping
as
part
of
resilientbuildings• Monteria!

Ethiopia

!
!
!
! !

• Bamenda• Cuenca• Quito• Portoviejo

UgandaGreen Climate Gentriﬁcation!

Scale of the Public Space
Today
Assessments• Koboko• Arua• Nebbi• Montevideo

Greater
exposure of their homes and properties toCity levelclimate-risk
due to privately-led green resilience projects.
District level
Socio-cultural
exclusion
Neighbourhood
level from the uses and beneﬁts of
green
resilience
Country
present!

• Addis Ababa• Hawassa• Adama• Bahir Dar• Mekele• Dir Dawa

• Jianghan, Wuhan• Wuchang, Wuhan

Bangladesh• DhakaKenya• Nairobi• Kisumu

Tanzania!

• Mwanza!

Uruguay

!
!

!
!
!
!!
!

China

!

!!

In thefutureSouth
Africa• Johannesburg
Displacement
due to real estate speculation and to• Durbanincreased housing costs to more affordable areas but more
exposed to climate risks
Greater difﬁculty to adapt due to loss of social networks

Figure B: Components of the Nairobi public space project implementation
Demonstration of co-creation of public space
through design and development of two pilot
public spaces in Nairobi

Scaling up: Inventory and assesment of public
open spaces in the city county and a safety
audit in the city in collaboration with safetipin

Capacity building for the city county staff andcommunity groups on co-creation of public
spaces

Source: Global Public Space Programme, UN-Habitat.

119

Development of citywide public space strategy,
policy and bill to mainstream public space innormative programs of the city

Awareness and advocacy campaigns throughplacemaking to promote use and change
attitudes towards public spaces

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Pedestrianization of streets in Nairobi, Luthuli Avenue, Kenya. © Mark Ojal/UN-Habitat

The New Urban Agenda has emerged as a distinct tool toachieve the SDGs from the perspective of the developmentof urban policy that defines environmental protection asa cornerstone of urban development. The NUA is distinct
because it establishes procedures to localize the 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda. The NUA also focuseson the interdependencies between social, environmental
and economic sectors to deliver SDG 11 alongside theother Global Goals. The commitments made in the NUA’s
implementation plan demonstrate the need for spatial
diagnoses of socio-ecological challenges and the potentialof place-based action to deliver environmental value.37
The NUA supports localized action to augment
environmental value in cities and human settlements like
preserving the human commons, enabling sustainable
access to resources and preventing environmental pollution.
Simultaneously, the NUA makes explicit the global
imperatives that underpin urban policy. For example, theParis Agreement emphasized the need to build capacity
for actions at various levels—national, subnational andlocal. The NUA supports mechanisms for the coordinationof multiple actors’ activities to deliver resilience andsustainability in cities for all, and hence, it reinforces theParis Agreement’s commitments.

The NUA’s aspirations are also supported by recent global
scientific reports that have emphasized the transformativevalue of urbanization. The IPCC Special Report Global
Warming of 1.5ºC specifies that the mix of adaptation andmitigation options required to deliver an accelerated
transition and keep the world safe will have to be
implemented in a participatory and integrated manner.38
The IPBES report describes the current trends as resulting
from an anthropocentric, materialist worldview thatemphasizes utilitarian extraction.39 The IPBES report
regards migration and urbanization as disruptors thatcan catalyse a radical shift in values towards nature andthe environment that would sustainably transform therelationship between society and ecosystems. Rather thanproposing punctual, sectoral interventions, these reports
call for fundamental cultural and social changes to human
lifestyles. Oftentimes, the language of global reports does

The NUA supports localized action toaugment environmental value in cities
and human settlements like preserving
the human commons, enablingsustainable access to resources andpreventing environmental pollution

120

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Children playing on a playground in Ras Mekonnen, Addis Ababa. © Katla Studios

not always convey the profound political consequencesof such transformations, which instead manifest in theworldwide urban climate movements like the Fridays for
Future school strikes and Extinction Rebellion, which
since 2018 have pressured policymakers on climate change
through direct action.
4.2.

Challenges to Delivering Environmental Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Environmental value has long been the central concernof sustainability planning as it engages with the classicalquestion of “How can we plan and develop communities
that will meet long-term human and environmental
needs?” Adding environmental value calls for addressing
environmental challenges both at the global and local
level while at the same time addressing immediatehousehold needs.40 The 2016 World Cities Report
identified four environmental challenges cities face that
require suitable responses:

121 equal access to resources and public services; managing environmental risks, from pollution toclimate change impacts; minimizing the negative impacts of landtransformations in the use of resources, biodiversity
and ecosystems; and responding to the global call for decarbonization andrational use of resources.41
Rather than serving as a list of areas for intervention, thesefour elements have to be seen as a series of interrelated
challenges that should be addressed simultaneously. This isbecause of the multiple trade-offs between these different
aspects, as illustrated below:
 providing public services in an equitable mannerdepends on the preservation of ecosystems and therational use of resources;

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

 resilience to environmental risks and climate change
impacts depends on addressing the structural driversof vulnerability by ensuring equitable access to urban
services; land transformations go hand in hand withthe deterioration of essential services to moredisadvantaged urban populations; our capacity to reduce carbon emissions and reduce our
global footprint depends on ensuring the conservationof ecosystems and providing efficient urban services.
The transformative commitments of the NUA requires
cognizance of these trade-offs. The NUA also recognizes
that the impacts of urbanization are noticeable at multiple
scales. While urban areas cover less than three per cent of
the global land area, there is an accelerated rate of landconsumption—exceeding population growth rate (Chapter
3). This trend has a direct impact on biodiversity andcarbon pools.42 The 2019 IPCC Special Report on Land
and Climate Change describes the close links between landtransformations and global and regional climate.43 For

example, the report suggests that urbanization increases
temperatures in cities and their surroundings (heat islandeffect) and can intensify extreme rainfall episodes.
Moreover, urbanization in contexts where there areshortcomings in urban planning and risk management,
as well as fragmented and overlapping structures ofenvironmental governance, resilience measures are often
affected. This is evident from the growth of urban land inflood plains in China, which account for 44 per cent of
the total urban land in China.44 In urban Africa, the haloaround cities shows how land transformation is impacting
biodiversity and ecosystems in the urban hinterlands.
However, there is also an expectation that urbanization
will ease the pressure on ecosystems elsewhere.45

Urbanization in contexts where there areshortcomings in urban planning and risk
management, as well as fragmented andoverlapping structures of environmental
governance, resilience measures areoften affected

Fire in the outskirts of Lviv Oblast the city, Ukraine. © Maryana UA/Shutterstock122

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Different social groups have varying
experiences in cities. How environmental
challenges are experienced andaddressed largely depends on a specificgroup’s living conditions
Different social groups have varying experiences in cities.
How environmental challenges are experienced andaddressed largely depends on a specific group’s living
conditions. Over 1 billion people live in slums and informal
settlements, mostly in South Asia, East Asia, South-East
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Chapter 1). UN-Habitat
defines “slum-like conditions” based on access to waterand sanitation, conditions of housing and security oftenure.46 However, these are not the only deprivations
experienced in slums. Rather, they are indicators of wider
gaps in governance, institutions and the physical provisionof built environment and infrastructure. While there is aneed to recognize the enormous creativity of people living
in slums to get by through these severe environmental
conditions in cities, it is also vital to acknowledge slums
manifest a dysfunctional relationship between structuresof habitation, citizens’ needs, the urban economy andgovernance structures. Informal settlements are also a
response to the dwelling conditions created by global
capitalism’s intense competition for land and profits.
Rather than looking at slums as places of squalor to beeradicated, various levels of government need to address
the structural conditions that lead to substandard forms ofhabitation while recognizing existing habitation practices.
While there have been improvements in global coverage ofsafely managed drinking water (from 61 per cent in 2000
to 71 per cent in 2017) and sanitation (from 28 per centin 2000 to 45 per cent in 2017), which have environmental
benefits, particularly for slum dwellers, more action isstill needed for this population most at risk of being left
behind. When informal settlement dwellers lack services,
they generate alternative “institutions” which provide
those services, often with unregulated pricing systems.
In India, for example, poor households in informal
settlements often resort to private vendors who charge
a much higher price than the water supplied by the local
government (Box 4.3).

123

Box 4.3: The water-energy nexus dilemma in
Bangalore, India
Bangalore has an important role in the history of
infrastructure innovation, for example, after theconstruction of the Chamarajendra waterworks of1894 and the installation of the hydroelectric plant of
Shivanasamudra in 1906, which made Bangalore the firstcity to have electricity in India. Urban infrastructure has
played a key role in the constitution of Bangalore as a
global city, but the infrastructure challenges in Bangalore
are also great. Water provision and energy are two key
challenges in the city. As time has evolved, the nexus
between water and energy has also changed, from an
initial state in which water was seen as a productive
force, through the production of electricity in hydropower
stations, to the gradual way in which power came to be
seen as the way to deliver water into the city, throughlarge distance water transfers.
The overlapping systems of water governance as wellas the current system of water provision produces
injustice in water access because piped networks only
cover specific areas, leaving the poorer sectors of the
population dependent on private vendors or even water
mafias to access water. Communities in peripheral or
marginal areas also struggle to negotiate their basic
rights with the authorities.
In the meantime, Bangalore has seen a resurgence of
citizen-led action seeking to harness the traditional
network of water tanks for multiple uses, including
actions to rejuvenate blue infrastructure, provide spaces
for recreation and create an outlet for treated sewage
water. Documenting the lakes, investigating alternatives
sources of supply and restoring lakes which have been
degraded or polluted are some of the actions that seek
to improve the city’s blue infrastructure on a day-to-day
basis, helping deliver alternatives to access water for themost disadvantaged.
Sources: Castán Broto and Sudhira 2019; Ranganathan, Kamath, and Baindur
2009; Ranganathan and Balazs 2015; Unnikrishnan 2018; Unnikrishnan, Sen,
and Nagendra 2017.

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Vulnerability to climate change impacts
and disasters depends, above all, on
structural conditions that determine
the possibilities of effective emergency
response and post-disaster recovery
Vulnerability to climate change impacts and disasters
depends, above all, on structural conditions that determine
the possibilities of effective emergency response and postdisaster recovery. While some of these vulnerabilities canbe addressed via government-led interventions like early
warning systems, infrastructure protection schemes and postdisaster reconstruction programmes, daily living conditions
are central to understand people’s possibilities to copewith disasters.47 Slums and informal settlements generally
disproportionately suffer the impacts of climate change andnatural disasters as compared to other settlements.
Land transformations also impact informal settlementdwellers directly, for example, if they are involved in urban or
peri-urban agriculture or located on land parcels that become
desirable to real estate development interests. The global
proliferation of securitized spaces like gated communities,
which consume large amounts of land relative to the number ofresidents, exclude the poorest sectors of the urban population
who are politically disadvantaged from influencing processesof urban development through existing governance structures.
In Brazil, for instance, favela communities were displaced
ahead of the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.48
Difficulties in claiming these land rights often translate to alack of access to resources and environmental goods.
Like all city residents, slum dwellers also play a role
in reducing carbon emissions. Recognizing collective
responsibility does not mean, however, that everybody
is equally responsible, but that decisions about reducing
emissions have to be taken collectively. These decisions
should consider the impacts public policies to promote lowcarbon energy use may have on the most disadvantaged—
who tend to have much lower carbon footprints—for
example, restricting their energy access (Box 4.4).49 To
unlock the environmental value of urbanization, the urban
poor must be represented and their needs prioritized in any
decision-making processes, be it about the urban commons,
atmospheric commons, public spaces or resource use.

Box 4.4: Developing research agendas on urban
energy access: experiences from Maputo,
Mozambique
In Maputo, Mozambique, the distribution of electricity isuneven and varies, but the use of charcoal is ubiquitous.
Household members adjust their energy use dependingon the resources available to them. They combine
multiple fuels to secure supply, varying their own needs
to cope with moments of scarcity. Charcoal remains thedominant source of energy for most households. Factors
like the possibility to fraction its use, the perceived
control of the supply chain and the perceptions of
security in the household have made it difficult to swift
to alternative fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas(LPG), despite efforts from the local government tofacilitate such change.
There is a growing need for research that challenges
long-held assumptions about energy access in urban
areas, in line with the SDGs’ requirements to alignresults to people’s needs, perspectives and aspirations.
Energy access relates to both the current resilienceof urban populations and the possibility to deliver
sustainable societies in the long term.
Three questions should guide a research agenda on urban
energy inspired on environmental justice principles:“What are the users’ needs in specific contexts?”
requires an understanding of people’s aspirations within
specific social and spatial constraints.
“Do we have the appropriate information to addressenergy access questions?” reflects the chronic lackof data about energy use and demand, particularly inrapidly urbanizing areas.
“What is the match between government policies
for energy access and the needs of the urban poor?”
addresses the fundamental role that planning can playin transforming about sustainable energy access.
Source: Castán Broto et al. 2017; Castán Broto 2017a.

124

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

To unlock the environmental value of
urbanization, the urban poor must be
represented and their needs prioritizedin any decision-making processes, be it
about the urban commons, atmosphericcommons, public spaces or resource use
The representation of different social groups in thedecision-making process is key to achieve stronger results
and outcomes. Alongside the physical living conditions
and structural successes or failures of governance, thecapacity to respond to environmental challenges andadd environmental value depends on social and culturalprocesses in urban areas. A holistic perspective is thus
necessary as these processes play key roles in defining
sustainability and resilience goals, thresholds andoutcomes. For example, aspects like social capital andcultural diversity are closely linked to the process ofenhancing resilience to climate change.50
While urbanization is a global phenomenon, it is also acomplex process whose variations and dynamics cannot
be adequately described in a set of universal principles.51
For example, recent attempts at modelling urbanization
impacts have shown how environmental footprint varies
significantly across income groups (generally growing
carbon emissions in lower-income groups but hindering
the growth of emissions in higher-income groups).52 Dense
urban development also enables the reduction of energy
use and, hence, decreases carbon emissions, although thisrelationship varies geographically.53 There is, thus, a needto characterize the multiplicity of processes in relation totheir impacts on the urban environment, understanding
urbanization as a series of interconnected processes whose
consequences depend on multiple drivers.54
In environmental planning and management, the urban
environment is commonly perceived as a field divided
into separate (rather than interconnected) sectors,
which leads to a focus on individual interventions that
do not address the structural causes of environmental
degradation. Transformation depends on the possibilityof urban processes to address structural drivers acrossdifferent sectors. Recent evidence suggests that social
movements and activist groups have an essential role125

to play in making those drivers visible. In May 2019,
the Fridays for Future school strike took place in 1,594
cities, located in 118 countries,55 proving that cities are
critical sites of mobilization to demand actions forclimate change.56 Greta Thunberg is the most salient
face of a global movement of young people seeking tohold governments to account. She emphasizes that lackof political will and sheer irresponsibility is taking theplanet to the point of no return. Urbanization and its
environmental impact need to be understood within thepolitical and economic drivers at the root of the global
environmental crisis.
More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic brought
about unprecedented global disruptions. Drastic
measures to combat the novel coronavirus have raised
environmental activists’ hopes for a similarly bold
response to global warming; COVID-19 has shown that agreen urban future is possible. During the peak of global
lockdowns in March and April 2020 to slow viral spread,
COVID-19 led to a sudden fall in carbon emissions andimprovements in air quality in cities, providing theworld a brief window into the decarbonized, sustainable
future environmental advocates have championed for
decades (Box 4.5). “Well-designed stimulus measuresthat support a green economic recovery can yield longterm economic benefits, prevent stranded assets andavoid locking in high-emission and high-polluting
infrastructure and transport systems that may last for
decades. Aligning urban planning and developmentwith human and planetary health is essential to avoid
ecological imbalances, increased risk of exposure to new
pathogens and the emergence of new diseases. Only
by seizing this moment to expand investments in an
equitable green transformation will we create lasting
solutions and reduce the risks of future crisis andadequately mitigate the impacts of climate change.”57

Well-designed stimulus measures that
support a green economic recovery
can yield long-term economic benefits,
prevent stranded assets and avoid
locking in high-emission and highpolluting infrastructure and transportsystems that may last for decades

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Box 4.5: COVID-19 and reduced emissions
The COVID-19-induced lockdown has led to improvements in the urban environment. Global CO2 emissions in 2020 are expected
to fall by eight per cent or almost 2.6 billion tonnes in what is seen as the biggest ever annual drop in carbon emissions. In China,
CO2 emissions fell by 25 per cent or more in January 2020 when compared to the same period in 2019, driven mainly by a 37 percent decline in coal consumption and crude oil use. In India, CO2 emissions fell for the first time in 40 years. They reduced by 15
per cent in March and 30 per cent in April 2020 not only as a consequence of the COVID-19 lockdown, but also due to a precoronavirus weakened demand for coal. In March 2020, New York City experienced a 5–10 per cent drop in CO2 emissions and a 50
per cent fall in carbon monoxide emissions attributed mainly to a 35 per cent decline in traffic.
In just two months following COVID-19 related lockdowns, scientists and residents alike observed remarkable reductions in air
pollution. Satellite imagery from Hubei province in China showed a significant decline in the levels of PM2.5 nitrates following theimposition of travel restrictions to curb the spread of the virus. Similar trends were observed in Republic of Korea, Italy, Spain, UK,
India, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.
Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean witnessed reduction in the levels of nitrogen oxide in the wake of the lockdowns.
Between the last ten days and first ten days of March 2020, the percentage change in nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere declined
by 40–70 per cent in Bogotá, Lima, Buenos Aires, Medellín, Quito and Guayaquil, which were under total lockdown; and by 5–35
per cent in Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, São Paulo, Kingston and Santiago, which were under partial lockdown.
Though remarkable, these environmental improvements are likely to be short-lived and will rebound once the global economy
returns to its pre-coronavirus production and consumption levels, unless countries use the crisis to deliver on their commitment tosustainable development by investing in cleaner and more resilient forms of energy. Countries must make sweeping investments
in clean technologies. Renewable energy is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions as countries cannot depend on thefortuitous impacts of pandemics to catalyse environmental improvements. As in the case of previous crises, unless the wave ofinvestment to restart the economy is dedicated to cleaner and more resilient energy infrastructure, the rebound in emissions may
be larger than the decline.
Source: Abstracted from Chapter 1.

4.3. Mapping the Action Space for Urban
Environmental Value
Urban managers, planners and activists working on the
ground have long confronted the fact that there are notsimple, one-off solutions to unlock the environmental valueof urbanization that can be applied uniformly across cities.58
For instance, there are models of urbanism that embed
multiple aspects of urban life within utopian, technologyoriented visions promising sustainability and low-carbon
outcomes. But these “smart” models prioritize corporate
interests over the daily needs of everyday citizens, small
and medium enterprises, and local institutions, ultimately

failing to address existing urban challenges.59 With its
call for integrated, long-term policy approaches to urban
development, the NUA moves away from such models oftechnocratic urbanism. However, there are several effective
policies, strategies, practices and actors that have enhanced
and strengthened the environmental value of sustainableurbanization in different contexts, for example, working
with nature in cities to harness environmental value.
4.3.1 Introducing nature-based solutions

Sustainability and climate change action in urban
environments is most effective when tied to a wide
range of environmental and social co-benefits.60 In

126

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

In the current international context,
action to address global challenges suchas climate change and biodiversity loss
will be most effective when linked toongoing sustainability agendas
this vein, sectoral approaches are problematic not only
because they are inadequate to address the multiple
environmental challenges of complex systems like cities,
but also because they may be detrimental to delivertransformative action if they limit co-benefits andimpact negatively on the life and agency of beneficiarygroups. In the current international context, action toaddress global challenges such as climate change andbiodiversity loss will be most effective when linked toongoing sustainability agendas.61
Nature-based solutions represent an integrated approachto deliver environmental value across the urban-ruralcontinuum. IUCN defines nature-based solutions as“actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural

or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges
effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing
human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits” (Figure 4.1).62
Nature-based solutions embed environmental value inwater and land management practices from the microlevel, such as improving the porosity and permeabilityof soils, to the macro-level, such as improving theconnectivity and resilience of landscapes (Table 4.2).63 In
urban areas, nature-based solutions have been linked withpositive effects on both urban nature and human health.64
However, when applying nature-based solutions to urban
environments, there are still knowledge gaps regarding
the effectiveness of solutions to address different
environmental challenges, the involvement of various
stakeholders and specific implementation challenges
related to land competition, overlapping regulations andintegration with existing infrastructure.65

Nature-based solutions have been linked
with positive effects on both urban natureand human health

Tanner Springs Park is a remediated wetland and naturalized public space, Portland, Oregon, USA. © Stephanie Braconnier/Shutterstock

127

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Table 4.2: Different types of nature-based solutions with impact at multiple levels
Type of action

Definition

Physical parameters influenced

Ecosystem services delivered (added
environmental value)

1 Organic farming66

Integrated farming practices with explicit
sustainability objectives, often under arecognized system of certification

Infiltration
Interception
Ponding
Soil surface protection
Ecosystem resilience

Soil protection
Biodiversity
Carbon sequestration
Water quality regulation
Biomass growth
Nutrient regulation
Flood regulation

2 Managed rewilding67

Land management techniques toreinstate natural processes such as
the free movement of rivers, habitat
succession and trophic chains

Infiltration
Interception
Soil surface protection
Ecosystem resilience
Dis-connectivity

Soil protection
Biodiversity
Carbon sequestration
Water quality regulation
Flood regulation

3 Agro-forestry68

Land management techniques that
intentionally combine forestry andagriculture/pasture

Infiltration
Soil water retention
Soil surface protection
Tree resilience

Soil protection
Drought regulation
Water quality regulation
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity

5 Land restoration69

Conservation action to bring a previously
damaged land (polluted or degraded) toa productive state, including healthy soils
and landscapes

Infiltration
Interception
Ecosystem resilience
Dis-connectivity
Water and sediment retention

Soil protection
Biodiversity
Carbon sequestration
Water quality regulation
Biomass growth
Nutrient regulation
Flood regulation

6 Wetlands restoration70

Conservation action to recover thenatural functions of wetlands

Dis-connectivity
Water and sediment retention

Biodiversity
Water quality regulation
Nutrient regulation
Flood regulation

7 Sediment trapping71

Vegetation-based measures to prevent
erosion and runoff at the catchment level

Dis-connectivity
Infiltration
Ponding
Interception
Water and sediment retention

Soil protection
Carbon sequestration
Water quality regulation
Biomass growth
Nutrient regulation
Flood regulation

Source: Adapted from Keesstra et al. 2018.

Nature-based solutions are closely linked to the delivery ofgreen and blue infrastructure, that is, a strategically planned
network of nature- and water-based features, integrated
with the urban environment, that provide multiple
functionalities.72 There are impressive examples of green
infrastructure integrated with urbanization processes.
For example, the Netherlands has been implementing
the National Ecological Network (NEN) since the 1990s,

a national project to link nature areas and farmland withsurrounding towns. The project has improved, connected
and extended nature areas; it can claim credit for 20
national parks, new wildlife habitats, agricultural land
managed in nature-friendly ways and over 6 million
hectares of conserved water landscapes.73 However, global
examples are still few and far between. In many regions,
there is a dearth of information on the extent and state of128

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

conservation of green and blue infrastructure. In Africa,
for example, there are barriers to the development of green
infrastructure, including technical barriers (e.g. lack of data
and lack of capacity) as well as more complicated culturaland political barriers (e.g. localized values and perceptionsof green infrastructure, access inequalities, spatial tradeoffs and conflicts).74 Land restoration projects also have thepotential to deliver co-benefits for all the SDGs in line withthe recommendations of the NUA, but they depend on the

adoption of an integrated landscape approach taking into
account the spatial variability of urban areas and the needsof diverse stakeholders.75

In many regions, there is a dearth of
information on the extent and stateof conservation of green and blue
infrastructure

Figure 4.1: The Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) assessment framework

Change129lisation

The Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) assessment framework considers different elements of the system, the 10 challenge areas that NBS can address in urban environments and a suite of indicatorsand methods for assessing NBS impacts within and across challenge areas (Raymond et al. 2017, Kabisch et al. 2016).

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Box 4.6: From crisis to resilience: urban and peri-urban agriculture in Rosario, Argentina
The city of Rosario is described by environmental activists as an island of agroecological practices in an ocean of soybeans. Since
Argentina approved the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans in 1996, the harvested area has grown from 6 million ha to 20
million ha (Fao, 2015). Most of Argentina’s soybeans are grown in Santa Fe Province and are processed in the Rosario municipal
area for export. Soybean production has displaced other traditional export crops. Horticulture around the city of Rosario is underincreasing pressure as farmers lease their land for soybean production.
After the economic crisis of 2000, 60 per cent of Rosario’s population had incomes under the poverty line. In 2002, the municipal
government, in collaboration with two partners (the national Pro-Huerta programme and the Centre for Agroecological Production
Studies, an NGO) sought to find a solution to the alimentary deficiencies suffered by the most disadvantaged sectors of the population.
Initial plans for 20 farming groups across the city soon grew into 800 community gardens meeting the needs of 40,000 people. In 2004,
UN-Habitat awarded Rosario the International Award for Best Practices in urban development. Today, an estimated 1,800 farmers work in
Rosario’s community gardens, of which 250 are full-time commercial producers organized in the Rosario Gardeners’ Network.
The programme promotes agroecological practices while also building on peer-to-peer training. Moreover, allotments are most often
developed in marginal lands otherwise unsuitable for urban infrastructures. Rosario has fully integrated urban and peri-urban agriculturein their urban development plans and coordinated them with other ecosystem management and nature management strategies.
Source: FAO (http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/en/ggclac/rosario.html).

The alignment of blue and green infrastructure withproductive activities that mobilize local socio-ecologicalknowledge can build long-term resilience. For example,
Rosario, Argentina, is now well-known for an urban
and peri-urban agriculture programme addressing theneeds of the most marginalized while also developing
alternative agroecological models for food productionthat enhance urban ecosystems (Box 4.6). Delivering anurban and peri-urban agroecological programme requires
more than just quantitative data like indicators to identify
target groups. The most critical forms of knowledge
that make the project possible emerge from the actual
experience of agriculture: the mastery of agricultural
techniques; the identification of farming and allotment
locations (understanding of land tenure procedures, andin this case, leveraging social networks and accessing the
local land registry); and, importantly, the identification
and application of relevant socio-ecological knowledge
for the long-term sustainability of the programme, forexample, the establishment of a seed bank. While Rosario
gardeners are interested in experimenting with different
types of crops, their seed bank emphasizes documenting
indigenous knowledge about the natural environment(in this case, Guaraní traditions about plants and theirpotential benefits). While a localized experience of urban
farming may seem limited, the struggle for food in urban
areas is intimately linked to the struggle to claim theright to the city and urban food movements provide theopportunity to both empower vulnerable communities
and build urban resilience.76
4.3.2

Addressing the structural drivers ofvulnerability

Urban development planning needs to recognize theurgency of the adaptation challenge, particularly for thoseliving in informal settlements. The impacts of climatechange and the biodiversity crisis interact with the global
processes of economic restructuring and social change that
impact directly on the lives of urban dwellers. The “double
exposure” framework (Figure 4.2) illustrates the close
relationship between global processes of economic change
and the eventual outcomes for environmental change.77
For example, in large cities such as Manila, Philippines,
globalization is changing models of urbanism so thatthe most common infrastructure planning response isprivatization. The immediate consequence of privatization

130

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020is increased inequality and uneven climate resilience,creating a polarized metropolis. People living in informal
or precarious housing situations are doubly vulnerable.
First, these settlement areas are exposed to hazards(e.g. floodplains, steep slopes prone to landslides), andsecond, when disaster strikes, these areas lack appropriate
emergency services. Institutions struggle to assess and tackle
the compounded, interconnected character of cascadingrisks.78 Nature-based solutions alone are not sufficient toaddress structural drivers of vulnerability, which often
require deeper processes of socio-ecological change,
including measures for social protection, supporting local
economies and delivering access to essential services andprotective infrastructure.
But the move toward privatization and polarized cities
with a gulf between the rich and poor is misguided.
Although unplanned development and lack of services in
informal settlements can lead to site-specific ecologicaldegradation, their self-built design typically resultsin pedestrian-friendly, low-carbon urban forms withlower carbon footprints than higher-income formalneighbourhoods. Researchers in Rio de Janeiro havemapped 111 urban sustainability initiatives self-generated
in the city’s favela communities (Box 4.7). Cities can
extract useful lessons about sustainable urbanizationand environmental value from informal settlements evenas they seek to fulfil their obligation to provide basicmunicipal services.

Box 4.7: Sustainable Favela Network in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil

Climate Change

Figure 4.2: The double exposure framework applied to urban
infrastructure planning

For example, Vale Encantado (Enchanted Valley) installeda biodigester with the help of a local university to generatecooking gas for some of the favela’s 25 homes and a local
eco-tourism cooperative.

Globalisation

Cities can extract useful lessons
about sustainable urbanization andenvironmental value from informal
settlements even as they seek tofulfil their obligation to provide basicmunicipal services

Favelas are home to countless community initiatives
through which residents themselves tackle a wide
range of challenges. All these initiatives serve to raiseawareness among residents who benefit from them, evenwhile they are made necessary due to missing public
investment. Furthermore, many initiatives furthering urban
sustainability can be found in the city’s favelas—qualities
which are difficult to develop through centralized planningand which urban planners around the world are trying withgreat difficulty to stimulate, too little, too late.

Contextual
Environment

Exposure units
in megacity

Urban Infrastructure
Planning Responses
Outcomes: Urban Climate Resilience
Source: adapted from Meerow, 2017; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008.

131

Improving people’squality of life andwellbeing

Favelas are responding to diverse life challenges throughindividual action and local collective projects, making themsolution factories. Given their history, favelas are areasof the city that require their own development processes
based on their assets, and tackling their challenges
with these positive qualities as a starting point, without
following the all-too-common unsustainable development
model characteristic of formal areas of the city. Favelas
represent an opportunity for sustainable development
outside of traditional formal principles, based on theinnumerable assets of the favelas themselves.
Sources: Catalytic Communities, 2018; Mendes, 2018.

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

4.3.3

Conditions for harnessing environmental
value through urbanization

The NUA recognizes that there are no universal, readymade solutions to deliver sustainability. Instead, thedelivery of the global development agenda in cities andhuman settlements requires an integrated approach.
Sustainability action to unlock environmental value
depends on the ability of different actors to tailor options
to the context in which they operate. Moreover, theagenda’s acknowledgement of the “right to the city” and“cities for all” explicitly considers environmental justiceprinciples as enablers of inclusive action delivery.79 In thisregard, harnessing the environmental value in sustainableurbanization rests on two fundamental considerations.
The first consideration is to situate every urban challenge inthe broader context in which it occurs. This requires a viewof urban environments that reflects their complexity andenables the identification of trade-offs and interconnections
between multiple impacts. It recognizes cities as complex
systems and engages with the socio-ecological relations thattake place in the city. These socio-ecological relations need
to be understood historically, particularly with regard to thedevelopment of urban institutions. For example, the trendsof exclusion in Guatemala City’s history is today manifested
in a pattern of social-spatial segregation—whereby lowincome populations have settled in areas highly vulnerable
to seismic and geomorphic hazards with limited access towater, whereas higher-income communities occupy safer
locations which they transform into securitized enclaves.80
Understanding urban history is essential to assess both howenvironmental change impacts different social groups andthe extent to which sustainability action may expose themto unintended impacts.
Understanding context also requires context data.
For urban managers, demonstrating that their actions
add environmental value depends on data quality andavailability. Effective action strategies require data to
determine what the environmental value is now and how

Sustainability action to unlock
environmental value depends on theability of different actors to tailor options
to the context in which they operate
Rocinha's slum Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. © UN-Habitat/José Bernardo Junior132

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Understanding urban history is essential
to assess both how environmental
change impacts different social groups
and the extent to which sustainability
action may expose them to unintended
impacts
it may change. Enormous gaps in urban data exist in cities
and urban areas, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regionsof Africa and South Asia. Data on informal settlements andrapidly urbanizing urban and peri-urban areas is lacking,especially pertaining to disaster risk reduction.81 These
gaps have led to self-enumeration projects, a practice that
informal settlement dwellers have conducted for decades,
and, more recently, different forms of mapping urban
settlements like the Million Neighborhoods Initiative.82
The availability of open data platforms may help create
resilience by allow citizens to share real-time data on
disasters and crowdsourcing in order to map aftermath
impacts.83 However, the development of new data sources
has also led to calls for standardization and reliability.84
Data needs to be targeted to strategic areas of priority.
A study examined 28 international urban databases85 forinsights into the politics of urban data management.86 It
found that these databases lack information about criticalareas where action is most urgent. In addition, it identified
a network of actors who dominate data management
and flows, mostly international agencies (the United
Nations and the World Bank) as well as philanthropic
organizations. Besides this precarious architecture, there isalso an imbalance in global coverage evidenced by the lackof adequate representation of disadvantaged regions.87
Even when local governments can collect data effectively,
they may find themselves without the capacity to analyse
it,88 and even worse, without the capabilities to share it withcitizens and debate its implications. Moreover, holding
specific knowledge about their neighbourhood may be theonly effective way for deprived and excluded communities
to assert any form of control over urban environments andthe biophysical processes that affect everyday life.89
The NUA supports holistic approaches to urban managementthat integrate multiple ways of knowing and experiencing

133

socio-ecological relations. “Knowledge co-production”
has become an influential principle in urban planningand management, whether linked to forms of cooperative
governance, collaborative planning or participatory decisionmaking. Knowledge coproduction enables collective
decisions about environmental and urban management thatrecognize multiple forms of expertise, transcend institutionalboundaries and avoid legitimating some perspectives overothers.90 This approach to urban policymaking facilitates
the inclusion of multiple perspectives but also questions the
structural drivers of inequality and facilitates the adoption of
an intersectional approach to the production of knowledge
and data.91 Co-production also enables moving beyond thefocus on indicators that still dominate both international
development agendas and urban management.92

Knowledge coproduction enables collective
decisions about environmental and urban
management that recognize multiple
forms of expertise, transcend institutionalboundaries and avoid legitimating someperspectives over others
The second consideration is that any urban management ordevelopment proposition must explicitly incorporate justiceprinciples. This imperative requires taking into accountthe political and social implications of actions that are
intended to unlock the environmental value of urbanization
when determining policy actions. With this principle inmind, social equity becomes a condition for making a justtransition to sustainability.93 The “just sustainabilities”
framework argues that social and environmental justice
within and between nations should be an integral partof the policies and agreements that promote sustainable
development (Figure 4.3).94 According to one recent study of
400 sustainability initiatives in more than 200 urban areas,
these principles are already becoming embedded in current
environmental action at the local level as cities make efforts
to deliver on the NUA and the SDGs.95
However, environmental justice discourse must ensurethat it does not foreclose the recognition of alternative
perspectives from other knowledge traditions, suchas indigenous people living in cities. Instead, public
participation processes for urban environmental action

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Environmental justice discourse mustensure that it does not foreclose therecognition of alternative perspectives
from other knowledge traditions, such as
indigenous people living in cities

Climate Change

Globalisation

should give a fair hearing to multiple voices, withparticular attention to preventing the imposition of more
powerful frames of reference, such as those espoused byexperts or quantified in indicators over people’s lived
experiences, knowledge and values. As such, internationallaw frameworks should protect both the cultural andbiological integrity of indigenous peoples.96 The culturaland social plight of indigenous people is partially linked torural-urban migration and the degradation of ecosystems
that are sometimes linked to climate change impacts.
As urban indigenous populations grow, cities have
responded through both national initiatives and as aresult of grassroots pressure. In Canada, the 2015 final
report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission onContextual
Exposure
the legacyof theunits
Indian Residential
Schools system called
Environment
in megacity
97
municipalities to action. In Australia, the Redfern
Urban Infrastructure
Aboriginal Tent Embassy pressured
Sydney authorities
Planning Responses
to preserve a key parcel for affordable housing.98 In theUS,non-indigenous
citizens of Seattle pay voluntary rent
Outcomes:
Urban Climate Resilience
Figure 4.3: Principles of just sustainabilities

Improving people’squality of life andwellbeing

Recognizing ecosystem limits
and the need to live within thepossibilities of this planet

Meeting the needs ofboth present andfuture generations

Ensuring justice andequity in terms ofrecognition, process,procedure andoutcome
Source: Agyeman, 2013

Monument to indigenous people (al Pueblo Indígena) at Plaza de Armas Square, sculptureof Enrique Villalobos, Santiago, Chile. © Diego Grandi/Shutterstock

to the indigenous tribe after whom the city is named andproperty owners in Portland have begun giving land backto indigenous ownership. In July 2020, the US Supreme
Court affirmed indigenous land rights, ruling that muchof eastern Oklahoma, including large parts of the city of
Tulsa, falls within an Indian reservation.99 Overall, cities
have responded by adding indigenous languages to place
names and signage, consulting First Nations on urban
infrastructure projects, conducting land acknowledgments
before public events and promoting urban indigenous
land ownership and property development. As theseofficial and grassroots efforts show, partnerships for acollective, sustainable future require institutional efforts
to recognize the environmental and social value ofindigenous knowledge.100
Building on these two important considerations—recognizing the context and advancing principles ofjustice—there are six principles that help to promote
inclusive action for the creation of environmental value in
urban areas and deliver the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development in line with the NUA implementation
framework (Box 4.8).

134

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Climate Change

Globalisation

Box 4.8: Six principles for the creation of urban environmental value
1. Recognize and understand the urban commons.
2. Prioritize the needs of the most disadvantaged, creating inclusive forums where they can be represented in ways that movebeyond standard clichés.
Contextual
Exposure units
3. Enrol a variety of actors through multiple institutionaland governancearrangements, such as partnerships and networks,
Environment
in megacity
experimenting with new forms of cooperative environmental governance.
Urban Infrastructure
Planning Responses
4. Adopt an intersectional environmental policy that challenges privilege,
recognizes and celebrates social and ecological diversity.
6. Investigate points of intervention that enable
rapid
transformations
ofexisting
institutions.
Outcomes: Urban Climate Resilience
6. Create opportunities for innovation and experimentation.

Improving people’squality of life andwellbeingon Civil Collaboration for the Urban Commons, whose
The urban commons are any cultural or biophysical resource
primary tool was a collaboration pact whereby citizens, theaccessible to everyone in the city, especially those resources
101
localMeetinggovernment
and any other interested organizations
which contribute to developing human Recognizing
settlements.
the needs of
ecosystem limits
bothagreepresent andand the needto live within the
would
on
care
and regeneration actions to improveIndeed, urbanization has transformative power
precisely
future generations
possibilities of this planet
shared green areas and public spaces (Figure 4.4). Since
because of its potential to enable the sharing of social,
adopting the regulation, the City of Bologna has signed
cultural and natural capital.102 The urban commons are
Ensuring justice andmore than 400 regeneration pacts, all contributing direct
the basis for collective design processes. For example, in
equity in terms ofrecognition, process,environmental value to the city.103
2014, Bologna, Italy, adopted the Bologna Regulation
procedure andoutcomeFigure 4.4: Design principles of the Co-City Cycle employed in Bologna, Italy

Source: LabGov.City, 2018.

tions
ies

135
Socio-technical experimentation

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

The experiences and needs of the most disadvantaged
need to be considered first because otherwise, they may becast aside by the concerns of the hegemonic groups whose
sway in political decision-making leads to environmental
inequalities.104 Moreover, prioritizing the mostdisadvantaged can generate better urban environmental
outcomes; environmental performance is tied to practices
within the informal economy in key sectors like public
transport,105 waste management106 and sanitation.107
There is increasing evidence that incorporating informal
economies—a lifeblood of many cities (Chapter 3)—insustainability research and policy will have a beneficial
effect to add environmental value.108

Prioritizing the most disadvantaged cangenerate better urban environmental
outcomes; environmental performanceis tied to practices within the informal
economy in key sectors like public
transport, waste management andsanitation
Recognizing social groups within the informal economy
is a crucial strategy to deliver environmental value ina manner that puts the needs of the most vulnerable
first, for example, through strategies that benefit them
directly such as reforming regulatory frameworks,
simplifying environmental regulations, encouraging morecollaborative governance arrangements and supporting
more inclusive urban planning approaches that improve
efficiency in environmental management so as to“transition to an economy that is not only greener, but also
more inclusive.”109 These measures are all closely linked
to democratization processes and the creation of spaces
for participation that tend to be eroded in times of crisis(Box 4.9). They also require an intersectional approach tounderstanding the needs and concerns of different groupsof the population through a diagnosis of the structuralcauses of discrimination and exclusion, rather than asuperficial analysis of identity-based characteristics.110 In
other words, authentic inclusiveness must be central tourban and territorial planning processes.

Box 4.9: In times of crisis, grassroots networks are
informal workers’ bulwark
Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing andOrganizing (WIEGO) reports that the rights of informal
workers across the world are under threat following
a reversal of gains won over the decades. Still, street
vendors have found a way forward by activating/mobilizing networks of support (movement building)to navigate these challenging contexts. In Bangkok,
Thailand, local authorities in worked with street vendors
to create a clean, vibrant, shared commercial space. In theaftermath of the 2014 political crisis, massive evictionsof street vendors ensued, endangering livelihoods.
Consequently, the street vendors organized the citywide
Network of Thai Vendors for Sustainable Development.
The network created a space to establish their demands
for public space management. Through marches, a social
media campaign and civil disobedience, the Network has
demonstrated the type of participatory practices that add
value to Bangkok’s public spaces.
Belo Horizonte established spaces for the institutional
participation of waste pickers, that benefited the city’s
waste management systems. An ideological change
in politics has led to budget cuts to the institutions
responsible for inclusive recycling policy. Waste pickers
have mobilized local and national organizations to deliver
strategies of resistance. In 2017, they were able to blockan incineration bill in a multi-stakeholder public hearing.
More recently, they have lobbied state alliances to continue
dialogues around the crucial issues that affect them.
In Lima, a pro-poor municipal ordinance supported
street vendors directly, after a process of dialogue in amesa of collaboration between policymakers and street
vendors in 2014. However, the implementation of theordinance has been weak, and instead, street vendors
have continued to face evictions from most markets. In
response, Lima’s street vendors have convened a forumof experts with the hope that municipal officials willconsider their innovative proposals.
Source: Harvey and Ogando, 2019; UN-Habitat, 2018b.

136

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

A wide variety of actors can be enrolled through multiple
institutional and governance arrangements, such as
partnerships and networks that experiment with new formsof cooperative environmental governance. The need to engage
numerous actors operating at different scales is a recognized
requirement of global environmental governance.111 What isperhaps less understood is the extent to which partnerships
at the local level can implement action to make a global
difference.112 While the notion of a global partnership isenshrined in SDG17, greater emphasis must be put onaligning the actions of international actors and coordinating
the delivery of national agendas than on delivering the kindof incremental action at the local level that only enablechanges to the quality of life of a city’s inhabitants.113 Often,
a focus on alignment and leadership by municipal officials
and other environmental policy champions may obscure thecomplexity of interactions that support action to increase
the environmental value of urban areas. Scholars studying
governance processes often describe successful policy action
as emerging from “muddling through” a process that relies on
temporal forms of consensus and experimental approaches
to feasible actions.114 The question is the extent to which
deliberative governance processes enable a deep reflection

The need to engage numerous actors
operating at different scales is arecognized requirement of global
environmental governanceof the power dynamics that shape the process and whether
they are explicitly acknowledged in the interactions between
multiple actors.115
There is a need for developing intersectional environmental
policies that question privilege as the root of current
environmental problems and celebrate social diversity.
Such a policy lens aligns with the NUA’s commitment
to deliver gender- and age-responsive planning andinvestment, though intersectional approaches typically go
further to account for race and ethnicity. With its roots
in anti-racism and feminist movements, environmental
justice, as a social movement, is deeply concerned with theintersecting mechanisms of exclusion and oppression thatpeople experience in their daily lives. An understandingof how social structures shape processes of environmental
degradation has helped to consolidate environmental
justice as a movement that transforms urban policy whiletranscending local spaces of action.116
Local environmental action needs to focus on particularintervention points that can activate rapid institutionaltransformations. While the interconnectedness of theurban cultural and biophysical fabric most often calls forholistic visions that integrate a multidimensional view of
the urban context, action may also require an analyticalperspective that enables identifying where to intervene tohave the maximum impact with the resources available. For
example, the court system is the new arena where urban

Box 4.10: Why European parents are suing their cities over poor air quality
Seven years ago, Lies Craeynest won a €10,000 neighborhood improvement grant from the local council in her Brussels district.
She planned to spruce up the busy arterial street where she lives by working with her neighbors to grow climbing plants along thehouses. But the council government had a warning about her choice of plants: If you live on an arterial street, weak varietals will die
from toxic air.
For Craeynest, a mother of two, the warning was a gut punch. Craeynest is among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Brussels
government for failing to meet European Union air quality standards. The lawsuit is one of 80 cases that environmental law nonprofit ClientEarth has waged against European city governments and arguably the most significant, with the European Court ofJustice ruling in the citizen activists’ favour in June 2019.
Source: Scruggs, 2020.

137

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Woman on e-bike in smog blanketed city. Beijing, China. © TonyV3112/Shutterstock138

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

environmental battles are fought. London held an inquest
into the air pollution that caused the asthma-related deathof 9-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013.117 European NGO
ClientEarth has sued 80 municipal governments over air
quality in violation of EU standards (Box 4.10). However,
the NUA does not explicitly acknowledge the role of thecourts in shaping environmental policy.
Finally, the creation of urban environmental value
requires understanding the complex processes andmultiple locations of innovation. As discussed in Chapter
6, innovation in the broad sense lies both in scientificand technological developments but also in the creative
actions of governments and citizens that strive to use new
institutional arrangements to address urban challenges.
These processes are diverse, and there is now a plethoraof strategies to foster innovation in urban environmentsfrom state-led technological incubators to entrepreneurial
start-ups, or collaborative urban labs (Chapter 6).118 Spacesof innovation, however, are constituted through theinteractions of entrepreneurial or experimenting actors,
processes of urban governance and the dynamics whereby
innovations are embedded in the urban fabric and adapted
to social practices. The analysis of energy transition in cities
such as Rizhao or Shenzhen (China), for instance, suggeststhat a factor of success was the strong partnerships local
governments and industries that fostered innovation.119

4.4. Unintended Impacts of Urban
Sustainability Policies
Ongoing planning and policymaking practices are associatedwith an urban action gap and the challenges of dealing withgreen gentrification and the securitization of urban natures.
Are cities and urban areas expected to fill in the gap between
action pledges and the action needed at the global level?
While urban areas are leading the localization of the global
agendas, they should not be expected to meet the “actiongap” because the global commitment to social change issomething that pertains to a broader cultural and politicalchange, part of which goes beyond the sphere of action of local
governments, civil society and local businesses. The potential
for innovation in urban areas is recognized but should not
distract analysis from actual imperatives for national or
global action. While empirical research documents specific139

The potential for innovation in urban
areas is recognized but should not
distract analysis from actual imperatives
for national or global action
case studies in detail, it does not provide a generalizable
explanation of the visible gap between rhetoric and action
in urban environmental policy.120 Systematizing the impactof local action through the calculation of aggregated global
outcomes may not ever be possible.
For example, the Paris Agreement formalized the principles
of voluntary commitments to climate action.121 Under theagreement, nation-state parties present their commitmentsin the form of Nationally Determined Contributions(NDCs).122 Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, there
have been calls for subnational actors to bridge the gap inemissions.123 Action outside the UNFCCC regime has been
led by a host of actors, including civil society, subnational
governments and businesses who argue that they could
achieve additional reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Initiatives like the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate
Action (NAZCA) record those initiatives at a global leveland mark their extent and significance.124 These actions arevaried. They cannot be reduced to measures of emissions
reductions because they have multiple co-benefits. They
cannot be aggregated because they involve context-specificaction. Moreover, the difficulties of integrating local
sustainability objectives in international policy should not
distract us from the multiple ways in which local actiondelivers environmental value.
Global aspirations to bridge the sustainability action gap
pose additional demands on local governments and otherlocal institutions, but often, without additional resources
or capacities to enable local governments and other urban
actors who are already under-resourced and ill-equipped
to respond to these challenges. The SDGs provide a targetbased framework to evaluate sustainable development:
an instrument that guides action towards collective
agreements. Also, the NUA goes beyond the aspirationsof the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by
providing an integrated vision that situates thoseobjectives in context, beyond an approach that reduces
human and ecological wellbeing to indicators. As debates

Ur bTransitionsof cities

an p

olit

ica

Conflict/
Alignment

2
3

Territorial priorities

2

Socio-spatial (re)configuration

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Figure 4.5: How green gentrification affects poor urban communities in the context of building resilience
Green infrastructure interventions for resilience
Resilient living shorelines and berm landscapes
Resilient greenways and parks
Raingardens, trees, and permiable pavements
Resilient green roofs/walls and landscaping as part of resilient buildings

Green Climate Gentriﬁcation
Today
Greater exposure of their homes and properties toclimate-risk due to privately-led green resilience projects.
Socio-cultural exclusion from the uses and beneﬁts ofgreen resilience

In the future
Displacement due to real estate speculation and toincreased housing costs to more affordable areas but more
exposed to climate risks
Greater difﬁculty to adapt due to loss of social networks

Source: Anguelovski et al. 2019.

on North American Development
cities,of citywide
thatpublichave
examined a trend
on environmental
justice have made clear, target outcomes
space strategy,
Scaling up: Inventory and assesment of public
Demonstration of co-creation of public spacepolicy and bill to mainstream public space inopen spaces in the city county and a safetyand development of two pilot
towards “green gentrification”
and its link to resilience andalone should throughnotdesign
guide
the intent of sustainability
action.
normative programs of the city
audit in the city in collaboration with safetipin
public spaces in Nairobi
climate change adaptation policies.126 Green gentrification
How environmental value is delivered matters as much as
achieving that result.
means that as environmental and conservation projects
add value to the urban environment, marginalized groups
For example, recent scholarship has grown increasingly
are pushed out by the changing conditions for habitation,
concerned with the production of new forms of inequality
for example, because of an increase in housing prices andassociated with green action and sustainability policies.
rents. The impacts of green gentrification impact overIs green action in urban areas Capacity
a newdriver of inequality?
timeAwareness(Figure4.5). There is a fear that this dynamic will
and advocacy campaigns throughbuilding for the city county staff andplacemakinginto
to promotethe
use and change
community groups onin
co-creationof association
publicCritical case studies show shortcomings
thetranslateconstitution of exclusive safe enclaves
attitudes towards public spaces
spacesof environmental policy and social injustices. For example,
protected from climate change impacts, which could
urban areas are finding a new challenge in green andconstitute, in effect, a form of climate apartheid.127 While
climate gentrification processes whereby people arethese practices will undoubtedly exacerbate the income
excluded not only from housing and public space but also
differences between different groups, they will havefrom safe and protected environments. Urban ecologicaldevastating consequences for people who are particularly
security emerged as a new paradigm of urban management
vulnerable to climate impacts.
in the first decade of this millennium, whereby urban
elites focus on ensuring the continuity of the city within
available resources.125 The concern is that attempts at
4.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons forsecuring privileged enclaves leads to the fragmentation
Policyof urban space, with the effects of that fragmentation felt
most acutely by the most disadvantaged.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the
New Urban Agenda provide the opportunity to deliverThis practice has evolved into a dynamic of extra-urban
a truly innovative programme for urban action thatand intra-urban forms of differentiation in which access toharnesses the transformative power of urbanization
environmental resources and exposure to environmental
for the delivery of environmental value at all scales.
risks constitute a new measure of urban inequality. MoreUrban environmental planning and management
recently, there has been a wave of studies, mainly focusedprovide multiple opportunities to deliver sustainability

140

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

improvements in specific neighbourhoods, build resilienceat a citywide scale and address global environmental
challenges head-on. The 2030 Agenda provides targets
to orient environmental action. The NUA provides
guidelines to integrate development objectives into aholistic vision of a liveable, sustainable city.
There is an ample range of initiatives to deliverenvironmental value in urban environments. However,outcomes are highly dependent on the form of execution.
The possibilities of environmental benefits of urbanization
depend on how cities are planned and managed. Ensuring
due process and recognition of multiple points of view areconditions for delivering sustainable development for all,requirements already enshrined in the NUA. For example,
increasing understanding of the potential of nature-based
solutions and green and blue infrastructure to deliverenvironmental benefits alongside more conventionaltransport and waste management interventions needs to bebalanced with the realization of how green gentrification isdriving further processes of urban exclusion.
Urban managers need to integrate sustainability policy
with planning and social policy. One way to do so is throughobserving the six principles for adding environmental value
through urban planning and management interventions
proposed in this report.
The recognition of the urban commons as socio-ecologicalassets, shared across the city, starts in the conceptualizationof urban policy and plans. Collectively developed
inventories of shared assets help to recognize, and hence,protect those commons. Local governments play a role inmediating the generation of a collective pool of knowledge
that can be mobilized for the protection of the commons.
Prioritizing the needs of the most disadvantaged means
creating opportunities within local planning processes torepresent their views, something already reflected in the2030 Agenda.
Urban managers can develop mechanisms to ensure awide diversity of actors is represented in decision-making
processes. Those mechanisms need to move from mere
consultations or token participation. Municipalities are141

key enablers of action, providing assets and finances forcivil society organizations and businesses. They can also
enter formal partnerships to deliver on a given objective.
Adding environmental value depends on the ability ofurban actors, especially local governments, to recognize
the social and ecological diversity that drives cities. This
diversity is critical to promote and deliver innovation at
multiple levels. Decision makers can provide specific forums
for shared learning where diversity is celebrated, but also
where diversity is mobilized to deliver neighbourhoodrelevant innovations, which can be scaled up to achieve
global impact.
Activating the transformative power of urbanization
depends on the collective capacity to activate points
of intervention that enable rapid transformations.
Identifying those points of intervention depends on theshared understanding of the history and experiences of
the urban environment. Decision makers have to workwith leading changemakers and communities to findout what kind of radical changes can be fostered to add
environmental value.
Technology and open data have opened new opportunities
to enable collaborative networks within and acrosscities. This potential should not be overlooked, but theyshould not distract from well-established processes ofcollaborative planning and their potential to deliverenvironmental action.
The coordination of action across multiple levels ofgovernment and the formulation of national urban policy
is central to ensure the delivery of the SDGs. Supported
local governments will be able to develop transformative
capacities to ensure sustainable urban futures for all.
However, the absence of such coordination mechanisms
should not detract from the growing urban movement
seeking to deliver sustainability via local governments
working in partnership with communities, citizens,businesses and NGOs. Adding environmental value
through planned urbanization requires a commitment tolong-term policies and practice directed towards building
inclusive processes of decision-making that recognize andengage with urban complexity.

The Environmental Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Building Resilient Urban Development

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.

30.

31.

Elmqvist et al, 2016; Güneralp andSeto, 2013.
Swilling et al, 2018; Ebeke andEtoundi, 2017.
Zhang and Chen, 2017; Liang andLi, 2019.
Seto et al, 2017.
Li and Lin 2015; Aronson et al, 2012;
Liddle and Lung, 2010.
Müller et al, 2013.
IPBES, 2019.
Bai et al, 2017.
About 95 per cent of wildfires arestarted by humans according to
CalFire (Shepherd, 2018); Doumar,
2018.
European Environment Agency, 2020.
IPBES, 2019.
Frantzeskaki et al, 2017.
Frantzeskaki et al, 2017.
Sarkar, 2012; Hancock, 2019.
O'Neill and Spash, 2000.
Parnell, 2016; Barnett and Parnell,
2016.
IPCC, 2018a.
UN-Habitat, 2011.
Hughes and Mason, 2018.
Castan Broto and Westman, 2020.
Gould and Lewis, 2012; Gould andLewis, 2016; Anguelovski et al, 2018.
Davoudi, 2014; Long and Rice,
2019; Hodson and Marvin, 2010;
For example, Chicureo in themetropolitan area of Santiago
de Chile hosts seven elite gatedcommunities that show anunsustainable use of land andresources, despite being marketed
as green enclaves (Sanzana Calvet,
2016).
United Nations, 2019b.
IPCC, 2018a.
UCLG, 2019a.
Centre for Community Initiatives(http://www.ccitanzania.org/).
C40 Cities, 2019.
Dossier available at Both ENDS
website (https://www.bothends.org/
en/Our-work/Dossiers/ParticipatoryLand-Use-Planning-PLUP-/).
See long-standing work in thisarea from the Asian Coalition of
Housing Rights (http://www.achr.net/
activities-landtenre.php).
UNESCO Underwater Cultural
Heritage: http://www.unesco.org/
new/en/culture/themes/underwatercultural-heritage/about-the-heritage/underwater-museums/
MINAM, Plan de acción en género
y cambio climático: http://www.
minam.gob.pe/cambioclimatico/wp-

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

content/uploads/sites/11/2015/12/
PLAN-G%C3%A9nero-y-CC-16-deJunioMINAM+MIMP.pdf
WRI Ross Prize: https://www.wri.org/
news/2019/04/release-first-ever-wriross-prize-cities-awarded-sarsai
JICA’s participatory planning
programme (https://www.
jica.go.jp/english/news/
field/2019/20191016_01.html); Cities
Alliance Participatory Planning Case
Study ( https://www.citiesalliance.
org/resources/knowledge/
project-case-studies/promotingparticipatory-development-mongoliagusip); Ulaanbaatar Masterplan (https://asiafoundation.org/.../pdfs/1MasterPlanPublicSummaryEnglish.
pdf).
Boston Government (https://www.
boston.gov/departments/resilienceand-racial-equity).
UK Parliament, 2020.
C40 Reinventing Cities (https://www.
c40reinventingcities.org/).
UN-Habitat, 2019d.
IPCC, 2018a.
IPBES, 2019.
Wheeler and Beatley, 2014.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Güneralp and Seto 2013; Seto etal, 2012.
IPCC, 2019.
Du et al, 2018.
Güneralp et al, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2016d.
Pelling and Wisner, 2012.
Carvalho et al, 2016.
Castán Broto et al, 2017; Castán
Broto, 2017a.
Romero-Lankao et al, 2016;
Saavedra, 2011.
Brenner, 2013.
Li and Lin, 2015.
Güneralp et al, 2017.
Brenner, 2013.
Andrewartha, 2019.
See also https://www.
fridaysforfuture.org/.
United Nations, 2020c.
Innes and Booher, 2010; Gunder etal, 2017; Forester, 1999; Bhan etal, 2017.
Rapoport, 2015; Castán Broto, 2014.
Harlan and Ruddell, 2011; Bain etal,2016.
Carmin et al, 2012; Bartlett andSatterthwaite, 2016.
IUCN, 2016.
Keesstra et al, 2018van den Bosch and Ode Sang, 2017.
Kabisch et al, 2016.

66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.

74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.

83.
84.

85.

86.

Cerdà et al, 2016; Novara et al, 2016.
Keesstra et al, 2009.
Correia, 1993; Thaman et al, 2017,den Herder et al, 2017.
Cited in Keesstra et al, 2018.
Kalantari and Folkeson, 2013.
Mekonnen et al, 2015.
Simon, 2016a.
National Ecological Network (https://www.government.nl/topics/natureand-biodiversity/national-ecologicalnetwork-nen).
du Toit et al, 2018.
IRP, 2019.
Tornaghi, 2017.
Leichenko and O'Brien, 2008;
Meerow, 2017.
Pescaroli and Alexander, 2018.
United Nations, 2017b.
Castillo Cabrera and Haase, 2018.
Osuteye et al, 2017.
Mansueto Institute for Urban
Innovation, 2019; Karanja, 2010;
Hasan, 2006; Patel et al, 2012.
Landry et al, 2016.
Bai et al, 2018; Some commentators,
for example, advocate the use ofsatellite imagery to map informal
settlements but its applications
and usefulness, in the face of mostimmediate data gaps, is unknown.
See for example: Dovey and King,2011.
Urban Data Initiatives includedin the study: 100 Resilient Cities;
AmbientUrban Air Pollution
database; C40 Open Data portal;
Cities 100; City Prosperity Index; City
Statistics; European Cities Data Tool;
European Urban HealthIndicator
System; Global Observatory on Local
Democracy andDecentralisation;
Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project;
Global Cities of the Future; How
Cities are Governed; Inclusive
Cities Observatory; International
Observatory on Participatory
Democracy (OIDP); Knowledge
Centre on Cities and Climate
Change (K4C); Platform for Urban
Management and Analysis; Shack/
SDI Know Your City; The Atlasof Urban Expansion; The Global
HumanSettlement Layer; Urban
Data; Urban Health Index; Urban Lex;
UrbanObservatory; World Bank Urban
Development Indicators; World Cities
Culture Forum; World Council on City
Data; World database of large urban
areas, 1950–2050; World Urban
Database.
Robin and Acuto, 2018.

87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.

109.
110.

111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.

Robin and Acuto, 2018.
Simon et al, 2016.
Patel et al, 2012.
Patel et al, 2015.
Castán Broto and Neves Alves 2018.
Caprotti et al, 2017.
Holifield et al, 2017; Agyeman et al,
2016; Temper et al, 2015.
Agyeman, 2013.
Castán Broto and Westman, 2017.
Westra, 2012.
Truth and Reconciliation Commissionof Canada, 2015.
Ellis, 2018.
Healey and Liptak, 2020.
Vizina and Wilson, 2019.
Garnett, 2011; Foster 2011.
Foster and Iaione, 2019; Foster, 2006.
LabGov.City, 2018.
Heynen et al, 2006.
Cervero and Golub, 2007; Goodfellow,
2015.
Mbah and Nzeadibe, 2017; Schenckand Blaauw, 2011.
McFarlane et al, 2014.
Ruzek, 2015; Oka, 2011; Nzeadibeand Mbah, 2015; Guibrunet, 2017;
Guibrunet, 2019; Brownet al, 2014.
Brown and McGranahan, 2016.
As reflected in the intersectionality
literature, for example: Yon andNadimpalli, 2017; Lejano andGonzalez, 2017; Venkataraman,
2015; Marquardt and Schreiber, 2015;
Walker et al,2013; Nightingale, 2011;
Valentine, 2007; Yuval-Davis, 2006.
Chan et al, 2015.
Forsyth, 2006; Van Huijstee et al,
2007.
Simone and Pieterse, 2018.
Marsden et al, 2014.
Blakeley, 2010.
Agyeman et al, 2016.
Dyer, 2019.
Karvonen and Van Heur, 2014.
Huang and Broto, 2018; Huang etal, 2018.
Hughes et al, 2018; Frantzeskaki etal, 2017.
Bodansky, 2016; Hale, 2016.
UNFCCC, (undated).
Rogelj et al, 2016.
Bäckstrand et al, 2017.
Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Hodsonand Marvin, 2009.
Anguelovski et al, 2018; Gould andLewis, 2016; Gould and Lewis, 2012.
Bond, 2016; Hall and Weiss, 2012;
Long and Rice, 2019.

142

Chapter 5
The Social Value of Sustainable
Urbanization: Leaving No One
and No Place Behind

The opportunities offered by cities lend a social value to urbanization. When cities are well-planned andmanaged, they can lift families out of poverty, liberate women from gender-based discrimination, point tobright futures for children and youth, offer comforts and supports to older persons in their golden years andwelcome migrants looking for a better life. This wide-ranging value of urbanization is one of its most potent
features. Cities are the crucible in which social outcomes will be improved for all types of marginalized andvulnerable groups.
But the social value of urbanization will only be realized alongside the intangible value of urbanization. This
broad category encompasses the institutions—rule of law, property rights and democratic participatory
systems, among others—that allow cities to function effectively. Embedded in this intangible value is thecultural element of cities, from the diverse backgrounds of their residents to the cultural heritage assets attheir disposal.

143

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Quick Facts
1. The right to the city, which underpins the social value of
urbanization, means that all people, especially vulnerable
groups should have equal opportunities and access to urban
resources, services and goods.
2. The value of urbanization is socially inclusive when it enhances
gender equality, protects the rights of minority and vulnerable
groups and ensures social inclusion.
3. Many cities around the world are designing and retrofitting
their cities to meet the needs and priorities of children.
4. The COVID-19 pandemic is eroding the social value of
urbanization by exacerbating inequality, further marginalizing
vulnerable groups and pulling more people into poverty
worldwide.
5. Cultural diversity contributes to the vibrancy, prosperity,
inclusiveness, competitiveness, and positive perception of
cities.

Policy points
1. When adequately harnessed, the social value of sustainableurbanization offers pathways to enhancing social inclusion,
reducing inequality and ending poverty; thereby, leaving no one
and no place behind.
2. If integrated through inclusive policies, migrants will not only
ease skill shortages, but will contribute to the social, economic

Cities are unique in their ability to improve social outcomes
and create ladders of opportunity. Sustainable urbanization
can enhance the social value of cities by ending poverty,
promoting equity and improving quality of life for all. Urban
areas are where aspirations are realized, from pursuingeconomic ambitions to embracing social identities.
However, as has been consistently emphasized throughout
this Report, the value of sustainable urbanization will not
be realized without strategic interventions. Unlocking
the social value of urbanization requires a transformativechange towards people-centred policies and programmes,
rooted in the ideals of sustainable urban development.

Sustainable urbanization can enhance
the social value of cities by ending
poverty, promoting equity and improving
quality of life for all
To that end, realizing the social value of sustainableurbanization also depends on various tangible andintangible features of cities such as urban growth andcultural norms. Approximately 200,000 new city dwellers
are added to the world’s population daily, which translates
into 5 million new urban dwellers per month in thedeveloping world and 500,000 in developed countries.1

cultural enrichment of their host communities.
3. A system that leaves one no and no place behind and creates
equal opportunities for all recognizes that economic growthalone will not reduce inequality and poverty.
4. Sustainable and inclusive cities are the outcome of good
governance that encompasses effective leadership; integrated
urban and territorial planning; jurisdictional and multilevel
coordination; inclusive citizen participation; and adequate
financing.
5. To adequately harness the social value of urbanization,authorities must address the threats to more egalitarian cities.

These regions have varying abilities to cope with thisdemographic influx. Urban growth rates are much fasterin developing regions as demonstrated by the growth rate
in Africa, which is ten times higher than Europe.2 Recent
reduction in fertility rates in most of the developing world
means that the working-age population (25 to 64 years)
is growing faster than other age groups, providing an
opportunity for accelerated economic growth and social
wellbeing, which is known as the “demographic dividend.”3
These trends translate into differing abilities of city
governments to achieve the social value of urbanizationand improve residential quality of life in meaningful andtangible ways.

144

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

This chapter addresses the social and intangible
dimensions of sustainable urbanization. It discusses
how sustainable urbanization can contribute to thesocial value of cities by reducing inequality and poverty;
enhancing social inclusion with a focus on gender, older
persons, children and youth; and fostering effective
systems of governance and institutions. The chapter
further explores distinct policy responses and casestudies to show how the social and intangible values ofsustainable urbanization are enhanced and strengthened
at the national and local levels. If pursued, theseapproaches can ensure that no one and no place is left
behind in the process of urbanization.

5.1. Understanding the Social andIntangible Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
The social value of urbanization is a recurring theme in
the global development agenda as one of the intrinsic
dimensions of sustainable development. It is foundational
within the first transformative commitment of the NUA:
“sustainable urban development for social inclusion andending poverty.”4 This commitment acknowledges theimportance of people-centred urban development andrespect for the basic human rights of migrants, displaced
persons and refugees. It also promotes equitable accessto physical and social infrastructure for all.5 The NUA
mentions social integration and inclusion, emphasizing
the importance of sustainably managing the urban
environment and developing programmes to achieve
an improved quality of life for all. The social value of
urbanization is built on the pillars of spatially-justresource distribution, political agency, and social,economic and cultural diversity.6
The intangible value of sustainable urbanization refers toeffective institutions (both formal and informal), good
governance, respect for human rights and celebrating
cultural diversity. The synergy between formal institutions,the national constitution, laws, regulations and social
norms provide the superstructure for the value of
urbanization to be fully realized and improve quality oflife. The informal features may not be written into law,
but instead include sociological phenomena like customs,

145

traditions, a sense of belonging and identity, civic pride,shared urban values and participation in political and social
life. Women’s empowerment and other forms of genderdevelopment are interconnected to the formal institutions
and are either amplified or limited depending on a wide
range of contextual factors. These attitudes and practices
are fundamental to the notion of belonging, which ensuresthat the city will be able to serve all residents and offer
equal access to public services, funds and democratic
rights, including the right to hold office or be represented
in government.
Enhancing the social and intangible value of urbanization is
key to addressing the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, bothto reduce its spread and provide an equitable social safety
net for all residents. This urgent need relies almost entirelyon the capacity of governments to provide resources that
support physical and mental wellness. In this regard,city governments and their development partners needto actively facilitate a transition to equitable, inclusive
sustainable urban development.
The processes of urbanization can be leveraged for the
purpose of addressing global challenges like inequality,
climate change, poverty, affordable housing, productive
employment, and access to adequate infrastructure andbasic services, among others.7 Urbanization is an efficient
way to enhance social value when cities and urban
extensions are properly planned and governed throughdemocratic and participatory processes. It is 30–50 per
cent cheaper to provide services and infrastructure in cities
on account of the large economies of scale; consequently,
urban areas provide these services more efficiently in poor
neighbourhoods which, in the long run, can contribute to
reducing inequality and exclusion. Inequality can also be
addressed through redistributive policies that give priority
to low-income and vulnerable groups in the provision ofurban services through area-based solutions.

Enhancing the social and intangible valueof urbanization is key to addressing
the ongoing coronavirus pandemic,
both to reduce its spread and provide
an equitable social safety net for all
residents

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Beirut, Lebanon. © Eduardo Moreno

146

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

5.2. Pursuing Inclusion throughSustainable Urbanization
There is a growing consensus that inclusion needs to be
explicitly integrated into urban development policies andprogrammes and that this focus must address the uniqueneeds of individuals and groups (Chapter 2). The value of
urbanization is socially inclusive when it enhances genderequality, protects the rights of minority and vulnerable
groups and ensures civic participation. Both the SDGs
and the NUA explicitly acknowledge the importance ofensuring the distribution of opportunity in the urban
development processes so that everyone can benefit fromthe benefits associated with urbanization.

The value of urbanization is socially
inclusive when it enhances genderequality, protects the rights of minority
and vulnerable groups and ensures civic
participation
5.2.1. Ensuring the right to the city

The World Charter on the Right to the City recognizes thatcities are at the core of wealth creation; social, political andcultural diversity; and environmental preservation efforts.
However, access to these opportunities is not equal for all
inhabitants. The “right to the city” means that all people,
particularly vulnerable and marginalized groups, shouldhave equal opportunities and access to urban resources,
services and goods. Effective citizen participation in
local policies creates the responsibility for governments
to ensure just distribution of resources and acknowledgesocio-cultural diversity as a source of social enhancement.8
Every city needs to fully address human rights in four mainareas.9 First, urban laws should lay out the entitlements due
to urban dwellers. These include adequate housing, healthcare, safe and affordable water and sanitation, security,
recreation and public space for all. Second, cities should
establish the values that ought to guide the treatment
accorded to individuals in urban areas, emphasizing respectfor human dignity, freedom, equality, non-discrimination,
inclusivity and the realization of the potential of all humanbeings. Third, authorities should empower city dwellers toparticipate in urban planning, management and governance147

decisions, as well as to hold their leaders accountable.
Fourth, they should guide the process of resolving competinginterests for urban goods and services.
For these objectives to be fulfilled, the NUA states that
Member States should “aim to achieve cities and humansettlements where all persons are able to enjoy equal rights
and opportunities, as well as their fundamental freedoms.”10
The NUA acknowledges the right to an adequate standardof living for all, particularly for the poor and vulnerable
groups. It also emphasizes participatory and inclusive
decision-making across all levels of government and between
stakeholders; promotes effectiveness, transparency andaccountability in decision-making; encourages inclusion
and respect for the rights of women, refugees, internallydisplaced persons and migrants; and calls for an end to thecriminalization of homelessness.
These commitments rely heavily on targeted policies, legal
frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. Therefore,
the role of the law and institutions is to identify not
only rights but also duties and the corresponding duty
bearers. Laws needs to be understandable, enforceable
and effective, and as such:11
 offer a reasonable trade-off between the costs andbenefits of compliance; reflect the current urban context;
 be the product of consultative, inclusive processes;
 be economically and politically inclusive while creating
the basic preconditions for economic growth; protect the interests of the public (with a focus on thepoor) when confronted by stronger commercial andpolitical interests;
 promote stable and sustainable urban governance;

The NUA acknowledges the right toan adequate standard of living for all,particularly for the poor and vulnerable
groupsThe Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin build strong social contracts between state and nonstate actors; and be designed in such a way that even a relatively fragile
state or city can effectively implement them.
There are practical examples of the right to the city that haveincorporated a strong social inclusion and participatory
agenda in different parts of the world. Dublin, Ireland
has granted non-Irish, non-EU residents the right to votein local elections irrespective of their legal status.12 This
form of political inclusion includes voter education andawareness campaigns, and marks a departure from thelong-established link between civic rights and nationality.13
Following protracted activism, the Government of India
passed a law in 2014 to protect the livelihoods of street
vendors and establish a participatory mechanism to regulate
street vending.14 In Colombia, the government has taken
the necessary steps to guarantee access to basic services—
water supply, sanitation, electricity, waste collection,

telecommunications and gas—for all residents including
slum dwellers.15 The lack of basic services is a key feature of
informal settlements and is conventionally motivated bylack of secure formal tenure; the basic services guarantee
effectively breaks this link and integrates slum dwellers
into the mainstream space of shared basic services with orwithout land title.
The diversity of residents in cities presents a challenge tourban governments in their attempts to meet the needs oftheir underserved and vulnerable populations. By focusing
their resources on cross-cutting and intersectional issues,
they can begin to address significant concerns. Whilethe needs and desires for social value are unique acrossthe different groups within a city (Chapter 2), city
governments can realize the social value of urbanization
by creating cities that are gender equitable, designed
for children and youth, accessible to elderly residents,
welcoming to migrants and protective of the rights ofminority and vulnerable groups.

Women-Only Subway Cars in Delhi India. © Joyfull/Shutterstock148

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

5.2.2. Promoting gender inclusive urban policies
and programmes

Women make up over half of the global population yet
suffer systematic gender discrimination in cities. Accordingto Oxfam, women at the bottom of the economic ladderprovide 12.5 billion hours of unpaid care work every day,which is three times more than men do. Worldwide, men
own 50 per cent more wealth than women.16 Gendersensitive urban policies can benefit women in diverse ways:
offering increased legal protection; narrowing gender gaps
in education at all levels; improving access to services andinfrastructure; creating greater employment opportunities;
and removing gendered socio-cultural restrictions
compared to the experience of women in rural areas.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that female
leadership has been more effective in
addressing the pandemic’s interlocking
public health and economic impacts
To address gender-based economic inequality,
governments must ensure that the economy eliminates
the barriers that women face by investing in national caresystems and introducing progressive taxation that favours
careers over wealth.17 This critical issue in addressing
gender inequity has been highlighted by the COVID-19
pandemic, with women on the forefront of educating
children and caring for the elderly within and acrossfamilies, while also at an increased risk for domestic
violence worldwide.18 Indeed, anecdotal evidence
suggests that female leadership has been more effectivein addressing the pandemic’s interlocking public healthand economic impacts.19 Some explanations for this effectinclude female leaders’ propensity to adopt proactive andcoordinated policy responses, their more unassuming
and less pretentious nature, their acceptance of diverse
viewpoints, less constraint by traditional trappings ofleadership, more acceptance of the science underlying the
pandemic and their more hands-on leadership styles.20
Gender-sensitive governance involves both the substantive
representation of women in decision-making at all levelsof government and an enhanced understanding of genderspecific needs within governance structures because
women are severely underrepresented in local political149

leadership. In a study of 127 cities, only 40 to 50 had
women in their political leadership, occupying 13 per centof the positions.21 The Beijing Declaration and Platform
for Action recommends that women should occupy notless than 30 per cent of political positions at each level ofgovernment. In the European Union, 52 per cent of the
population are women, but only 15 per cent of the mayors
are women.22 However, Rwanda has taken inclusion of
women in the political space a notch higher, as womenaccount for 61 per cent of the national legislature—far
more than any country in the world.23
Gender-sensitive governance can be achieved by reducing
gaps in policy and service provision that disproportionately
affect women and recognizing their unique contribution
in the formation of urban policies and programmes.
This recognition involves the meaningful interactionof government representatives with grassroots women’s
movements and civil society groups that actively advocate
for women’s issues and gender equality. Strategies to give
women a greater voice and agency include:24
 collective action through unions, social justice
movements and the use of technology and social
media to enable women access to social, economic andpolitical resources; gender quotas at local, regional and national levels;
 well-resourced and strategically located governmental
bodies, such as parliamentary caucuses or bureaucratic
offices, dedicated to the advancement of women’sinterests;
 political literacy training for women;
 increased financial resources and support for womenrunning for public offices; andGender-sensitive governance can beachieved by reducing gaps in policy andservice provision that disproportionately
affect women and recognizing theirunique contribution in the formation ofurban policies and programmes

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin improved social support such as childcare and parental
leave benefits.

Box 5.1: Gender mainstreaming in Vienna

Given that men and women experience cities and public
spaces differently due to their gendered social rules, norms
and culture, urban planning must consider their uniqueneeds. Under-representation or exclusion of womenin urban decision-making processes across all levels ofgovernment has profound implications for women in cities
in terms of mobility, safety and access to educational andemployment opportunities. In response to this exclusion,
women create their own alternatives to male-dominatedsystems. For example, gender-exclusive transportation
services with women drivers or all-women passengers offer
rides to women who are willing to pay for a safer service.
Such services exist in El Salvador (Linea Rosa), New York
City (SheTaxi, She Rides), Cairo (PinkTaxi) and Kerala(SheTaxi), among other cities.25

Vienna is an exemplar of gender mainstreaming in urban
planning. The city has one of the longest legacies of gendersensitive planning. It opened the municipal Women’s Officein 1992 and began gender mainstreaming—the practiceof ensuring women and men are accounted for equally inpolicy, legislation and resource allocation—in 2000.

Given that men and women experiencecities and public spaces differently due
to their gendered social rules, norms andculture, urban planning must consider
their unique needs

Today gender mainstreaming principles are enshrined in policy,
with sanctions for those who do not comply. Gender-sensitive
budgeting, which was introduced in 2005, requires eachdepartment to report twice a year on how their expenditure has
benefited men and women equally. New housing projects mustmeet gender sensitivity criteria to be subsidized. It is now fairly
common practice in Vienna to approach city living through agender lens. In 2008, UN-Habitat recognized Vienna’s urban
planning strategy as a best practice.

On a larger scale, various governments are partneringwith United Nations Women Friendly Cities programme
to develop urban areas where everybody, especiallywomen, can equally enjoy the economic, social andpolitical opportunities offered by the city. In thesecities, women have access to health, education and social
services; employment opportunities; high quality andcomprehensive urban services (such as transportation,accommodation and security); and mechanisms that will
guarantee their rights in the event they are subjected
to violence.26 Participating cities develop local equality
action plans with a participatory approach and they
serve as roadmaps in the areas of education, health,employment, participation in management mechanisms,
violence against women and urban services. They
are guided by the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women and other national plans and international
conventions.27

Gender is integrated into the city’s strategies and all public
space designed and built by the city is done so with genderin mind. The outcome is an urban landscape that benefits
everyone: parks are lit effectively to provide safety andaccess; social housing is architecturally designed withflexibility for different family situations; pavements arewider for parents and the elderly; street crossings are
longer; and pedestrians are prioritized.

Other cities are now looking to follow in Vienna’s example, with
Berlin, Barcelona and Copenhagen all incorporating gendermainstreaming into their urban design efforts. As a trendsetter,
the City of Vienna is keen to share its experience with other
cities across the world and has published two guides, “Gender
Mainstreaming Made Easy” and “Gender Mainstreaming in
Urban Planning and Development.” They provide practical tools
and tips, including gender-sensitive language, data collection
and advice on how to avoid gender-mainstreaming becominga catch-all buzzword. The latter guide focuses explicitly on
how to achieve gender mainstreaming in an era of austerity
and limited resources. Vienna officials believe that gendersensitive planning is more efficient because it can better target
resources for those in need.
Source: URBACT Knowledge Hub, 2019; Hunt, 2019.

150

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Several local governments in Europe have implemented afeminist approach to urban planning. In the Spanish cities
of Girona, Gavà and Donosti, a gender perspective informs
public spaces and housing projects, which has resulted inbetter lighting in common spaces and improved spaces forpedestrians.28 Gender equality in cities is also driven by
grassroots organizations, as some cities are being transformed
into spaces of inclusion due to the efforts of community
organizations and committed citizens. Vienna is a beacon ofbest practices in gender-sensitive urban planning (Box 5.1).
5.2.3. Children and youth

Children and youth account for about 40 per cent of theworld’s population.29 Of the 4.2 billion people currently
living in urban areas, about one-third of them are children
under the age of 18; by 2050, it is estimated that 70 per
cent of the world’s children will live in urban areas.30
Many of these children, especially in the developed
world, enjoy the advantages of urban life, including
access to educational, medical and recreational facilities.
Conversely, many in developing regions are denied such
essentials; forced into dangerous, exploitative work; andUrban planning often overlooks the
specific needs of children because ofoutmoded thinking that children are
not capable of contributing to urban
development
face the constant threat of eviction, even in substandard
housing. Children account for between 22–55 per cent of
the nearly 2.5 million people who are trafficked annually.
Around the world, an estimated 215 million boys and girls
aged 5–17 were engaged in child labour and 115 million ofthem in hazardous work.31
Urban planning often overlooks the specific needs ofchildren because of outmoded thinking that children are
not capable of contributing to urban development.32 The
neglect of the needs of children is clearly demonstrated
in the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in school
closure and significant restrictions on their outdoor
activities and socialization even as adult activities like bars
and restaurants have been allowed to reopen. UNICEF

Children's playground, Helsingborg, Sweden. © Art of line/Shutterstock

151

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behinshows that the mental health and psychosocial impactof restricted movement, school closures and subsequentisolation are likely to intensify already high levels of stress,
especially for vulnerable youth.33

Given that the built environment offers opportunities
where cities can commit to the respect of children’s rights,
urban planning can be deployed to create thriving andequitable cities where children live and play in healthy, safe,Box 5.2: Children’s rights and urban planning principles
By adopting ten children’s rights and urban planning principles, cities will not only support children’s development but also thrive as
homes for future generations. All cities should commit to:
Principle 1: Investments – Respect children’s rights and invest in child-responsive urban planning that ensures a safe and clean
environment for children and involves children’s participation in area-based interventions; stakeholder engagement and evidencebased decision-making; and securing children’s health, safety, citizenship, environmental sustainability and prosperity, from earlychildhood to adolescence.
Principle 2: Housing and Land Tenure – Provide affordable and adequate housing and secure land tenure for children and thecommunity, where they feel safe and secure to live, sleep, play and learn.
Principle 3: Public Amenities – Provide infrastructure for health, educational and social services for children and the community,
where they have access to the tools necessary to thrive and develop life skills.
Principle 4: Public Spaces – Provide safe and inclusive public and green spaces for children and the community, where they canmeet and engage in outdoor activities.
Principle 5: Transportation Systems – Develop active transportation and public transit systems and ensure independent mobility forchildren and the community, so they have equal and safe access to all services and opportunities in their city.
Principle 6: Integrated Water and Sanitation Management Systems – Develop safely managed water and sanitation services andensure an integrated urban water management system for children and the community, so they have adequate and equitable accessto safe and affordable water, sanitation and hygiene.
Principle 7: Food Systems – Develop a food system with farms, markets and vendors, so children and the community havepermanent access to healthy, affordable and sustainably produced food and nutrition.
Principle 8: Waste Cycle Systems – Develop a zero-waste system and ensure sustainable resource management so children and thecommunity can thrive in a safe and clean environment.
Principle 9: Energy Networks – Integrate clean energy networks and ensure reliable access to power, so children and the community
have access to all urban services day and night.
Principle 10: Data and ICT Networks – Integrate data and ICT networks and ensure digital connectivity for children and thecommunity to ensure universally accessible, affordable, safe and reliable information and communication.
Source: UNICEF, 2018.

152

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Many cities around the world aredesigning and retrofitting their cities tomeet the needs and priorities of children.
inclusive, green and prosperous communities.34 Many cities
around the world are designing and retrofitting their cities
to meet the needs and priorities of children. In Calgary(Canada), Antwerp (Netherlands), Ghent (Belgium) andRotterdam (Netherlands), planners are designing play into
the urban fabric, thereby expanding children’s recreational
opportunities.35 In Netherlands and Finland, where cycling
and walking to school are standard practice, streets andpublic spaces have been designed to enhance children’ssafety.36 In many African cities, up to 70 per cent of students
walk to school, often covering considerable distance, because
they have no other choice, yet similar design efforts likesidewalks and cycleways remain far less prevalent.37

Three senior women sitting on the bench. Santiago deCompostela, Spain. © Lina Balciunaite/Shutterstock153

The health benefits of cycling or walking to schoolsupports planning initiatives that deliver quality walking
and cycling routes as seen in successful programmes suchas the Belfast Healthy City (Northern Ireland) and theGreenways in East Los Angeles (US).38 Programmes thatcater to the specific needs of children in urban settingsalign with UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative,
which provides guidelines for good urban planning anddesign to ensure that children and young people can
exercise their right to the city (Box 5.2).
5.2.4. Ageing in cities

The global population is ageing, with the 65 and overcohort now the fastest growing age group (Chapter 1). As
an increasing proportion of the world’s population getsolder and moves to or remains in cities instead of retiring
to the countryside or returning to an ancestral village,
authorities will have to pay greater attention to the needs

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behinof older persons in urban design and planning. COVID19, which disproportionately impacts older persons, may
temporarily slow this trend.
The WHO developed the Age-friendly City initiative toencourage active ageing by optimizing opportunities forhealth, participation and security to enhance quality of life
as people grow older.39 In practical terms, an age-friendly
city adapts its structures and services to be accessible
to and inclusive of older people with varying needs andcapacities.40 The WHO age-friendly city consist of eight
entry points for cities to better adapt their structures andservices to the needs of older people: outdoor spaces andbuildings; transportation; housing; social participation;
respect and social inclusion; civic participation andemployment; communication and information; andcommunity support and health services (Figure 5.1). Morethan 700 cities in 39 countries participate in the WHO’s
Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities
to promote healthy, active ageing and improve the qualityof life for people aged 60 and over.41

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government
has adopted the principles of age-friendly cities by focusing
on a multi-dimensional approach that includes financial
assistance, medical care, community and residential support,
transport and mobility, housing and the built environment,
active ageing, more flexible employment and family-friendly
measures with local governments playing a key role.42 Hong
Kong’s challenges in creating an age-friendly city stemfrom home modifications in small high-rise apartments
and accessible mobility in a city where most people rely on
public transportation. Spain provides another example oflocal governments taking a proactive role in urban ageing.
Cities have adopted age-friendly cities policies with the goalof improving the physical and social environment of cities
in a way that will allow older people to live in dignity, enjoy
good health and continue to fully and actively participate insociety.43 In Indonesia, the government is improving mental
and physical health by promoting social activities, stressmanagement and early detection of cognitive decline or
related vascular or degenerative disorders in older adults.44
Addressing these concerns, especially social isolation and

Figure 5.1: Age-friendly city topic areas

Outdoorspaces andbuildings
Community
support and healthservices

Communicationand information

TransportationThe
age-friendly
city

Housing

Civic
participation andemployment

Socialparticipation
Respect
and social
inclusion
Source: World Health Organization, 2007.

154

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

for migrants. In Toronto, Los Angeles, Sydney, London,
Melbourne and New York, foreign-born residents represent
over one-third of the population. In Brussels and Dubai,
they significantly outnumber the local population (Figure5.2). International migration is increasingly transforming
urban areas into heterogenous, multi-ethnic, multiculturaland multilingual spaces (Chapter 1).

mental health, are particularly acute in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic, which has limited many older persons’opportunities for social interaction.
The megatrend of ageing has implications for thebuilt environment especially as it relates to housing,transportation, recreation and social services. These corecomponents of cities need to be adapted to the needs anincreasingly ageing population. Planning for an ageing
urban population requires innovation to address increased
demand for health care, recreation, transportation andother facilities.45 Planners in various contexts, especiallyin developing countries, will have to have to rethink basic
assumptions as they learn to integrate active elderly living
into the urban fabric.

There are currently 763 million internal migrants46 and272 million international migrants worldwide47 (Chapter1). In China, about one-tenth of the child population (27.3
million) has migrated internally along with their parents.
However, a significant number of children and youth also
move within countries on their own. An analysis of 12
countries found that one in five migrant children aged 12–14
and half of those aged 15–17 moved without a parent.48

5.2.5. Urban poor migrants

The constant migratory flow to cities, whether fromrural areas or through intranational and transnationalmigration, contributes significantly to urban population
growth with impacts on age distribution, since migrants
are usually young. Cities are the most desired destinations

Irregular and forced migration due to conflicts, climatechange, floods and famine reflects another face of
migration, which is more dramatic because of the greaternumber of refugees and displaced persons moving fromtheir homes to other regions within their countries or to

155

23

23

22

21

20

19

Montreal

Stockholm

Rotterdam

ChicagoMadridMilan

35
Melbourne

25

37
LondonParis

37
New York City

27

38
SingaporeFrankfurt

39
Sydney28

39
AucklandSource: IMO: Global Migration Data Analysis Centre.

Amsterdam

39
Los Angeles

TorontoBrussels

Dubai

46

67

83

Figure 5.2: Foreign-born population in some major cities

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Migrant workers journey back home during a nationwide lockdown to fight the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus. © Manoej Paateel/Shutterstock

other countries. Such is the case of the dramatic experienceof the tens of thousands of African migrants who brave theodds to cross deserts and the sea without any guarantee ofever being socially integrated into European host countries.
This trend is also the case of the migration between someviolent regions in Colombia, Venezuela, Central America
and Mexico, displacing people to neighbouring countries—
for example from Venezuela to Colombia, from Honduras
and El Salvador to Mexico or from Central America and
Mexico to the US.
International migrants often lack even the most basic civilrights in their host countries and face various forms of socialand economic exclusion, including from the democratic
process. Immigration is one of the most politically charged
debates in developed countries.49 A 2014 European Union
opinion survey revealed that immigration was the third mostfrequently mentioned political issue after unemployment
and economic conditions.50 Similarly, migration was adefining issue in the Brexit referendum on the withdrawal of
the UK from the European Union.
At the same time, some cities and local governments havebeen welcoming of refugees and immigrants.51 The German

International migrants often lack eventhe most basic civil rights in their hostcountries and face various forms ofsocial and economic exclusion, includingfrom the democratic process
cities of Munich, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and Freiburg haveestablished “welcome departments” within their city halls
to prepare for the arrival of refugees and immigrants. For
the shrinking cities of Europe, North America, Japan andthe Republic of Korea experiencing an ageing population,
low birth rates and deindustrialization, the arrival of
migrants is an opportunity to revive their fortunes.
If cities and local governments look beyond thehumanitarian emergency lens, they can see migrants as
integral to the socioeconomic development of their cities.
This perspective requires effective integration programmes
in the form of housing, employment, education and health,safety and security, social protection and according migrants
a sense of belonging.52 If integrated through inclusive
policies, migrants will not only ease skill shortages, but willserve as valuable contributors to the social and economic

156

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 5.3: Montréal: A city of immigration
One in two residents of Montréal was born abroad or has parents who were born abroad. Immigrants account for 33.2 per cent of
the population. The city’s residents are from 120 different countries of origin and speak 200 languages and dialects. Every year,
Montréal welcomes an average of 35,000 newcomers with permanent immigrant status and 68,000 with temporary status due to
Canada’s well-functioning national immigration policy. This equates to nearly 280 people arriving each day into the city.
Natural increase is declining, leading to the demographic challenge of an ageing population. Rising immigration is important tobalance demographics. Montréal has declared itself a “sanctuary city” to respond more effectively to the needs of residents without
legal status or with irregular immigration status. While legal immigration is the norm, illegal immigrants are on the rise primarily
because of US immigration policy.
The positive contribution of immigration to Montréal’s demographic, social and economic development is undeniable. However,
the municipal administration must cope with the challenges of integrating new citizens, adapting its services to respond to
the difficulties migrants face and reducing obstacles to their integration. These challenges include maintaining, financing andcoordinating services among various levels of government; institutionalizing measures to alleviate unfamiliarity with available
resources and services; and dealing with language-related specificities that can create situations of isolation and exclusion.
Housing: Nearly half of Montréal’s recipients of social assistance are born outside of Canada. Immigrant families face difficulties attimes in finding adequate and affordable housing.
Education: To welcome new arrivals, special classes and services in minority languages, among other amenities, are needed. Accessto education for children with an irregular immigration status is a major concern.
Employment opportunities: Some immigrant groups, especially those belonging to visible minorities, face difficulties in job
integration, even though many of them have an educational level equal to or greater than that of Montréal’s population. Common
problems include lack of recognition of achievements and jobs below their skill levels.
Integration and social cohesion: Montréal is recognized as an open and welcoming city with a rich and positively perceived diversity.
However, cohabitation by people of diverse cultures, socioeconomic conditions and religions often lead to misunderstandings andtensions within and between neighbourhoods. One of the city’s emerging (though marginal) issues is violent radicalization that
could be attributed to social precariousness, family problems, discrimination, feelings of marginalization and exposure to extremist
ideologies. Integration in the workforce is also a challenge.
Montréal recognizes cultural diversity as an asset that enriches the city’s sense of living. Understanding the value of cultural
diversity is one of the basic premises of Montréal’s social compact, enabling the city to innovate continuously through its approachand programmes. The city believes that immigrant integration rests on the principle of co-responsibilities shared by immigrants
themselves and the host society, which has proven to be a positive and empowering approach.
Critical factors contributing to the success of its initiatives include many complementary services that facilitate the welcome
and integration of newcomers (i.e. support from the first stage of their establishment to help with finding housing and assistancewith job searching, among others), as well as joint consultation and coordination. Also, tailor-made services and appropriate
communication are essential, as the need for services can differ depending on a person’s immigration status. Moreover, it is notalways simple for these new citizens to sift through the variety of municipal services.
Source: World Economic Forum, 2017.

157

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

If integrated throughinclusive policies, migrants
will not only ease skill
shortages, but will serve
as valuable contributors to
the social and economic
development of their hostcommunities

development of their host communities. For instance, overthe last one and half decades, immigrants have accounted
for 47 per cent of the increase in the workforce in the US
and 70 per cent in Europe.53 Employed migrants contribute
more to taxes and social contributions than they receive inindividual benefits, with the exception being where there
is a larger share of older migrants.
The absence of effective integration and social cohesion
policies can lead to the formation of segregated andmarginalized communities, which could serve as breeding
grounds for frustration, disenchantment, vulnerability andeven radicalization.54 The policies for integrating migrants
differ considerably. They range from benign policy
approaches that empathize with migrants to outrightbrutality on the part of law enforcement agencies. Since
1989, Montréal, Canada, has established a policy framework
to respond to migration and integration-related challenges
in a welcoming fashion (Box 5.3).55
Migrant workers are among the most affected by thecoronavirus pandemic. The lockdowns designed to halt the
spread of COVID-19 have led to massive loss of jobs all over
the world with migrants being highly vulnerable (Chapters1, 3). This trend will no doubt affect some of the 164 million
migrant workers worldwide56 for whom returning home
can mean falling back into poverty. In the Gulf countries,
tens of thousands of migrant workers in the construction,
hospitality, retail and transport sectors have lost their jobs
and have been forced to return home (Chapter 1).

The lockdowns designed to halt the
spread of COVID-19 have led to massive
loss of jobs all over the world with
migrants being highly vulnerable

The loss of employment will affect the ability of migrants tomake remittances to their home countries. Many developing
countries will be hard hit as remittances are predicted to fallby 20 per cent from US$551 billion in 201957 to US$445 billion
in 202058 on account of the economic downturn associatedwith COVID-19. The top remittance-recipient countries in2019 were India, China, Mexico, Philippines, Egypt, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Ukraine. They received
a total of US$350 billion or 63.5 per cent of all remittances
in developing countries.59 A decline in remittances would
have major implications for urban areas, given their role inpoverty reduction, housing finance, education and healthcare to improve family members’ quality of life.

5.3: Pursuing Equity through Sustainable
Urbanization
Urban development presents an opportunity to move fromequality to equity and remove the systemic barriers thatprevent vulnerable individuals and groups from realizing
the benefits of the social value of urbanization (Figure5.3). Inherent in the notion of social value is the belief
that urban spaces should not perpetuate inequality or
allow for the appropriation of the benefits associated withurbanization by certain groups to the exclusion of others.
In such situations, existing structures and institutions are
skewed in favour of dominant groups in society, who may
legally or otherwise maximize these for their own benefits
not by chance but by design and perpetuate the extant
conditions that favour them.60

Urban development presents anopportunity to move from equality toequity and remove the systemic barriers
that prevent vulnerable individuals andgroups from realizing the benefits of thesocial value of urbanization
The concept of equity recognizes that redistributive
mechanisms are put in place for a fair and more efficientuse of resources, skills and opportunities to target themost vulnerable with the highest levels of support. The
drive for equity also involves enhancing socioeconomic
equality and providing for universal civic participation in
the social, political and cultural spheres.61 For the social
158

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The three roles of culture (represented in orange) in sustainable development (the three circles represent the three pillars). Culture added as a fourth pillar (left diagram),
culture mediating between the three pillars (central diagram) and culture as the foundation for sustainable development. The arrows indicate the ever changing
dynamics of culture and sustainable development (right diagram)

Figure 5.3: Equality versus equity

EQUALITY VERSUS EQUITY

In the ﬁrst image, it is assumed
that everyone will beneﬁt from thesame supports. They are being
treated equally.

In the second image, individuals are
given different supports to make itpossible for them to have equal
access to the game. They are being
treated equitably.

In the third image, all three can see
the game without any supports or
accommodations because thecause of the inequity wasaddressed. The systemic barrierhas been removed.

Source: City for All Women Initiative, 2015, p.17.

159

35
Namibia

23

27

28

37
Montenegro

Viet Nam

Uruguay

UkraineSwaziland

Peru

Ghana

Georgia

EcuadorCambodia

Cambodia

Burkina Faso

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Armenia

39

38

37

39

23

39

46

83

25

67

value of sustainable urbanization to be fully realized,
inequality because they lack the sound institutions that are
identifying Distribution
and addressing
therootcausesofexclusion
for achieving
cities.
of cultural infrastructures relative to the distribution crucialof population
immediatelymore
below equitablestate level, 2011-2017
and inequity are critical.
These institutions provide the superstructure that enables
underlying factors to operate and deliver maximum benefits
5.3.1. Addressing urban inequity and inequality
for a majority of the population. Institutional inadequacies
For social value to be fully harnessed, urban mechanisms
take the form of weak legal and institutional frameworks,
must necessarily address issues of inequity and inequality.
disregard for the rule of law, poor enforcement of property
In most urban contexts, however, emphasis on economic
rights, excessive bureaucracy and proliferation of corrupt
growth has led to wealth concentration and an increasepractices, among others, all of which are incompatible within urban poverty and inequality in both developed andthe notion of equitable cities.
developing countries. High levels of inequality andexclusion from the decision-making sphere negatively
The growing inequality gap between developing andimpact social cohesion and the quality of institutions
developed countries goes beyond differences in income,and policies, which slows progress on human and social
wealth, access to education, health, employment, credit,
development.62 In addition, many cities are not preparednatural resources and the quality of life. For many of thefor the multidimensional challenges associated with urban
poor, their birthplace and gender increase the odds againstthem simply because of where they were born.63 Inequality is
The growing inequality gap between
multidimensional in how it is reflected within cities, wheredeveloping and developed countries goes
there is social and spatial exclusion as well as discrimination
beyond differences in income, wealth,due to race, gender, group identity, age and other factors.
access to education, health, employment,
In majority-white multi-ethnic societies, Afro-descended
credit, natural resources and the quality
people face particularly acute discrimination, especiallyof life.
in how they are policed by state security forces. That

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Box 5.4: Black Lives Matter sparks a global
urban social movement following the killing of
George Floyd in Minneapolis (US)On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police officers
arrested George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, after
a convenience store employee called 911 and told
the police that Mr. Floyd had bought cigarettes witha counterfeit US$20 bill. Seventeen minutes after the
first squad car arrived at the scene, Mr. Floyd was
unconscious and pinned beneath three police officers,
showing no signs of life.
Floyd’s death sparked protests in nearly 550 placesacross the US and over 60 countries against racism
and police brutality. Some 15 to 26 million people in the
United States participated in demonstrations in June
2020. These figures would make the recent protests thelargest movement in the country’s history.
The protests raised awareness about inequality, social
exclusion and racial bias in many facets of society. Urban
planners, designers, and architects called attention to theneed for “design justice,” or the principle that for nearly
every injustice in the world, there is an architecture thathas been planned and designed to perpetuate it. Design
justice seeks to dismantle the privilege and power
structures that use architecture as a tool of oppression
and sees it as an opportunity to envision radicallyjust spaces centred on the liberation of disinheritedcommunities.
That built-in oppression takes many forms. It is in theplanning decisions that target non-white communities
for highway projects and “urban renewal” schemes
conceived to steer economic benefits away from existing
residents. It is in a design philosophy that turned
neighbourhoods into mazes of “defensible space” that
often criminalize blackness under the guise of safety.
And it is in the proliferation of public spaces that often
fail to let certain cultural communities congregate
without fear of harassment.
Source: Hill et al, 2020; Buchanan et al, 2020; Lee Jr, 2020.

longstanding issue came to a head in June 2020 following thekilling of a black man in Minneapolis, US (Box 5.4).
The level of income inequality in cities as reflected bytheir Gini coefficients varies across regions of the world(Chapter 1). European cities have the lowest levels of
inequality among developed countries, while cities inNorth America especially the US have the highest levels
of inequality. Among developing countries, Asian cities
generally have the lowest levels of inequality; in some cases,
comparable to European cities. However, several Chinese
cities are beginning to experience widening inequality
brought about by internal migration and the lack ofadequate safety nets for migrants. Latin American and
African cities have the highest levels of inequality. Overthe last decade, income inequality in some Latin American
cities has been declining due to social programmes that
address income and socio-spatial inequality like informal
settlements, economic informality, urban violence and themarginalization of women. Levels of inequality are higher
in large cities than in small cities and more pronounced at
the urban than national level (Chapter 1). The COVID-19
pandemic is exposing and exacerbating existing inequalities
in urban areas along several dimensions (Box 5.5).
Inequality in urban areas is undermining the social valueof urbanization. A more proactive approach is therefore
required to deal with urban inequality challenges and to
take advantage of the economic and social opportunities
offered by urbanization. Socially-oriented macroeconomic
policies are a prerequisite to progressive urban social
programmes; that is, if the value generated by urbanizationand public investments were more equitably distributed
among the most vulnerable social groups in urban settings,
there will be greater possibilities of increasing economic
prospects, boosting innovation, enhancing productivity
and above all addressing socio-spatial inequality.

Inequality in urban areas is undermining
the social value of urbanization
In seeking to achieve a more egalitarian society, it is
crucial to institute redistributive polices that serve tocounter market forces by giving priority to low-income
and underserved areas in the provision of urban services.

160

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 5.5: COVID-19: Reinforcing inequalities in urban areas
COVID-19 is reinforcing inequalities that characterize many urban areas. The lockdown and physical distancing measures havedisproportionately affected vulnerable low-income households, especially informal sector workers who must leave their homes
to earn a living. Working from home favours white-collar and high-income workers who have the necessary amenities. Similarly,
online schooling applies to well-off households, and not low-income families who attend schools in informal settlements or where
technologically enabled learning facilities are unlikely to be available.
The overcrowded nature of slums and informal settlements, which house up to 60 per cent of the population of some cities inpoorly serviced and precarious locations, means that self-isolation and physical distancing is at best illusory. It is not clear how canphysical distancing be maintained in Dharavi slum in Mumbai (India) that has a population density of 270,000 people per square
kilometre or in the world’s largest refugee camp, Cox’s Bazar (Bangladesh), with a population of about 3 million people.
Inadequate water, poor sanitation and hygiene in crowded slums, refugee camps and migrant workers’ hostels means that
handwashing as a preventive measure against the spread of the novel coronavirus is a major challenge. In 2017, 3 billion people
globally had no handwashing facility at home, 1.6 billion had limited facilities without soap or water and 1.4 billion had no facility atall. In the least developed countries, close to three-quarters of the population lacked handwashing facilities with soap and water.
Older persons and minority groups are at a higher risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19. In China, those aged 60 years andover accounted for 81 per cent of all COVID-19 deaths. A similar pattern appears in the US, where 80 per cent of COVID-19 deaths
occurred among adults aged over 65 years. In Italy, 83.4 per cent of deaths were those over 70 years old. The propensity of older
persons to die from COVID-19 has led to the prioritization of health care for younger people, thus reinforcing negative stereotypes
that could have the effects of stigmatizing and discriminating against the elderly.
Ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In the US, African-Americans account for up to one third ofcoronavirus deaths but constitute 14 per cent the population. In Chicago, African-Americans account for 72 per cent of COVID-19
deaths but make up only 30 per cent of the population. In New York City, Black and Latino residents were twice as likely to die ascompared to white or Asian residents. These differences in part reflect underlying inequality in access to economic opportunities,
health care, poverty, pre-existing medical conditions and employment service jobs deemed essential during lockdown, all of whichmake African-Americans highly vulnerable to COVID-19.
Source: Extracted from Chapter 1.

In seeking to achieve a more egalitariansociety, it is crucial to instituteredistributive polices that serve tocounter market forces by giving priority
to low-income and underserved areas in
the provision of urban services
The provision of infrastructure and social services inpoor neighbourhoods will reduce inequality and enhancesocial value, cohesion and inclusion. In cities of developed

161

countries, a key issue to be addressed are manifestationsof the various forms of exclusion and marginalization that
migrants and other minority groups face, many of whichhave been worsened by the impacts of COVID-19 (Box 5.5).
A system that leaves one no and no place behind and creates
equal opportunities for all recognizes that economic growthalone will not reduce inequality. Governments in Latin
America use redistributive policies to bring significant
improvements to the living standards of the urban poor
through massive investment in health and education. A

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

A system that leaves one no and no placebehind and creates equal opportunities
for all recognizes that economic growthalone will not reduce inequality
classic example is the Bolsa Família (Family Stipend) in
Brazil that supports millions of poor beneficiaries, mostof them living in urban areas, through transfers which
are made conditional on requirements such as school
attendance, visits to clinics, periodic immunization,
prenatal check-ups for pregnant women and remedial
education for children and those at risk of being drawn
into child labour. By 2015, Bolsa Família accounted for
12–21 per cent of the recent sharp decline in inequality andreduced the proportion of Brazilians living below poverty
by 7 million from 13 to 3 per cent.64
Creating inclusion for the benefits of urbanization requires
the removal of the systemic barriers that impede access togoods, services and opportunities, as the European Unionis pursuing through initiatives such as Cities Against Social
Exclusion. This programme demonstrates the concerted
efforts by cities and regions to develop effective policies
to counteract social segregation, identify good practices
and develop innovative solutions for fostering social
inclusion.65 Stockholm is working to remove barriers to fullcivic engagement for women, youth, the homeless, older
persons and the disabled.66 Vienna is developing an action
plan that entails non-discrimination at all levels while
improving political and social participation of all minority
groups, including migrants, and monitoring social diversity
and integration with measurable indicators.

poverty.69 This trend is due in part to the influx of poor rural
migrants and the inability of city authorities to adequately
respond to their multiple needs.

It is estimated that one-third of all urban
residents are poor, which represents onequarter of the world’s total poor with the
majority residing in small cities and towns
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest incidence of urban
poverty globally with about 23 per cent of the urban
population living below the international poverty line and29 per cent experiencing multidimensional poverty (Table
5.1). In Kenya, while rural poverty declined remarkably
from 51 per cent in 2005–2006 to 39 per cent in 2015–2016, urban poverty declined only marginally from 32 to
29 per cent, but increased in absolute numbers from 2.3
million to 3.8 million.70 The increase is attributed to highpopulation growth, increased cost of living due to highhousing, transportation and high food prices, as well as
scare employment opportunities, all of which significantly
reduced disposable income for urban households.

5.3.2. Eradicating poverty in cities

It is estimated that one-third of all urban residents are poor,
which represents one-quarter of the world’s total poor withthe majority residing in small cities and towns.67 The rate of
growth of the world’s urban poor is greater than that the rateof growth of the world’s urban population.68 This fact implies
that the urban share of poverty increases with the increasing
pace of urbanization, resulting in a greater concentrationof poverty in urban areas. The absolute increase in extreme
poverty in Africa has implications for poverty in its urban
areas given the rapid pace of urbanization. Urban poverty
in many African countries is increasing faster than national

A woman fetches water. Satkhira, Bangladesh. © UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

162

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table 5.1: People living in monetary or multidimensional poverty, 2013
RegionMonetary headcount ratio (%)

Multidimensional headcount ratio (%)

Numberof economies

Population
coverage (%)

Urban

Rural

Rural shareof the poor

Urban

Rural

Rural shareof the poor

East Asia and the Pacific

3.9

6.5

67.8

4.2

10.2

75.5

13

28.9

Europe and Central Asia

0.2

0.5

52.7

0.8

1.8

52.2

17

90.0

Latin America and the Caribbean

1.9

11.2

61.0

2.5

19.9

68.2

17

91.5

Middle East and North Africa

0.9

6.4

84.8

1.9

11.5

83.2

9

72.1

South Asia

3.9

15.2

90.3

10.5

33.3

88.4

5

23.0

Sub-Saharan Africa

22.6

55.9

83.4

28.8

81.8

85.2

29

60.7

Rest of the World

0.4

0.6

30.7

0.4

0.6

30.7

29

39.6

Total

4.1

21.0

81.3

5.6

33.6

83.5

119

45.0

Notes: Estimates based on the harmonized household surveys in 119 economies
Source: World Bank, 2018b, p.113.

The incidence of poverty will be worsened by thedeleterious impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chapter1). Residents of urban areas in India, Nigeria, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Bangladesh, which
account for half of the world’s 736 million people living in
extreme poverty, are likely to fall further into the poverty
trap. Even in relatively well-off regions—East Asia, thePacific, Middle East, North Africa, Latin America andthe Caribbean—millions are expected to enter poverty
on account of COVID-19. In Latin America, 28 million
people are expected to fall into poverty, with women being
overrepresented due to the decline in economic activity
precipitated by COVID-19.71 The portended increase inpoverty will have adverse ramifications for achieving SDG
1 of ending poverty in all its forms everywhere by 2030.
The interlocking nature of this goal means that failingto achieve SDG 1 will negatively impact other goals likehunger and improved nutrition (SDG 2); healthy living(SDG 3); and inclusive and equitable education (SDG 4).
Urban areas offer significant opportunities to generate
prosperity, which in turn can be leveraged to eradicate
poverty. Generally, higher levels of urbanization areassociated with lower levels of poverty. When wellplanned and managed, cities can be “real poverty fighters,”
if adequate policies are implemented.72 Realizing thepoverty eradication gains of urbanization will, however,depend on how well urban growth is planned and163

Urban areas offer significant
opportunities to generate prosperity,
which in turn can be leveraged toeradicate poverty
managed, and the extent to which the benefits accruing
from urbanization are equitably distributed. Formulating
the necessary policies and enabling institutions andorganizational change is crucial in eradicating poverty.
As developing countries rapidly urbanize, it is importantthat the necessary investments are made to respond to
the increase in population. Managing urbanization should
therefore be an essential component of nurturing growthand eradicating poverty.
No city can harness the social value of urbanization
when large segments of its population live in extreme
poverty. There are several ways by which the social valueof urban areas can be enhanced to eradicate poverty,
including through the provision of affordable housing,access to land and finance, employment opportunities, afacilitating environment for entrepreneurship and basic

No city can harness the social value of
urbanization when large segments of its
population live in extreme poverty

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

infrastructure. Access to a wide range of good and services,like education, health and recreation, enable citizens toattain their full potential by developing their intellectual
capacity and ability to lead full, productive and fulfilling
lives. Harnessing the social value of urbanization entails
promoting gender equality and protecting the rightsof minority and vulnerable groups, as well as ensuring
widespread civic participation in the social, political andcultural spheres. The failure of cities to fully integrate
excluded groups into their decision-making process createsand reinforces poverty.
Planned urbanization has helped millions escape poverty
through higher levels of productivity, employment
opportunities and improved quality of life via better
education and health, large-scale public investment

Box 5.6: Eradicating poverty through improved water supply and sanitation in Surkhandarya province
In the early 2000s, Surkhandarya province in Uzbekistan experienced challenges with water supply and sanitation. Deteriorated,
outdated and leaking infrastructure, power outages and lack of revenue hindered better service. Improving the health andliving conditions of the people by providing access to safe and reliable water supply and improved sanitation was therefore thegovernment’s top priority. While its water and sanitation coverage was relatively high, households in urban areas were supplied withwater for only 6 to 16 hours a day, and those in rural areas for between 2 and 10 hours a day.
It was against this this backdrop that the Surkhandarya Water Supply and Sanitation Project was approved by the Asian Development
Bank in 2009. The goal of the project was to improve living standards, environment and public health in the urban areas of Surkhandarya
province by providing safe, reliable, inclusive and sustainable water and basic services, as well as improving community hygiene for
340,000 people living in the seven districts of Kizirik, Angor, Muzrabad, Shurchi, Kumkurgan, Jarkurgan, Sariasiya and Termez City.
The Asian Development Bank prepared a sector strategy, road map and investment plan up to 2020; the authorities rehabilitatedand constructed water supply systems, strengthened the capacity of the vodokanals (operating arm of water supply and sanitation
agency) and developed a commercial approach to customer services. The province adopted three strategies to address the specificneeds of the poor, which accounted for 32 per cent of the 2014 population. First, the project covered connection fees, thus eliminatinga significant barrier to access by the poor. Second, the vodokanal installed mandatory meters that were to be repaid over three years.
Finally, the partners built socially inclusive processes into the project to ensure that everyone benefited equally.
The rehabilitation and provision of water supply resulted in significant savings in the purchase of water, which previously consumed
about 30 per cent of household monthly income. Access to a water supply system improved the quality of people’s lives in small- andmedium-sized cities in Surkhandarya province. About 367,000 residents were provided with safe, reliable and inclusive piped water,
with the main beneficiaries being 3,079 low-income families, of which 47 per cent were women-headed households. This projectprovided equitable access to safe and reliable water supply for urban and poor rural communities and vulnerable groups. It also
increased the time for other more productive and enjoyable activities, improved health and reduced health care expenses for the poor.
The project provided safe drinking water, ventilated pit latrines and septic tanks in 17 public schools in the seven districts, as wellas improved sanitation and promoted positive hygiene behaviour among schoolchildren to prevent communicable diseases. It is
anticipated that 90 per cent of the population will be provided with safe and reliable water over 20 hours a day by the end 2020, if anuninterrupted electricity supply is ensured. As of March 2015, water supply varied from 15–22 hours per day as compared to 2–6
hours before the project implementation.
Source: Asian Development Bank, 2019.

164

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Bijoy Sarani Railway Slum, Bangladesh, Dhaka. ©
UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

165

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Planned urbanization has helped millions
escape poverty through higher levels of
productivity, employment opportunities
and improved quality of life via better
education and health, large-scale public
investment and access to improved
infrastructure and services
and access to improved infrastructure and services.73
Nowhere is this more evident than in East Asia, where
increases in urbanization over the last three decades havebeen accompanied by a remarkable decrease in poverty.
The provision of improved water supply and sanitation
played a key role in reducing poverty in the urban areas ofSurkhandarya Province in Uzbekistan (Box 5.6).
Where inclusive social and economic institutions andpolicies undergird the development process, urbanizationand poverty reduction tend to be closely related.
However, the direction of causality is neither simple nor
unidirectional because of the impact of other intervening
factors such as economic growth, pro-poor policies
and the extent to which the benefits and opportunities
associated with urbanization are equitably distributed.74
Furthermore, planned urban growth is essential for
eradicating rural poverty, since sustainable urbanization
creates prosperity for both rural and urban populations.75
Indeed, cities are also the engines of rural development,
as they offer rural dwellers better access to information,jobs and services.
Sustained economic growth is a necessary but not the only
condition for eradicating poverty. The main challenge is not
so much to increase growth, but to ensure that the benefitsof economic growth reach all segments of the population.76
Rising levels of poverty in the face of economic growth as
seen in many countries is a clear indication that the benefitsof economic growth are not always evenly distributed andthat growth does not automatically translate into ending
poverty. A major predicament is that policies designed

Sustained economic growth is anecessary but not the only condition for
eradicating poverty

to achieve economic growth—and thus the prosperity ofcities—do not necessarily result in improved economic andsocial opportunities for the poor and could indeed worsen
existing poverty even while improving the urban economy.
Policymakers will have to face important non-economicand equity considerations that must be balanced against
economic growth. A city that is not socially inclusive
or equitable is unlikely to harness the social value of
urbanization.

5.4. The Intangible Value of Sustainable
Urbanization
While cities offer numerous tangible values, they also offer
intangible ones (Chapter 2). This section examines various
elements of the intangible value of urbanization, including
sound institutions, effective governance systems and urban
culture—all of which facilitate a sense of belonging andcollective values among urban dwellers.
5.4.1. Effective institutions

Sustainable urbanization requires effective institutions
both of a formal (constitution, laws and regulations) andinformal nature (social norms, customs and traditions)capable of supporting policies and programmes thatenhance the social value of cities and make them
liveable for all. Effective institutions are indispensable
to the management and governance of any city. Sound
institutions and mechanisms that empower and include
urban stakeholders are crucial for generating value
through urbanization, as they provide the supportive
framework responsible for steering urban development
and enabling it to operate and deliver maximum benefits
to a majority of the population. All of these characteristics
are incompatible with sustainable urbanization. The most
relevant institutional changes affecting urban areas77 with
implication for the value of urbanization are:
 Gradual mainstreaming of the equity agenda by
local authorities in close collaboration with national
governments
 Adoption of activities and responsibilities beyond
traditional local government mandates such asprovision of health, education, or housing

166

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

 New urban configurations that will bring changes tothe size and form of institutions at urban, metropolitan
and regional scales Weaker local authority finances, especially insmaller cities, owing to undependable transfers fromfinancially strapped central governments
 Slow expansion in effective municipal tax bases, which
fail to keep up with demographic growth Lack of adequate coordination among national,
provincial and local authorities, hampering bothplanning and implementation of urban policies
 Inadequate or poorly enforced rules and regulations
governing urban management due to weak, inefficientinstitutions and poor civil society participation
UN-Habitat has shown with compelling evidence thatthe impact of ineffective and weak institutions onsustainable urbanization appears to be more pronounced
in African and Arab cities, where over 40 per cent ofurban experts cite institutional inadequacies as the
single most important impediment. This challenge is lessprevalent in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean as
indicated by 24 per cent and 27 per cent of the respective
urban experts. What this discrepancy implies is that cities
in Africa and Arab States need to do more to develop
effective institutions as a basis for enhancing the value of
urbanization. Indeed, in many developing countries, theinstitutions required for leveraging and distributing thebenefits associated with urbanization, if any, are poorly
developed. Sound institutions as called for in the NUA
determine the efficacy of urban policies and programmes
implemented by all levels of government, including nonstate actors.

In many developing countries, theinstitutions required for leveraging
and distributing the benefits
associated with urbanization, if
any, are poorly developed

167

Creating sound institutions requires effective collaboration
between public agencies and non-state actors. Citizenorganizations that find a collective value in the city mustalso take part by increasing their participation in politicaland social affairs. Working on socio-political agreements
among stakeholders and local governments could be astrong driver for better urban governance (Chapter 7). These
agreements require a coherent framework, based on leadingedge knowledge of effective, long-lasting urban governanceand supported by up-to-date technical knowledge andinformation. Further, discussions should be directed towards
building a long-term, integrated and participatory urban
vision based on mutual trust and collaboration.
As participatory agreements, they should be legallyformalized in urban plans and programmes, as well asin action-oriented social pacts or agreements to comply
with the socially agreed vision of the city. Some urban
experiences have led to more equitable and inclusive
processes in the distribution of urban facilities and thecreation of social capital through mutual collaboration
between city governments, stakeholders and social
actors as shown in Villa El Salvador (Peru), Barquisimeto(Venezuela) and Porto Alegre (Brazil).78 Overall, the active
participation of governmental institutions and social andcitizen organizations is critical to enhance the intangible
value of planned urbanization.
5.4.2. How cities and human settlements aregoverned

Local governments are key stakeholders in building
urban and metropolitan governance within a diversity ofpolitical and legislative structures, with varying executive
and legislative city responsibilities. Governance is a key
component of the intangible value of urbanization and is
crucial to providing, maintaining and restoring sustainable
and resilient services and social, institutional and economic
activity in cities and human settlements.79 Good governanceis a prerequisite for sustainable urbanization and poverty
eradication.80 Although it is commonly accepted that good
governance leads to improvements in service delivery,questions remain about how to achieve these ideals. In thisregard, the NUA provides a blueprint for achieving good
governance and its transformative commitments encourage
governments to take the necessary steps to strengthen
national, subnational and local institutions.

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Box 5.7: Citizen report card: A tool for urban governance
The Citizen Report Card (CRC) is a simple but powerful tool to provide public service agencies with useful feedback about thequality and adequacy of their services. It is a governance tool that can be used by citizen groups, service providers and policy
makers alike to gauge access to services, their quality, problems and hurdles.
The CRC also identifies the key constraints that users, especially the poor and the underserved, face in accessing public services
and the effectiveness of staff providing services. These insights help generate recommendations on sectoral policies, programme
strategies and management of service delivery to address these constraints and improve service delivery. It can be particularly
effective when respondents are asked to rate a wide range of providers, as this allows for relative rankings, which have been provento be an effective way of providing incentives for improvement.
The CRC was pioneered in Bangalore in 1994 and has since been replicated in other Indian cities such as Ahmedabad, Chennai,
Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune, as well as many cities in the developing world. In Mumbai, the civic NGO PRAJA used thereport card findings to jointly design and make operational a citizen charter on services with the City Municipal Corporation. In
addition, two cities in Ukraine and a social development project in the Philippines have prepared report cards based on this modelwith World Bank support. In the twin cities of Sekondi-Takoradi in Ghana, the Citizen’s Report Card used a new initiative to elicit
feedback on the delivery of water and electricity, which formed the basis for follow-up on complaints and to advocate for citizens’
priorities in service delivery.
In 2010, the Rwanda Governance Board introduced the CRC as an invaluable tool for the collection of feedback from citizens forthe purpose of ensuring improvement in the quality of service delivery. The 2018 CRC is designed to provide citizens satisfaction
as a core component of accountable governance. The Rwanda CRC gives feedback to service providers in 15 broad sectors, which
include infrastructure, land, private sector, hygiene, sanitation, social welfare, family issues, security and citizen participation.
The CRC findings have provided further impetus to ongoing efforts to improve service delivery. The finding that 20 per cent of
citizens had no dustbins near their houses compelled the Bangalore Municipal Corporation to address this aspect of solid waste
management. The report card stimulated Karnataka Electricity Board to undertake a survey on its own to obtain public feedback
about its services.
One significant issue that emerges from the CRC work is that a lack of information is a serious barrier that limits citizen access topublic services. This challenge has catalysed the agencies to introduce greater transparency in their operations and led to greaterinteraction between the service providers and citizen groups.
A progression in the influence of the CRC in Bangalore over the years can be seen, from limited impact (with dissemination of
feedback) to more impact (with dialogue and public pressure for change) to greater impact (with advice on reform). The skills,
resources and organization required to play all three roles will not always be available to civil society organizations. Nonetheless,independent civil society groups can play a useful role to provide such feedback which, in turn, can act as a stimulus to reforms.
Source: Administrative Staff College of India, 2008; Global Communities 2015; Citizen’s Rwanda Governance Board, 2018; UN-Habitat, undated.

168

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The prevailing situation is that many city governments,
especially in developing countries, are weak due to limited
power over key public services, including planning,
housing, roads, transit, water, land use, drainage, waste
management and building standards. Local governments
often lack the financial resources to make their cities andhuman settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable(Chapters 1, 8). When governance capacity is weak, cities
are constrained in their abilities to address the persistentand emerging challenges associated with urbanization.81
Sustainable, resilient, safe and inclusive cities are theoutcome of good governance that encompasses effective
leadership; integrated urban and territorial planning;jurisdictional and multilevel coordination; inclusive citizen
participation; and adequate financing. Strong leadership is
critical for overcoming fragmentation across departments,
various levels of government and investment sectors whenbuilding consensus and eliciting action on specific agendas.82
Integrated urban and territorial planning across broad urban
regions is vital for effective governance. Territorial and spatial
strategies are central in addressing the risks associated withclimate change and public health crises like the COVID-19
pandemic that transcend jurisdictions and require effective
and contextually appropriate response strategies. Multilevel
coordination is essential not only in areas such as land,transport, energy, emergency preparedness and related
fiscal and funding solutions, but in addressing poverty andsocial exclusion through innovative mechanisms of interterritorial solidarity.83

Sustainable, resilient, safe andinclusive cities are the outcome ofgood governance that encompasses
effective leadership; integrated urban
and territorial planning; jurisdictional andmultilevel coordination; inclusive citizen
participation; and adequate financing
The provision of sufficient, affordable and quality
basic services is considered a core function of urban
governments, which they deliver through a wide rangeof arrangements with the private sector and relevant
stakeholders. However, in many cities, delivery isconstrained by the challenges of coordination, governance,

169

finance and capacity, and further exacerbated by the paceand scale of urbanization. Over the years, urban dwellers
have been empowered to make their voices count byholding service providers accountable for the quality ofservices delivered (Box 5.7).
Given the wide range of actors participating at different
levels in decision-making, there is a need to foster networkbased rather than hierarchical governance.84 For instance,
the evolving roles of private and public actors, combinedwith new forms of political participation, facilitate atransformation of urban governance. In such contexts, theinstitutions and values that underpin them have played
an instrumental role in aligning and reconciling interestsand fostering shared paradigms of urban governance.
For example, the Citizens’ Agreement for an Inclusive
Barcelona is a strategy that articulates shared objectives
and actions between Barcelona’s City Hall and different
actors in the city, promoting co-production throughnetwork-based actions.85 The programme is the outcomeof a two-way interactive process that entails a top-down
process proposed by the municipal government intersectingwith a bottom-up process based on the effort and interestsof different organizations and social networks working
within the city’s social welfare system.86
5.4.3. Cultural diversity in urban areas

Culture is an intangible value for city development withtangible manifestations.87 Culture is the life blood ofurban areas and it addresses different forms of social
integration, which involves understanding the informal
and formal institutional structures of the past andthe present. As shown earlier, foreign-born residents
constitute a significant proportion of the population ofmany cities; thus, making these cities more heterogeneousand multicultural. People from different cultural, ethnic
and religious backgrounds now live together. The
cultural diversity of cities contributes to their vibrancy,
prosperity, inclusiveness, competitiveness, attractiveness,positive perception and overall development. Indeed,
the cultural diversity of cities is viewed as a social asset
that can be harnessed in various ways. Culturally diverse
cities feature more innovative workforces given that they
benefit from a wider range of international knowledge
links, idea generation, problem-solving and diverse
decision-making.88

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Cuban people are performing an African Dance in the Old Havana City,
Capital of Cuba. © EB Adventure Photography/Shutterstock170

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 5.8: An innovative entrepreneurial model for culture-based urban regeneration in Ségou, Mali
The former capital of the ancient Bambara kingdom from the mid-seventeenth century, Ségou lies along the Niger River, 240
kilometres from Bamako. Its urban heritage is characterized by vernacular Sudanese architecture in red terracotta and colonialbuildings. With an estimated population of 163,000 inhabitants, Ségou’s development indicators are low compared to the rest of thecountry, with approximately 65 per cent against 49 per cent nationwide. Yet, the city has an interesting development potential due toits outstanding urban heritage, cultural vitality, geographic location and economic base.
With a view to harnessing these assets, a group of local entrepreneurs working through the Foundation Festival on the Niger
launched the Festival sur le Niger in 2005. Each year, the festival gathers national and international artists and musicians andshowcases local cultural industries. With around 30,000 visitors per year on average, the festival has been a major catalyst for the
local economy, especially the arts, crafts and agricultural sectors. Over 150 local enterprises are involved, contributing to 140 directand 2,000 indirect jobs. The tourism sector has boomed, increasing ten-fold between 2005 and 2010, which has fostered the gradualupgrading of tourist infrastructure.
Through this dynamic, other culture-based initiatives have emerged, including the Kore Cultural Centre, a training centre dedicatedto cultural professions, and the Ndomo Centre, a production centre for traditional Bogolan weaving, targeting unemployedyouth. Two certifications were created through the SMARTS-Ségou programme which focused on locally-woven loincloths andcultural tourism. The city has recently initiated a project entitled Ségou, Creative City to develop an integrated municipal culturaldevelopment policy and a sustainable cultural development programme.
The project was conducted using an innovative entrepreneurial model. Although initiated by local entrepreneurs, it received
strong support from local authorities, which resulted in a formal public-private partnership, the Council for the Promotion of Local
Economy. The Council stands as a service for cooperation and the promotion of local enterprises, economic actors and local
authorities of the city. It also provides advisory consulting and training to local authorities and enterprises on its socio-economic
and cultural development programme. The model tapped into the Maaya process, an ethical concept grounded in Malian culture
based on the principles of serving and involving the community, building confidence and reinforcing relationships, mobilizing local
resources to foster autonomy and sustainability and ensuring coherence with local values.
Source: UNESCO, 2016.

Urban areas contain the cultural diversity, creative capital,
vitality, social infrastructure and career choices to help
attract the skills and talent required to generate and exploit
knowledge and build dynamic competitive advantage. New
migrants to cities create new opportunities, offer new skills,
bring fresh perspectives and generate new requirements
for institutional innovation.89 Many countries have longrecognized the importance of cultural diversity and haveinitiatives, policies and programmes aimed at enhancing
the diversity of their population.
While cities have always been melting pots, there arecertain features of contemporary cultural diversity that are

171

novel.90 First, cultural diversity in cities is both wider anddeeper than ever before. Second, it is far more affirmative
as minorities and immigrant groups demand equal rights,
access to urban opportunities and the right to participate
in decisions that affect their collective life. Third, the forcesof globalization, which drive international migratory
patterns, entail sustained flows of ideas, symbols andmeanings, which permanently link places of origin andpresent sites of domicile.
Cultural diversity has important implications for how
urban areas are planned and managed, and in the process
impinges on the value of urbanization. It is important toThe Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Cultural diversity has important
implications for how urban areas areplanned and managed, and in the process
impinges on the value of urbanization
seek the right balance between cultural groups seeking
to preserve their identity in cities and the need to avoid
extreme forms of segregation or even marginalization andurban fragmentation.91 There is the possibility that cultural
diversity could also make participatory processes aroundplanning issues more complex as different socio-culturalgroups have different expectations and needs.
Culture and sustainable urbanization

The NUA acknowledges the importance of culture andcultural diversity to the sustainable development of cities
and human settlements. The NUA further recognizes
that culture should play a pivotal role in the promotion
and implementation of new sustainable consumption andproduction patterns that contribute to the responsible useof resources.92 Culture features prominently in the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, as target 11.4 seeks“to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s
cultural and natural heritage.” Cities should therefore
celebrate and harness their cultural identity and integratethese cultural elements into development programmes andpolicies to contribute to sustainable urbanization.

The NUA acknowledges
the importance of culture
and cultural diversity to thesustainable developmentof cities and humansettlements
Many cities are increasingly placing culture at the heartof urban regeneration and renewal. This does not only
improve the physical environment, but also the nonphysical elements of urban space through creative meansthat advance the quality of place, thereby promoting
cultural infrastructure.93 A city’s cultural and historical
heritage can foster urban regeneration and catalyse thelocal economy (Box 5.8). This strategy has also been usedby cities experiencing industrial decline like Glasgow(UK), Liverpool (UK), Barcelona (Spain) and Bilbao(Spain), among others, to boost their economic fortunes
by promoting their identity as cultural centres often in
the form of an iconic museum, popular festivals and artsfocused higher education.94
Cultural elements are widely perceived to enhance theimage and attractiveness of the city.95 Assets such as
museums, heritage theatres, concert halls, opera houses
and galleries not only have symbolic benefits to the city’s
image, but they also serve as powerful magnets for creative
people by offering attractive lifestyle opportunities,
thereby boosting economic fortunes of cities.
Creative industries, which are inherently urban, are theintersection of culture, the arts, business and technology.
They can contribute to sustainable and inclusive prosperity(Chapter 1). Cities as diverse as Austin (music andtechnology), Berlin (visual arts), Mexico City (contemporary
art and television), Mumbai (film) and Seoul (gamingand digital media) have thriving creative industries thathave contributed remarkably to their respective urban
economies. For instance, Austin’s creative economy has
generated some 50,000 arts-related jobs spanning film,
television, gaming and other visual arts.96 In Mexico, theexport of creative goods and services generates over US$5
billion per annum, making the country the largest cultural
exporter in Latin America.97 Mumbai’s Bollywood is theworld’s largest concentration of film production, withsome 900 movies a year further spawning related creative
industries such as design, digital media, fashion, food andmusic.98 Given its pervasive influence, creative industries
are emerging as one of the most important dimensions of
new economies in regions around the world.99
With the spread of information and increased mobility,
cities are experiencing an upsurge in tourism. The naturallandscape and the built environment, with their intangible
traditional and contemporary assets, constitute a cultural
heritage that attracts tourists. Culture-driven urban
tourism is rapidly developing and generates spending andemployment, as well as various backward and forward
linkages that have the multiplier effect of creating
additional jobs to cater for visitors.

172

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Many of the top destination cities for tourists are known
for their cultural landmarks, creative industries andentertainment (Table 5.2). In 2018, Dubai recorded thehighest amount spent by international visitors globallywith a total of US$30.2 billion.100 Other cities whereinternational visitors spending is high are Bangkok(US$20 billion), Singapore (US$16.6 billion), London(US$16.5 billion) and Paris (US$14.1 billion). In terms of
employment, 1,000 additional tourists generate 409 jobs inBali, 105 jobs in Dubai, 87 jobs in Phuket, 16 jobs in New
York City, 15 jobs in London and 11 jobs in Paris.101 Thesefigures show that the employment generation of urban
tourism is higher in cities with lower labour costs. Cities indeveloping countries, where labour costs are generally low,
can use urban tourism to create employment opportunities,
especially for young people, which in turn will lift many
people out of poverty, although the COVID-19 pandemic
has temporarily curtailed the global tourism industry.
Culture can be used as a political instrument in pluralistic
societies to help define identities, with important
implications for inclusive planning.102 Cultural diversity
places new demands in terms of mediating between
conflicting lifestyles and expressions of culture. For instance,
conflicts around religious buildings, burial arrangements,
ritual animal slaughter and building aesthetics are issues
that are increasingly being addressed in urban areas.103 If notproperly managed, these cultural differences could trigger
anti-immigrant resentment, alienation and even violent
conflict.

The challenge facing many cities is how to meet theneeds of a contemporary city—improve infrastructure,eradicate poverty and promote economic growth—without
destroying or eroding its cultural heritage. Cities also face
the challenge of how to develop cultural heritage sites thatat the same time preserve them for the long term. Urban
regeneration and revitalization programmes should avoid
using blueprints that reflect the desires and aspirations ofminority elites or propose solutions that do not reflect theshared legacies of the majority. In order to take concrete
steps towards fostering social integration, building a senseof shared identity and nurturing community belonging,
there is a need for effective and meaningful participationof the local community and grassroots groups in planning,
policy formulation, implementation and monitoring.104
The preservation of cultural heritage plays an importantrole in creating and enhancing social value, with theability of inspiring and promoting citizen participationin public life, improving the well-being of individuals
and communities, contributing to the reduction of social
inequalities and fostering social inclusion.105

The preservation of cultural heritage plays animportant role in creating and enhancing social
value, with the ability of inspiring and promoting
citizen participation in public life, improving thewell-being of individuals and communities

Table 5.2: Top destination cities 2018
Rank

City

1

BangkokInternational visitors(million)

Rank

City

International visitors(million)

22.78

11

Seoul

11.25

2

Paris

19.10

12

Osaka

10.14

3

London19.09

13

Makkah

10.00

4

Dubai

15.93

14

Phuket9.89

5Singapore

14.67

15

Pattaya

9.44

6

Kuala Lumpur

13.79

16

Milan

9.10

7

New York

13.60

17

Barcelona

9.09

8Istanbul

13.40

18

Palma de Mallorca

8.96

9

Tokyo

12.93

19

Bali

8.26

10

Antalya

12.41

20

Hong Kong SAR

8.23

Source: Mastercard, 2019.

173

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Measuring the contribution of culture to sustainableurbanization

28

27

25

23

23

22

21

20

19

Frankfurt

Paris

Montreal

Stockholm

Rotterdam

ChicagoMadridMilan

Melbourne

London

New York City

Singapore

SydneyAucklandLos Angeles

TorontoBrussels

Dubai

The task of measuring the contributions of an tangible
value like culture to sustainable urban development has
generated several approaches.107 A comparative analysisof these approaches and alternatives is a good start, but
the real priority is for cities (or countries) to be able tomeasure their own cultural stocks and how these cancontribute to the trajectory of sustainable urbanization(Box 5.9). Further efforts along these lines will require
the localization of global efforts to measure and track the

Amsterdam

35

37

37

38

39

39

39

46

67

83

Cities have increasingly become strategic in assessing thevalue and contribution of culture to sustainable urban
development. Sustainable cities are also an entry point
for advocacy to promote the role of culture in sustainable
development. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the New
Urban Agenda represents a unique opportunity to reflect
on existing approaches to measuring the contribution ofculture to development and assess whether alternative
frameworks may be necessary. Culture and creativity
contribute directly to the three pillars of sustainable
development—economic, social and environmental—andat the same time, these three dimensions of sustainable
development contribute to the safeguarding of cultural
heritage and nurturing creativity (Figure 5.4).106

contribution of culture to sustainable development. At thesame time, the experience of development projects andinterventions have clearly demonstrated the importance of
local knowledge and community participation in achieving
sustainable urban development.108

A beautiful street art takes shape as a volunteer group of young girls work together
painting a store front to bring a new breath of life to the community area. Subang Jaya,
Malaysia. © SWEEANN/Shutterstock

Figure 5.4: Culture and sustainable development: Three models

Culture in sustainable development

Culture for sustainable development

Culture as sustainable development

The three roles of culture (represented in orange) in sustainable development (the three circles represent the three pillars). Culture added as a fourth pillar (left diagram),
culture mediating between the three pillars (central diagram) and culture as the foundation for sustainable development. The arrows indicate the ever changing
dynamics of culture and sustainable development (right diagram)
Source: Dessein et al, 2015.

EQUALITY VERSUS EQUITY174

EQUALITYVERSUS EQUITYWORLD CITIES REPORT2020

Box 5.9: Equity in distribution of and access to cultural resources within countries
Cultural infrastructure is crucial to create environments conducive to the emergence of dynamic cultural sectors and clusters, as they
can foster cultural, economic and social vitality alike. Without basic infrastructure, establishing viable cultural ventures is extremely
difficult. Hence, cultural infrastructure is essential if cultural assets are to work for development.
In the ﬁrst image, it is assumed

In the second image, individuals are

In the third image, all three can see

Cultural infrastructure
are often
distributed between urban and rural
areas,without
particularly
in developing
countries.
that everyoneand
will spaces
beneﬁt fromthe poorly
the gameany supportsorgiven different supports to make it
Results obtained
from 2011
toare
2017
in 15 countries
under
UNESCO’s
Culturefor
Development
Indicators
project
revealed
the skewed
same supports.
They
being
accommodations
becausethepossible for them to have equal
equally.cultural infrastructuresaccess
cause
of
the
inequitywasdistributiontreatedof selected
and facilities(museums,
exhibition
venuesdedicatedtoperforming
arts,
and
libraries
to the game. They are being
addressed. The systemic barrier
treatedequitably.
and media resource centres) relative to the distribution of the population in administrative divisions immediately below state levelhas been removed.
(standard deviation). On a scale from 0 to 1 (with 1 representing the situation in which cultural infrastructures are equally distributed
amongst regions according to the relative size of their population), the average score of the 15 countries was 0.46, ranging from 0.14
in Cambodia to 0.66 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Viet Nam.

35
Namibia

23

27

28
37
Montenegro

Viet Nam

Uruguay

UkraineSwaziland

Peru

Ghana

Georgia

EcuadorCambodia

Cambodia

Burkina Faso

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Armenia

39

38

37

39

23

39

46

83

25

67

Distribution of cultural infrastructures relative to the distribution of population immediately below state level, 2011-2017

To tackle this shared challenge and support regional equity in the distribution of cultural resources and infrastructures, countries
are implementing a range of measures. For instance, New Zealand will prioritize investment in both tangible and intangible cultural
infrastructure and research opportunities to augment public spending, review current funding models and strategic outcomes andoffer policy advice on the performance and financial strengths of key cultural and media agencies.
Other examples include Lithuania’s Regional Culture Development Programme; Cyprus’s construction of a multipurpose cultural
centre to assist the creation of sustainable communities in urban and rural areas; Georgia’s Supporting Dissemination of Culture in
the Regions programme that fosters cultural and social inclusion of people residing in the regions, promotes the cultural expressions
and cultural participation, and maintains and develops cultural sites, spaces and infrastructure; Latvia’s Regional Policy Guidelines
regarding investment in the development of infrastructure services; and Ecuador’s National Territorial Strategy that fosters social andterritorial equality, cohesion and integration.
Source: UNESCO, 2017.

175

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Mehrangarh Fort with Jodhpur city scape at sunset. A UNESCO World heritage site at Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. © Roop_Dey/Shutterstock

Culture will be instrumental in the shift to a moresustainable urban future. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development presents a broad view of culture that
includes cultural heritage, creative industries, cultural
products, creativity and innovation. Culture’s contribution
to sustainable development includes local communities,
economies, materials and cultural diversity. This perspective
demands that the contribution of culture to sustainable
development is viewed beyond the economic value it
generates, but instead encompasses ways to promote andmeasure social cohesion and cultural diversity. Indeed,
culture and innovation hold the key in terms of how cities
can contribute significantly to addressing global challenges
like climate change and biodiversity loss.109
There is a clear need to have accurate and timely cultural
data and metrics for development goals to be widely
achieved. Cities need effective systems with performancebased metrics that enable local authorities to make correct
decisions on the best policies to adopt. In a culturally diverse
urban setting, timely data is fundamental to understanding
patterns through visualization and measuring the economic
and social impact of culture in urban progress. Similarly,
making cities sustainable requires addressing knowledge

and innovation gaps, broadening participation acrossstakeholders and incentivizing behavioural and culturalchange at the individual, neighbourhood, corporate andcity levels. Therefore, a cultural data revolution may benecessary for future successful cities.

There is a clear need to have accurate
and timely cultural data and metrics fordevelopment goals to be widely achieved
The culture that exists in cities is as old as civilization
itself. While the size and economy of cities may ebb
and flow, the culture and connection to the land
and integration with natural ecosystems is relatively
permanent. Important insights can be gained fromthe contribution of culture and heritage to sustainable
development, if the necessary steps are taken to measure,track and understand the tangible and intangible stock of
culture in cities across the globe.
UNESCO and UN-Habitat, along with other partners,
have developed indicators that can effectively track thecontribution of culture to sustainable urbanization.110

176

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

These indicators cover four thematic areas: environmentand resilience; prosperity and livelihoods; knowledge andskills; and inclusion and participation. These indicators
are designed to assess the quantitative and qualitative
contributions of culture through adopted urban policies andpublic action that integrate culture in the implementationand monitoring of global agendas.
The underlying shifts around many urbanization
trajectories is the attraction to urban economic, cultural,social and educational opportunities, along with thequality of life that a city provides. While many of theseshifts are visible, they are not well assessed partly due tothe lack of cultural heritage or historical data. With thedrive to collect new cultural and heritage data with andby cities, greater insights will be provided on the role ofculture in driving sustainable urbanization in close to realtime and on a wide variety of issues.

5.5. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
PolicyWhen adequately harnessed, the social value of sustainableurbanization offers pathways to enhancing social inclusion,
reducing inequality and ending poverty in all its forms;
thereby, leaving no one and no place behind. No city canclaim to be equitable when large segments of its population
are excluded from the benefits of sustainable urbanization
or live in extreme poverty. By harnessing the social andintangible value of urbanization, cities can serve as anentry point in the Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs,
especially in terms of accelerating sustainable solutions foreradicating poverty and reducing inequality.

When adequately harnessed, the social
value of sustainable urbanization offers
pathways to enhancing social inclusion,
reducing inequality and ending poverty inall its forms; thereby, leaving no one andno place behind
The social value of urban areas can eradicate poverty
through the provision of affordable housing, access toland and finance, employment opportunities, a facilitating

177

To adequately harness the value of
urbanization, authorities must address
the threats to developing more egalitarian
citiesenvironment for entrepreneurship and basic infrastructure.
Access to a wide range of good and services like education,
health and recreation will enable citizens to attain theirfull potential by developing their intellectual capacity andability to lead full, productive and fulfilling lives.
Harnessing the social value of urbanization entails
promoting gender equality and ensuring that the rightto the city is secured for all, particularly vulnerable andmarginalized groups. It also requires guaranteeing equal
opportunities and access to urban resources, services andgoods while fostering effective citizen participation in
local policies with responsibility, enabling governments toensure just distribution of resources and acknowledging
cultural diversity as a source of social enrichment.
To adequately harness the value of urbanization, authorities
must address the threats to developing more egalitarian
cities that are due to inadequate planning, management
and governance; perverse distributive systems that benefit
the few rather than the many; systemic barriers that
impede access to goods, services and opportunities; weak
institutions incapable of redressing inequality and social
exclusion; inability to enforce the rule of law; inadequate
and unpredictable financing especially at the local
level; reduced municipal autonomy; poor coordination
between local governments and other tiers of government
and engagement with stakeholders; and a poor rate ofcommunity participation.
Harnessing the social value of urbanization requires
good governance that encompasses effective leadership;
integrated urban and territorial planning; jurisdictionaland multilevel coordination; inclusive citizen participation;adequate financing; and leveraging culture and cultural
diversity for sustainable urban development. It also requires
the joint and participatory effort of all levels of government,
the private sector, non-governmental organizations andcitizens supported by effective institutional framework
and policies as called for in the New Urban Agenda.

The Social Value of Sustainable Urbanization:
Leaving No One and No Place Behin

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

UN-Habitat, 2008.
United Nations, 2018b.
UNDESA, 2019.
United Nations, 2017a.
United Nations, 2017a: pp. 6-8.
United Nations, 2017a.
Barnett and Parnell, 2016.
United Nations, 2017b: p.25.
Berrisford and McAusian, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2017 : p.5.
Berrisford and McAusian, 2017.
Dublin Office for Integration, 2009.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
United Nations, 2017b.
Aristizabal and Gomez, 2002.
OXFAM, 2020: p.12.
OXFAM, 2020: p.1.
Agencia Digital del Gobierno de laCiudad de México, 2020.
Henley and Roy, 2020.
Garikipati and Kambhampati, 2020.
LSE Cities, 2019.
Urbact Knowledge Hub, 2019.
Abouzeid, 2019.
IWPR, 2015.
Libertun de Duren et al, 2018.
United Nations Women Friendly
Cities Joint Programme, 2014.
Cahill and Ryan, 2019.
Público, 2016.
UNFPA, 2007, p.27.
Child Friendly Cities Initiative, 2020.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

UNDESA, 2019, p32.
Brown et al., 2019.
UNICEF, 2012.
UNICEF, 2018.
Brown et al, 2019.
Brown et al, 2019.
Global Partnership for Education,
2017.
Brown et al, 2019.
World Health Organization, 2007.
World Health Organization, 2007.
Grahame, 2018.
van Hoof et al., 2018.
Ciudades Amigables con Personas
Mayores, Gobierno de España.
World Health Organization, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2009.
UN-DESA, 2013.
UN-DESA, 2019.
UNICEF, 2012, p35.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
TNS Opinion and Social, 2014.
City Mayors, 2015.
UNESCO, 2016a.
OECD, 2014.
World Economic Forum, 2016.
World Economic Forum, 2017.
ILO, 2018.
World Bank, 2019e.
Global Migration Data Portal, 2020.
World Bank, 2019e.
UN-Habitat, 2013.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.

UN-Habitat, 2013.
UNDP, 2018.
Brown, 2020.
Maranhão, 2020.
European Union, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
Baker, 2008.
Bloom and Khanna, 2007.
Chen and Ravallion, 2007; UNHabitat, 2009.
Utz and Mejia-Mantilla, 2019.
United Nations, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2010a, p.26.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
Cities Alliance, 2009.
Utz and Mejia-Mantilla, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Putman, cited in Moncayo, 2002,
p.85.
Jabareen, 2013.
Arku and Sadler, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2016a; Mahoney and
Klitgaard, 2019.
McCarney et al, 2011.
Jordan, 2008.
Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 2018.
Montagut et al, 2016.
Rohit, 2014, p143.
Lee and Nathan, 2011.
Beall et al, 2010.

90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

UNESCO, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2009.
United Nations, 2017a.
UN-Habitat, 2008.
UN-Habitat, 2004.
OECD, 2007.
The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2015.
The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2015.
The Economist Intelligence Unit,
2015.
UNESCO, 2016.
Mastercard, 2019.
Mastercard, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2004.
UN-Habitat, 2009.
UN-Habitat, 2019.
Astara, 2012.
Hosagrahar, 2017; UCLC Committee
on Culture, 2018.
Hosagrahar, 2017; UNESCO, 2019.
UCLC Committee on Culture, 2018.
World Cities Culture Forum, 2017.
UNESCO, 2019.

178

Chapter 6
Innovation, Technology andthe Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

The world is firmly entrenched in the Information Age. Technology continues to reshape economies
and societies amidst the fourth industrial revolution, or the exponentially paced disruption caused by thepossibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power,
storage capacity and access to knowledge. These possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technologicalbreakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles,
3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing.
Cities are at the centre of these changes as the concentration of people and human activities encouragetechnology and innovation talent to co-locate. Even amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, cities are where the main
health facilities are located and the home of the research institutions that are working assiduously to develop
a vaccine. They are the home base for the technology companies that have produced the tools for millions towork from home. The interplay of technology and innovation has already influenced urbanization patterns andis poised to further shape the future of cities.

179

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

Quick Facts
1. Cities are rapidly deploying technology to address a wide rangeof urban challenges.
2. New technologies and innovation provide opportunities forcities to meet the SDGs and generate immense value from theprocess of urbanization.
3. The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the deployment ofinnovation and technology in urban areas.
4. The global demand for smart cities is growing rapidly, from

As centres of art, science and idea exchange, cities havehistorically played a key role in catalysing “innovation,” aterm broadly defined as novel ideas, methods, approaches
and knowledge.1 Development of new technologies,
production methods, institutional arrangements andknowledge are important elements that explain how cities
have grown and continue to serve as centres of wealth,opportunity, diversity and creativity.2

US$622 billion in 2017 to US$1 trillion in 2019; this is expected
to reach US$3.48 trillion by 2026.
5. Problems of digital exclusion in access to the benefits of newtechnologies persist, potentially deepening inequalities

Policy points
1. Cities must work to promote effective policies to protect
citizen data and empower citizens to understand how toprotect their personal data.

At this current moment of rapid urbanization and fastpaced technological change in the context of ecological andpublic health crises amidst deep social inequalities, cities
remain the linchpin to achieving sustainable development
and meeting our climate goals. Hence, more than ever, it
is critical to leverage the opportunities that urbanization
presents “as an engine of sustained and inclusive
economic growth, social and cultural development andenvironmental protection.”3 Innovation is the lubricant
that facilitates this engine.

2. Clear, ethical frameworks and institutional arrangements fordata collection and data sharing should be put in place.
3. Technology is most effective when coupled with institutionalinnovation and is not a substitute for improving governance.
4. Results of smart city experiments are mixed and particularly
poor when these efforts are technology- rather than peopledriven.
5. Technology cannot displace citizen engagement in communityand city affairs.

Cities are comprised of diverse populations living in
intricate webs of cooperation and coordination. As a resultof this proximity, density, diversity and sheer numbers,cities give rise to a set of complex problems aroundchallenges like health, education, mobility, logistics, foodsecurity, consumption, waste, poverty and inequality.
These issues, in turn, make cities prime stages to develop
innovative solutions to global challenges. Cities are wellpoised to address these pressing problems by leveraging
the very strengths of urban life. Indeed, cities that are
open, inclusive and diverse encourage creative responses
and vibrant neighbourhoods that result in higher human

Cities are at the centre of thetechnological changes occasioned by
the fourth industrial revolution, namely
the move towards big data, quantum
computing, the Internet of Things (IoT),
automation and artificial intelligence

180

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

productivity4 and innovation.5 Cities, as the unit ofgovernment closest to citizens, act as “civic laboratories” tofoster innovation for sustainable development that can be
replicated and scaled up.6
Cities are at the centre of the technological changes
occasioned by the fourth industrial revolution, namely themove towards big data, quantum computing, the Internetof Things (IoT), automation and artificial intelligence.
Technology companies are attracted to cities becauseof their specialized and diverse talent pools as well asclusters of likeminded firms. Consequently, some cities are
reaping the direct and indirect benefits of technologicalinnovation while also addressing new problems such as
e-waste,7 surveillance,8 labour disruption9 and digital andspatial exclusions that can exacerbate inequalities andenvironmental problems.
Large technology, architectural and engineering firms
with financial interests in urban development are also
promoting their own notions of how cities should innovate

Operators work in road traffic control centre, Moscow, Russia. © Anton Gvozdikov/Shutterstock

181

under the rubric of “smart cities.” Thus, cities must navigate
how to manage, regulate and sometimes resist pressures toadopt technologies that are being actively promoted bymultinational corporations. Instead they must facilitatebottom-up innovation and technology that benefit
residents and address pressing problems while protecting
privacy and citizen data.10 These technological frontiers are
just one of the domains in which cities are waging critical
battles for sustainable human development with impacts
far beyond their boundaries.11
This chapter will explore how cities across the globe are
addressing challenges through innovation and technology
and in doing so, meeting the demands of the New Urban
Agenda, SDGs and Paris Agreement on climate change. It
explores how cities are creatively experimenting to generate
economic, social, cultural and environmental value(Chapter 2). The chapter will discuss the ways cities haveenhanced and strengthened the deployment of innovationand technology in urban areas for the benefit of residents.
However, it will also discuss the threats to inclusive, safe,

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

sustainable and resilient urban development brought
about by technological change and problematic concepts
and dynamics around how technology should be used.
Concerns include serious disruptions in labour markets,
potential deepening inequality and social segregation(Chapter 1), as well as increasing surveillance and thedanger that the overall pace of change is outstripping theability of regulatory systems and municipal capacities
to manage the risks associated with new technologies.
Some of these concerns emerge from the rise of “smart
cities” and contrast with successful urban innovation thatprioritizes people over technology. Finally, this chapter
offers some recommendations for the way forward for
cities to innovate and leverage technology in ways that
unleash the full value of sustainable urbanization and help
us solve our global challenges.

6.1. What is Innovation and Why Does It
Matter?
Some have cautioned that innovation has become sofrequently used in such a wide range of contexts that it is
now a meaningless buzzword.12 This accusation makes it
even more important to be clear on its meaning. Broadly,
innovation refers to novel ideas, methods, approaches andknowledge that are applied to solving problems. These
problem-solving measures can include the developmentof new technologies, but it is important to note that thisdefinition goes beyond new technologies and inventions toinclude changes in production methods and institutional,
ecological, social and political arrangements. As one
historian of the idea of innovation notes: “today people
expect innovation to be societal, environmental andethical, rather than strictly economic.”13
At a time when the world is rapidly urbanizing in the context
of serious climate, resource, public health and ecologicalchallenges,14 the need for innovation broadly understoodtakes on particular force. In the face of the need for rapidtransition to decarbonized, sustainable urban economies anddevelopment (Chapter 2), cities need to innovate to develop
novel pathways and solutions to persistent and emerging
challenges. This urgency makes innovation fundamental toattaining a better urban future for the planet that captures
the full value of sustainable urbanization.

At a time when the world is rapidly
urbanizing in the context of serious
climate, resource, public health andecological challenges , the need forinnovation broadly understood takes onparticular force
For this reason, the New Urban Agenda stresses theimportance of creating “an enabling environment and awide range of means of implementation, including accessto science, technology and innovation and enhanced
knowledge-sharing.”15 Innovation is also explicitly part ofSDG 9, which requires Member States to build “resilient
infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainableindustrialization and fostering innovation.” Innovation isthus seen as both a critical means to the end of delivering on
the international development agenda related sustainableurbanization and as a desirable end in and of itself thatbrings improvements through new tools, products andways of working. In this context, innovation offers a notionof human progress and creativity in light of the societal
challenges that span the SDGs, NUA and Paris Agreement.
In the contemporary moment, innovation is often associatedwith start-up businesses and technology entrepreneurs
pursuing narrower economic goals of efficiency andproductivity. The OECD, for example, defines innovation“as the implementation of a new or significantly improved
product (good or service), or process, a new marketing
method, or a new organizational method in businesspractices, workplace organization or external relations.”16
In this definition, innovation is largely seen as emerging
from within the private sector, with the role of government
being that of an enabler. This definition is too narrowfor discussions of the value of sustainable urbanization
because urban innovations take place within complex
networked forms of governance where cities and national
governments play a key role in partnership with the private
sector, over which they maintain oversight. Governments
can help by judiciously channelling public investment17
and creating networks with other key actors, thus driving
change towards the public good. These steps include
innovations in delivering municipal services, reducing
carbon emissions, improving the urban environment andfostering more liveable cities.

182

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

City governments can also be innovators
drawing on, and in some cases creating,new technologies as well as developing
legal and institutional innovations toimprove and transform government
processes and service delivery
A growing recognition exists that while cities can serveas platforms of innovation, creativity and knowledge
generation, city governments can also be innovators
drawing on, and in some cases creating, new technologies
as well as developing legal and institutional innovations
to improve and transform government processes andservice delivery. Cities can also draw diverse actors into
collaborative networks and support innovation ecosystems
that drive needed change in specific areas by supporting
competitions, convening meetings and leveraging
procurement power to incubate social innovation forsustainable urban development. This underscores thecritical importance of innovative cities for unlocking thefull value of sustainable urbanization.

6.2. Civic Technology for Urban Innovation
Urbanization is occurring within the context of rapid
technological change including the exponential rise incomputing power that permits the storage and analysis of
big data along with a whole suite of related developments
such as artificial intelligence, IoT, nanotechnologies andblockchain. One key aspect of this change is automationas machines increasingly take over functions once
performed by humans. Hence, we see the rise of robots18
and the automation of decision-making more generallywith algorithms that can be taught (machine learning)
and which draw on massive amounts of data to “think”(artificial intelligence). These technological advances
create both new tools and problems as they raise a numberof profound ethical and social questions.19 Technology isTechnology is not neutral and moral
values like bias and discrimination areoften embedded in the very design andworkings of these innovations

183

not neutral and moral values like bias and discrimination
are often embedded in the very design and workings ofthese innovations.20
As with past technological innovations, these componentsof the fourth industrial revolution are likely to be highly
disruptive to urban labour markets, especially with therise of more “automated thinking”21 and “connected
machines that will interact, visualize the entire production
chain and make decisions autonomously.”22 For example,
many companies are working on autonomous vehicles
and mobility solutions. While such an innovation could
reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions, it would
also displace jobs for taxi, ridehail and public transport
drivers. Moreover, if realized, the advent of autonomousvehicles raises profound social and urban planning issues incities that are trying to minimize car-centric development
patterns.23 The emerging and potentially profound shifts inwork and labour stemming from these new technologies arelikely to exacerbate inequalities even more without adequate
social policies (Chapter 1). Cities, where both technologicalinnovation and economic activities are concentrated, are theplaces where this increasing inequality will be most evident.
6.2.1. What is civic technology?

Cities, often in collaboration with the public, civilsociety and businesses, are innovating how to use newtechnologies to address a wide range of urban challenges.
Local governments are increasingly purchasing patented
technologies like cheaper and more effective sensors tomonitor and share information on water, air, solid waste,infrastructure, energy, traffic and public transport, among
other areas, all in the name of building a smart city. With
these investments, companies are trying to capture andshape ideas about smart cities from the top down. In
contrast, civic technologies are a more people-centredconcept that aims to support stronger participatory anddemocratic processes from the bottom up.
Smart city technologies include smartphone apps, city
data dashboards, information screens in public spaces,
intelligent operations centres and public-facing websites
with critical information and feedback mechanisms.
These platforms rely on physical hardware, from publicly
owned sensors that monitor vehicular traffic flow tocitizen-owned mobile phones that call a ride or order foodInnovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

Smart car (HUD) , Autonomous self-driving mode vehicle on metro city road iot concept with graphic sensor radar signal system and internet sensor connect. © Zapp2Photo/Shutterstock

delivery. These kinds of services tend to produce “big data,”or quantities of data so massive that traditional techniquesand software cannot analyse them, instead requiring largescale computing power, algorithms and data science touncover trends and patterns. Big data analysis, real-timemonitoring and automation of various municipal services
from streetlights to complaint systems are extremely usefulfor city planning and service delivery. Hence, leveraging
these technologies appropriately is one way to make thecity smart in terms of being more efficient, responsive andable to provide better and new services critical to meeting
the SDGs and the NUA. The everyday citizen end user
in turn benefits with the opportunity to view the city’s
progress via public data portals.

Cities can work to create systems that enable citizens
to deliberately use their phones to collect data. For
example, the 311 system started in North America and now
operating all over the world allows complaints to be routed
immediately to the appropriate city department and has
proven effective at responding to problems identified bycitizens while reducing costs (Box 6.1).

Another aspect of some of these technologies is that they
allow for more decentralized, local data collection at thecity level, to some extent democratizing computing anddata collection. This decentralization enables civil society
and citizens to potentially become more involved in datacollection on their own, monitoring service delivery andparticipating in governance and decision-making.

Other applications use passive mobile phone data to
track urban mobility patterns. The Digital Matatusproject in Nairobi, Kenya, uses GPS-enabled mobile
phones to trace out minibus routes and stops to create
critical public transport data and passenger information
where none existed before (Box 6.2). Transport is a
popular sector for these types of initiatives. In India,

Cities can work to create systems thatenable citizens to deliberately use theirphones to collect data
6.2.2. Civic technology for urban mobility

184

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 6.1: How citizen reporting for municipal response evolved from “Dial 311” to SeeClickFix to civic apps
In 1996, Baltimore, US, launched a three-digit non-emergency phone number, 311, that residents could call to report municipal issues
like potholes, illegal dumping, graffiti and abandoned vehicles. The system coincided with a sentiment among government that the
public sector can and should be more closely connected with citizens and their needs. At the same time, 311 had the additional
impact of collecting reams of data about government operations.
Its back-end system, Customer Relationship Management software, captured details about every phone call, query, complaint andrequest, generating insight into how workers delivered city services. The system was so useful that OpenPlans, a US non-profit
dedicated to making cities work better, facilitated the development of Open311 software in 2010 to help other cities adopt thesystem as a free tool rather than buying proprietary software.
These apps enable communication for all types of people. One study found that lower-income residents and young, college-aged
individuals were more likely to use Boston’s 311 app than the traditional phone number or website. For certain disabled residents,
app-enabled engagement can help leverage services in a way that wasn’t possible before.
Mobile 311 apps gave way to online services like SeeClickFix, which attempt to sell cities access to a platform that falls somewhere
between a 311-call centre and a social network. SeeClickFix allows citizens to identify a problem with their smartphone and click
on a map with their location. That geo-located information is then conveyed to the appropriate city government departments. Somecity governments monitor what SeeClickFix users are saying about the places they live, while others take things a step further,integrating the platform into the city’s back-end systems. Some cities also have bespoke apps, like San Francisco’s water quality app
for its beaches and Calgary’s pet adoption app.
Today, things have gone a step further. Seeing how well mobile reporting apps work for citizens has made governments realize that if
it works for citizens, it can work for internal operations too. From SeeClickFix to custom purpose-built reporting apps, what began as ahumble call centre has evolved into a nimble and reliable way for government to target scarce resources on its most vexing problems.
Sources: Wood, 2016; Snow, 2017.

the Delhi government began providing transit data fromGPS trackers on state-run buses to researchers and app
developers, including Google, to develop useful tools
like real-time schedules.24 In Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire,
IBM researchers used anonymized data from mobile
phone users to discover the most frequented bus routes
and then came up with 65 network improvements thatwould save passengers an estimated 10 per cent travel
time.25 In these cases, data was generated without
deliberate citizen action but through so-called “digital
exhaust,” or the data trail from online activity, which
can be aggregated and analysed to reveal useful patterns
about urban flows.26

185

Not all urban innovations require high-end technology
skills or equipment. Ecosandals is a social enterprise in thepoor Nairobi neighbourhood of Korogocho that improves
upon the common practice in many African cities of turning
rubber tires into sandals and creates youth employment
in the process. Similarly, in Morocco, the small company
Upcyclemo employs youth to create outdoor furnitureand plant pots out of tires. In Uganda and Kenya, social
entrepreneurs are converting plastic bottles into bricks and

Not all urban innovations require high-end
technology skills or equipment

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

paving stones, solving two problems at once: both plastic
waste and the need for sustainable building materials.27
Software engineers in Lilongwe, Malawi used cast off
computers to develop a highly effective electronic healthrecords system to improve care for HIV patients.28 Whileoutside technology providers bring skills and expertise,
locally-developed innovation often faces challenges inaccessing capital and support, suggesting cities need torecognize and support homegrown innovation systems thatcreatively solve problems with context-sensitive solutions.

Figure 6.1: Public transport map for Nairobi

Source: Civic Data Design Lab/Digital Matatus Project (www.digitalmatatus.com).

Very high - 39,890KES

186

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 6.2: Digital Matatus project maps minibuses in Nairobi
In cities where informal transport systems are the primary form of urban mobility, local authorities do not have basic data on
their transit systems because these systems are run by many different private actors who do not collect or share data on routes,
passengers and frequency. Digital Matatus was a pioneering mapping project that helped catalyse ongoing efforts to map informaltransport systems in African and Latin American cities.29 This collaboration between the University of Nairobi, Columbia University,
MIT and the small US design firm Groupshot mapped out Nairobi’s matatu (minibus) routes and stops using GPS enabled mobile
phones in 2013.30 The team used this data to create a schematic map in 2014 that proved popular in the absence of an official
public transport map for the city. The regularly-updated data is open source and the routes have been integrated into different
apps including Google Maps. This data is also being used to measure access to health facilities31 and green spaces as well as tomeasure the proportion of the population with access to frequent public transport, which is the indicator for SDG target 11.2.32
Many cities across Africa and Latin America are similarly collecting bottom-up data for their transit systems.33 In Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, software developers came up with the idea of putting a simple QR code on buses that contain the map for that route andin Maputo, Mozambique, a company developed an information screen for the public.

Measuring the SGD11.2 target
Very high - 39,890KES

Income Group - Avg. shillings/mo.

high - 22,084KES

Medium high - 13,352KES

Medium - 6,153KES

Medium low - 3,854KES

Low - 2,165KES

Very low - 1,301KES
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Income Group’s Population

Source: Fried et al., 2020.

Representative Collaborative Patterns in the Bay Area Innovation System

6.2.3. Tracking COVID-19

CIRM

information to citizens to help them avoid places where
Buck
they might getInstituteinfected. For example, Corona 100m is a
The latest frontier for mobile technology and big data
Gladstone
tracking app from
Republic of Korea that alerts users if theyis understanding and managing the spread of COVIDSFVA
QB3
19. In East Asia, national governments have partnered UC are within a 100-metre radius of the latest tracked locationof a coronavirus patient. The app appears to be popular inwith software developers to create smartphone apps that Berkeley
CITRIS
Korea and was downloaded over 1 million
geolocate people’s movements in relation
to the COVID-19 UCSFthe Republic of Gallo
35
times within 10
status of other geolocated users.34 This exercise provided UC Davis
Palodays
Alto of being launched. Australia andUC
Santa Cruz

187

Industrial Innovation
Centers (e.g., Autodesk)
Corporate Innovation

Stanford

VA

In-Q-TelInnovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

The latest frontier for mobile
technology and big data isunderstanding and managing the
spread of COVID-19
Singapore have launched contact tracing apps—CovidSafe
and TraceTogether, respectively—that facilitate contact
tracing in the event of COVID-19 infection by individuals
whose mobile phones are linked.
These apps enable governments to dampen infection rates,
which simultaneously protects public health and inspires
consumer confidence to spur economic activity. As with mosttechnologies, however, these apps must be supplemented bywell-functioning public health policies and programmessuch as rapid testing, in-person follow-up contact tracing
and mandatory isolation. Despite these apps’ relative success,there are clear trade-offs between public health and privacy,
which exist alongside other data security concerns.36

Contact tracing apps are just the tip of the iceberg
in technological trends sparked or accelerated by the
COVID-19 pandemic. These innovations have been crucial
in keeping people safe, productive and connected when
they are physically apart while simultaneously ensuringthat society remains functional during lockdowns.37 It is
important to note, however, that in many of the world’s cities
substantial numbers of people cannot transition to remotelearning and also face exclusion from these technologies.
Some COVID-19 impacts of these technologies are likely toendure in the post-COVID-19 era and have potential longterm implications for urbanization processes (Box 6.3).38

It is important to note, however,that in many of the world’s cities
substantial numbers of people
cannot transition to remotelearning and also face exclusionfrom these technologies

Box 6.3: Ten technology trends accelerated by COVID-19
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated key technology trends, including digital payments, telehealth androbotics, which can help reduce the spread of the disease while helping businesses stay open. These technology trends can help makesociety more resilient in the face of pandemics and other threats, as well as considerations about their effects on business, trade,
work, production of goods and services, education, health care and entertainment.
Online shopping and robot deliveries
COVID-19 has transformed online shopping from a nice-to-have to a must-have around the world. Online shopping needs to besupported by a robust logistics system. In-person delivery is not virus-proof. Many delivery companies and restaurants in the US andChina are launching contactless delivery services where goods are picked up and dropped off at a designated location instead of fromor into the hands of a person. Chinese e-commerce giants are also ramping up their development of robot deliveries. However, before
robot delivery services become prevalent, delivery companies need to establish clear protocols to safeguard the sanitary condition ofdelivered goods.
Digital and contactless payments
Cash might carry the virus, so central banks in China, US and the Republic of Korea have implemented various measures to ensurebanknotes are clean before they go into circulation. Contactless digital payments, either in the form of cards or e-wallets, are therecommended mode of payment to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Digital payments enable people to make online purchases and188

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

payments of goods, services and even utility payments, as well as to receive stimulus funds faster. The availability of digital
payments relies on internet availability, internet-equipped devices and a network to convert cash into a digitalized format.
Working remotely
Many organizations have asked their employees to work from home. Remote work is enabled by technologies including virtualprivate networks, voice over internet protocols, virtual meetings, cloud technology, work collaboration tools and even facialrecognition technologies. Working remotely poses challenges to employers and employees. Information security, privacy and timely
tech support can be big issues. Working remotely can also complicate labour law issues, such as those associated with providing
a safe work environment and income tax issues. If remote work becomes more common after the COVID-19 pandemic, employers
may decide to reduce costs and hire people from regions with cheaper labour costs. Not all jobs can be done from home, which
creates and reinforces disparity. Well-educated, white-collar workers are more likely to have jobs that allow them to work from homeunlike informal sector workers and those employed in service jobs deemed essential during lockdown.
Distance learning
As of mid-April 2020, 191 countries announced or implemented school or university closures, impacting 1.57 billion students. Many
educational institutions started offering courses online to ensure education was not disrupted by the lockdown. Technologies
involved in distant learning are like those for remote work and include virtual reality, augmented reality, 3D printing and artificialintelligence-enabled robot teachers. Concerns about distance learning include the possibility that the technologies could create awider digital divide in terms of readiness, availability, affordability and income level.
Telehealth
Telehealth can be an effective way to contain the spread of COVID-19 while providing essential primary care. Wearable personal IoT
devices can track vital signs. Chatbots can make initial diagnoses based on symptoms identified by patients. However, in countries
where medical costs are high, it is important to ensure telehealth will be covered by insurance. Telehealth also requires a certain
level of tech literacy to operate, as well as a good internet connection.
Online entertainment
Although quarantine measures have reduced in-person interactions significantly, creativity has brought entertainment online. Cloudraves and online streaming of concerts have gained traction around the world. Chinese film production companies also released
films online. Museums and international heritage sites offer virtual tours. There has also been a surge of online gaming traffic since
the outbreak of COVID-19.
Supply chain 4.0
The coronavirus pandemic has created disruptions to the global supply chain. With physical distancing and quarantine measures,some factories are completely shut down. Heavy reliance on paper-based records, a lack of visibility on data and lack of diversity
and flexibility have made existing supply chain system vulnerable to any pandemic. Core technologies such as big data, cloudcomputing, IoT and blockchain are building a more resilient supply chain management system for the future by enhancing theaccuracy of data and encouraging data sharing.

189

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

3D printing
3D printing technology has been deployed to mitigate shocks to the supply chain and circumvent export bans on personal protective
equipment. 3D printing offers flexibility in production: the same printer can produce different products based on different design
files and materials. However, massive production using 3D printing faces a few obstacles. First, there may be intellectual property
issues involved in producing parts that are protected by patent. Second, production of certain goods is subject to regulatory
approvals, which can take a long time to obtain. Other unsolved issues include how design files should be protected under patent
regimes, the place of origin, impact on trade volumes and product liability associated with 3D printed products.
Robotics and drones
COVID-19 has made the world realize how heavily it depends on human interactions to make the economy work. The pandemic
provided a strong push to rollout the use of robots, which have increasingly been used to disinfect areas and deliver food to those inquarantine. Drones have walked dogs and delivered items. While there are some reports that predict many manufacturing jobs will
be replaced by robots in the future, at the same time, new jobs will be created in the process. Policies must be in place to provide
sufficient training and social welfare to the labour force to embrace this change.
5G and information and communications technology
All these technology trends rely on a stable, high-speed and affordable internet connection. While 5G has demonstrated its
importance in remote monitoring and healthcare consultation, the rollout of 5G is delayed at a time when the technology may beneeded the most. The adoption of 5G will increase the cost of compatible devices and the cost of data plans. Addressing theseissues to ensure inclusive access to internet will continue to be a challenge as the 5G network expands globally.
Source: Xiao and Fan, 2020.

6.2.4. Measuring air and water quality

Besides mobile phones, other kinds of sensors like air orwater quality monitoring devices are also becoming lessexpensive and more widely available, allowing cities andtheir citizens to monitor environmental conditions morecheaply and frequently. This trend can also enable wider
participation in citizen science initiatives that create
better informed citizens who will advocate to reduce
air and water pollution.39 Such monitoring can also
contribute toward achieving SDG11.6: “By 2030, reduce theadverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by
paying special attention to air quality and municipal and otherwaste management.” These monitoring devices can track
measurements for SDG11.6 indicators like mean urban air
pollution of PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. Technology
in the hands of cities and their citizens can subsequently
help move towards more sustainable urbanization that
addresses climate change and its impacts (SDG 13).

While lower cost monitors can be profoundly useful andpotentially cut costs, they do not obviate the need for
cities to build continuous and stronger air and water
quality monitoring systems. Supporting local university
and scientific communities is also critical to be able tointerpret data from these devices, help properly calibrate
the sensors to local conditions and ultimately implement
air and water quality solutions in alignment with the
New Urban Agenda (Box 6.4).40 Such efforts can also help

Besides mobile phones, other kindsof sensors like air or water quality
monitoring devices are also becoming
less expensive and more widely
available, allowing cities and theircitizens to monitor environmental
conditions more cheaply and frequently

190

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

collect currently missing data to monitor SDG 3 (goodhealth and wellbeing for all) as well as look at inequalities
across neighbourhoods that can spur demand for change.
In Nairobi’s Mukuru slums, for example, residents created

art inspired by air quality measurements to speak out
about the unfair distribution of air pollution and healthburdens in their community.41

Box 6.4: Measuring air pollution with low-cost air quality monitoring networks
In 2012, poor air quality was responsible for seven million premature deaths, making it the world’s single largest environmental
health risk. Air pollution is a major problem in cities across the globe and it requires a data-driven approach. But a large gap exists
in the abilities of different cities to measure and model air pollution and relatively few have air quality monitoring systems in place.
Low-cost air quality sensors have the potential to bridge this data gap. UNEP in partnership with the company Alphasense, theUniversity of Cambridge, the NASA-GLOBE citizen science programme, the Wajukuu Arts Collective and the Kibera Girls Soccer
Academy conducted an experimental deployment of six low-cost air quality monitors in schools across Nairobi.
Despite technical limitations, this experiment showed that sensors can provide indicative measurements of air quality that are valuable
to local communities. It also found that such a sensor network can play an important role in engaging citizens by raising awarenessabout the importance of addressing poor air quality. Sensors are clearly a potentially important complement but not a substitute forhigh quality and reliable air quality monitoring systems as problems of calibration, certification, quality control and reporting remain tobe solved. However, when carefully interpreted, data from low-cost monitors can be useful and this experiment helped inform Nairobi’s
air quality management plan. Increasingly, African governments are supporting their cities to measure air pollution. Both Ghana andSenegal, for example, have monitoring stations, air quality management plans and air quality indexes for citizens.
Low Cost Air Quality Monitor installed in a school in Nairobi

Source: deSouza et al, 2017.

191

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

6.3. Technology Firms and the Smart City
Digital technologies can help make a city “smarter”
because the user of these technologies has a continual
flow of data which, when analysed by algorithms, ideallyhelps see, think, intervene and make decisions more
intelligently in and for the city. For example, a resident
may look at an app to know which bus to catch for the
shortest travel time or whether to go outside dependingon the air quality. A traffic light can see a bus coming andturn green to give public transport priority over private
vehicles. At its most optimistic, a smart city might best be
defined as an “innovative city that uses information andcommunication technologies and other means to improve
quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services
and competitiveness, while ensuring the needs of present
and future generations with respect to economic, social,environmental as well as cultural aspects.”42
Technology firms are increasingly offering to sell smart
city products and services to city governments, othercompanies and even directly to citizens. Estimates vary
widely on the global smart cities market size. The global
demand for smart cities is growing rapidly, from US$622
billion in 2017 to US$1 trillion in 2019. It is expected toreach US$3.48 trillion by 2026 (Chapter 1).43 These figuresindicate an important and growing sector that is seen as anenormous opportunity for technology companies.

The global demand forsmart cities is growing
rapidly, from US$622
billion in 2017 to US$1
trillion in 2019
The most ambitious smart city approach involves local
governments partnering with technology companies
to develop whole new experimental neighbourhoods
or exurban developments sometimes conceptualized as
entirely new cities. While the specifics of each smart city or
smart neighbourhood project varies, they typically involve
technology like sensors, wireless networks, IoT and smart
meters. Using these technologies, smart cities automate
services like communicating with citizens to receive

feedback. In households, these technologies reduce energy
costs by automatically turning lights and other appliances
off when people are not around and through smart metersthat talk to smart appliances and turn them on and off toreduce costs, for example, cleaning dishes in the middleof the night when energy demand is low.44 Given the waythat technology is leveraged to reduce energy demandand encourage low emissions living, these cities are also
sometimes called “eco cities”, an idea that has a much
longer history reaching back into the 1970s.45
New Songdo City on reclaimed tidal wetlands on theoutskirts of Incheon, Republic of Korea was one of thefirst smart city developments. The national government
spearheaded the idea for a new city built from scratchthat would strive for simultaneous economic prosperity
and environmental sustainability through cutting-edge
technology that would attract private sector tenants andbuild a new national business and innovation centre. The
government engaged with local and foreign companies todevelop a top-down master plan. Architects designed thecity with sustainability principles reinforced by ubiquitous
information sharing through wireless networks, digitaltechnologies and devices that communicate with one
another. A steady stream of data is continuously being
computed and sent to adjust services and infrastructures
aiming to create a more efficient urban metabolism andservice experience for residents as well as businesses.
Despite US$40 billion of investment and technology thathas attracted a wide array of companies, the city remains
only partially populated and lacks the social quality ofan organically grown city.46 It is, in effect, a low-density,
car-centric, high-end, exclusive US-style suburb that someresidents describe as lonely.47 As a testbed or showcase
for the new international city-building industry, Songdo
points to the limitations of having neighbourhoods, muchless whole cities, designed by “partnerships of real estatedevelopers, institutional investors, national governments
and the information technology industry”48 rather than by
and for people from the bottom up.
Songdo also illustrates the problems with new city
developments that focus on making a more efficienturban metabolism without maintaining broader climate
and ecological goals like carbon neutrality, biodiversity,

192

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Central Park, Incheon, South Korea. © PKphotograph/Shutterstock

wetlands preservation and coastal zone management in
the face of sea-level rise.49 Often designed and serviced
by the same international architectural, engineering, andtechnology firms, variations on the Songdo model has
proven somewhat impervious to criticism and spread acrossthe globe (Box 6.5).50 In other cases, like the Eko-Atlantic

City on an artificial island in Lagos, Nigeria, or Konza
Technology City outside of Nairobi, the vision is largely
in favour of social exclusion through high-end real estatedevelopment.51 These real estate development schemes
are the very opposite of socially-inclusive urbanization asenvisioned in the New Urban Agenda.

Box 6.5: Google’s Sidewalks Lab encounters resistance to Toronto Tomorrow
Tech giant Google and its spinoff urban development company Sidewalks Lab is a prime example of the growing smart city businessmodel. Sidewalk Labs describes itself as a firm that “imagines, designs, tests, and builds urban innovations to help cities meet theirbiggest challenges.”52 In 2017, Sidewalks Lab reached an agreement with the City of Toronto to redevelop a 12-acre (4.9-hectare)waterfront industrial parcel into a futuristic neighbourhood. The company’s experimental master innovation and development plan,
Toronto Tomorrow, was unveiled in 2019 and envisioned self-heating sidewalks, underground trash chutes, flexible streets andcross-laminated timber skyscrapers, all collecting copious amounts of data to ensure optimum energy and mobility efficiency.53
While the conditions of Sidewalk Labs’ agreement required actively negotiating with municipal entities to ensure that the plannedneighbourhood fit into the city’s vision, citizen groups argued that the wealthy tech outsider was circumventing public oversight andcitizen engagement processes.54 They were also wary of the degree of surveillance that Toronto Tomorrow would entail and how
much data the tech giant would ultimately control.55 In July 2020, Sidewalk Labs ended the project citing economic uncertainty due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Source: Sidewalk Labs, n.d.; Summers, 2019; Weiditz, 2020.

193

Corporate Innovation
O ces – US HQ

DIU

Entrepreneurs
andStartups

AngelsCorporate Innovation
O ces – Overseas HQ

VC

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

DHS

Accelerators

GoogleGenentech

Agilent

HP

SRI

PARC

KaiserIBM

Lockheed
MartinIntel

OracleAnother smart city approach involves cities, rather than
Even with the excitement over the power of new civic
NASA’snational governments, more centrallyinthedriver’sseat
intechnologies
forSandia
urban innovation,
many limitations exist.
SLAC
LBNL
LLNL
Ames RC
creating smart city projects. In some cases, however, theseFirst, technology cannot displace citizen engagement inkinds of projects are incentivized by Joint
national
governments.
neighbourhood and urban affairs. Digital platforms are not
GenomeJBEISETIFor example, in 2015, India launchedInstitutethe Smart Cities
a substitute for civic meetings, dialogue and institutional
Mission “to promote cities that provide core infrastructurereform. Efforts to displace these gatherings or move them
Design Firms(e.g.,
IDEO)
and give a decent quality of life to its citizens, a clean
online are often problematic. For example, the institutionaland sustainable environment and application of ‘Smart’innovation of participatory budgeting developed by the
CCC
CSU
Solutions.”56 This national programme applied technology
city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, gives citizens a say in how
the city budget is spent. It is effective in part because of
to a wide variety of urban problems from wastewater
the dialogue it generates, which gives the poor a bigger
treatment to telemedicine (Figure 6.2). The programme
voice and creates citizen monitors who watch to ensure
selected 100 cities and approved their smart city plans forthe projects they voted for are implemented.59 When thispartial funding.57 However, it is important to note that
progress has been slow, with some cities making fasterprocess is taken online, it loses some of its effectiveness. At
9principles
for
digitaldevelopment
progress than others, which reveals uneven local capacity
its worst, it can generate more distrust in government.60
58
to finance and implement smart city initiatives.
Reuse and Improve
Design with the User
Build for Sustainability
Additionally, technology is mosteffective when coupledwith institutional innovation and is not a substitute for
Another smart city approach involves
Understand
Existing Ecosystem
Security are led
Be Data Drivenimproving governance. ManyAddress
smartPrivacy
cities& projects
cities, rather
thanthenational
governments,
astray by their emphasis on technology over engagement
more centrally in the driver’s seat in
Use Open Standards,
Open Data, governance processes. In the case of Toronto
with existing
creating smart
city
Design for
Scaleprojects.
Be Collaborative
Open Source, and Open Innovation
Tomorrow, citizens were deeply concerned about the powerof a large wealthy technology firm to distort democratic
Figure 6.2: Government of India’s smart city mission

E-Governance and Citizen Services

Smart Solutions

Energy Management

1

Public Information, Grievance Redressal

13

Smart Meters & Management

2Electronic Service Delivery

14

Renewable Sources of Energy

3

Citizen Engagement

15

Energy Efﬁcient & Green Buildings

4

Citizens - City's Eyes and Ears

5

Video Crime Monitoring
Urban Mobility

Waste Management

16

Smart Parking
Intelligent Trafﬁc Management
Integrated Multi-Modal Transport

Waste to Energy & fuel17

7

Waste to Compost

18

8

Waste Water to be Treated

9

Recycling and Reduction of C&D Waste

6

Water Management

Others19

Smart Meters & Management

Tele-Medicine & Tele Education

10

20

11

Leakage Identiﬁcation, Preventive Maint.

Incubation/Trade Facilitation Centers

21

12

Water Quality Monitoring

Skill Development Centers

194

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

politics and violate their privacy rights. The potential
exists for cities to use governance frameworks, regulationand tools such as public procurement to take a moreproactive approach to the ongoing digital transformationand ensure that projects that involve technology are moreclosely aligned with the goals of cities and citizens.

6.4. The Bottom-up Smart City: Urban
Labs, Open Data and the Open-Source
Movement
Cities and the people who live in them are increasingly
finding bottom-up ways to innovate in order to maketheir cities better places. These strategies include forging
links with local universities; leveraging local, civic-minded
software developers, tech companies and collectives;
building, encouraging and sharing anonymized open
data; and leveraging open source software. Cities are also
increasingly developing regulatory mechanisms for urban
tech companies to rein in their disruptive power with
mixed results.
Ultimately, citizens are a city’s greatest resource. They
provide new ideas for innovation, act as the eyes or ears of
the city, help monitor conditions on the ground and engage
the city more actively in setting priorities, for example
through participatory budgeting and voting for elected
officials or on specific policies and programmes. Whether
through texting or apps, citizens with mobile phones
and other monitoring devices like low-cost portable air
monitors or medical records systems can help generate
important data. Cities also generate data from their own
systems, whether buses with trackers, utility meters on
public housing, sewage pipes equipped with sensors or
financial information about city budgets.
6.4.1. Cities and open data

A growing number of cities are working to standardize
such data and make it public through open data portals.

Cities and the people who live in them
are increasingly finding bottom-up ways
to innovate in order to make their cities
better places

195

The so-called “open data” or “open government” movement
seeks to make as much information as possible about city
operations available to the public both to inform theeveryday citizen and to inspire those who might createa useful tool, application or analysis from that data. This
movement is gaining momentum as cities recognize thatthey can create a lot of value in terms of technologicalinnovation that improves service delivery, public trust andanalysis to feed into better policy.61

Open data and open
source software
contribute to increased
economic development
as well as resilience inplanning and service
provision.
Open data and open source software contribute toincreased economic development as well as resilience inplanning and service provision. These low-cost alternatives
to proprietary software allow entrepreneurs in the region
to build up new businesses that improve services andplanning as well as researchers and analysts to develop
new, context-specific knowledge to guide decision-making.
For example, software developers in Lilongwe were able tobuild lower cost medical record software for health clinics
by drawing on OpenMRS, an open source enterpriseelectronic medical record system platform that shares andbuilds open code, thereby reducing the costs of developing
software. Recognizing the importance of these benefits,
the international development community has developed
principles for digital development (Figure 6.3).62
Open data is defined as “data that can be freely used,
re-used and redistributed by anyone subject only, at most,to the requirement to attribute.”63 According to the Open
Data Institute, good open data should have four attributes:
be linked to the internet so that it can be easily shared
and talked about; be available in a standard, structured
format, so that it can be easily processed; have guaranteedavailability and consistency over time, so that others canrely on it; and be traceable, through any processing, rightback to where it originates, so others can work out whether
to trust it.64

Institute
Design Firms(e.g., IDEO)
CCC

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

CSU

Figure 6.3: Digital principles for development
9 principles for digital development
Design with the User

Build for Sustainability

Reuse and Improve

Understand the Existing Ecosystem

Be Data Driven

Address Privacy & Security

Design for Scale

Use Open Standards, Open Data,
Open Source, and Open Innovation

Be Collaborative

Source: www.digitalprinciples.org.

One clear example of where open standardized data has
Some of these companies are also able to generate more
made a large positive impact is in the transport sector.
data as apps gain users who, in turn, feed back into data
Smart Solutions
In 2015, TriMet, the public transit agency in Portland,
creation, which can even lead to new transit provision.
US, agreed to make its proprietary data about routes
For example, CityMapper, a London-based company,
EnergyManagementdemand for missing bus links
and schedules
available
toServices
Google, which integrated
used its data
to discover
E-Governanceand Citizen
Metershybrid& Management
1 Public Information,that information
into its Grievance
popularRedressal
mapping app using
and launched13 aSmartbus-taxi
service on these routes.71
14 Renewable Sources of Energy
2
a transit data
formatthat
eventually became an open
TransitScreen, Inc. uses open data from public transit
ElectronicService
Delivery
Energy Efﬁcient& Green Buildings
3 Citizen65
Engagement
source platform.
agencies to 15develop
informational
screens for building
The open transit data movement
Citizenswith- City'sgreatEyes andEars
lobbies and public spaces. Overall, many of thesehas since 4spread
positive
effect. The United
5 VideoAcademies
Crime Monitoringbusinesses develop services that make shared mobility
States Nationalof Sciences, Engineering andand public Urbantransport
Medicine surveyed 67 transport agencies across the globe
Mobilitymore attractive. These efforts help
build a rich16ecosystemin support of the global agenda
on their experience with open data and found evidence
Smart Parking
Waste Managementof improving17 public
transport
and reducing individualthat significant benefits emerge from making publicIntelligent Trafﬁc Management
6 Waste to Energy & fuelcar use, a critical
partof
addressing
climate change andtransport 7data open including that the public was more
18 Integrated Multi-Modal Transport
Waste to Compost66
air pollution in cities. Evidence speaks to the power ofaware of public
transport services.
8 Waste Water to be Treateddeveloping ecosystems around open data, not just in the
9 Recycling and Reduction of C&D Wastetransport sector but in all areas. Indeed, with climate
Open data also allows third-party innovation around
Otherschange, cities
should be building open environmental andpassenger information systems. This innovation is most
Water Management
19 Tele-Medicine & Tele Education
demographic data for climate resilience planning.72 Thisevident in10 Smart
the Meters“ecosystemof third-party apps being& Management
20 Incubation/Trade Facilitation Centers67
developed11forLeakage
the dominantsmartphone platforms.” Openapproach also addresses
the question of how to reach SDG
Identiﬁcation, Preventive Maint.
21 Skill Development Centerstargets
17.6(enhancing
international
cooperation on andpublic transport
data
thus
can
also
help
fosterbusiness
12 Water Quality Monitoring
access to science, technology and innovation and enhancedevelopment, and some app developers are able to generateknowledge sharing) and 17.7 (promoting the development,
income from innovative apps they create using open data.
transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally
Indeed, the cost of developing apps in-house was a key
sound technologies) by making technology available
factor in the decision by Transport for London (TfL) toat fair terms and encouraging knowledge transfer andmove towards an open data strategy.68 Allowing the private
learning across cities.
sector to develop diverse quality products on top of thedata can be highly cost effective. TfL calculated that apps
powered by its bus Canada
datawill deliver £83 (US$106) million of
To leverage open data as a resource,
CGI($16.5)
customer benefit over 10 years, at a cost to TfL of £820,000
cities have to develop their own ICT
69(US$105,000) per year. By 2012, 5,000 registered developers
capabilities to help build and organizeJapan
had produced over 362 apps powered by TfL data. The apps
data as well as portals
to share this data
China
Sony($54.9)
FranceTencent($448)
reached 4 million people
with an estimated£15–58millionin a standardized format
Capgemini($17.9)
United States($873.2)(US$19–74 million)CGIvalue
in time saved by users.70
India
HCLT Tech ($8.7)

TaiwanASUS($5.5)

196WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 6.6: Hackathons leverage open data to build city tech tools
The idea of running a hackathon to leverage new ideas for how to use open data in cities has caught on across the world. Oneof the first city-run competitions in the US was Apps for Democracy, held in Washington, DC in 2008 to leverage the city’s 200
opened datasets as catalogued by a third-party company. The city found sponsors to provide US$50,000 in prize money forthe top three apps. The hackathon resulted in 47 successful designs, which helped raise an estimated US$2.3 million for thecity itself. But this value is only created when cities have the resources to make data available in a useful form and requires
an existing civic-minded tech community. In addition, many of the innovative ideas do not get developed and hence are notsustained requiring a more iterative and collaborative approach. Communities of “civic hacktivists” are growing across theworld and cities increasingly are finding ways to partner with them to provide services or understand problems better.
Source: Smith, 2017.

In a similar vein, after Hurricane Sandy wreaked havocon the New York City metropolitan area in 2012, theUS Department of Housing and Urban Development in
partnership with the non-profit and philanthropic sector
organized Rebuild by Design, a design competition tofoster and fund innovative solutions to climate resilience.
This collaborative public-private process continues towork in different cities across the globe.75

To leverage open data as a resource, cities have to develop
their own ICT capabilities to help build and organize data
as well as portals to share this data in a standardized format;
many cities are now sharing a wide variety of anonymous
data and creating app competitions or “hackathons” toencourage new applications to address urban problems(Box 6.6). Open data portals also have the added benefit
of increasing collaboration among departments andpromoting more interaction and trust between residents
to solve challenges.73

6.4.2. Urban labs

Another strategy for cities is the innovation challenge.
This approach hopes to draw on the diverse ideas, talentand people in the city and beyond to tackle a specificchallenge. For example, ThinkCity, a social purpose
organization in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, created the“climathon” in 2019 to solicit ideas to address the serious
challenge of climate change resilience. The winner of thefirst climathon in Penang developed a prototype for asmart flood warning system for the city of Pulau Pinang
which is highly vulnerable to flooding. Using sensors
and artificial intelligence to transmit data on waterlevels in real time, the system would model hydrologicalproblems in advance, enable early detection of flooding
risk and generate a public alert system. ThinkCity with
its partners from George Town, in turn, won the EIT
Climate-KIC Climathon Global Awards for nature-based
solutions to prevent flooding including planting climateresilient species of trees that can help cool communities.74

Cities with institutions of higher education can also
develop so-called “town and gown” partnerships with
universities (Box 6.7). Many universities are in urban areas
and are increasingly looking to collaborate with local
communities and tech companies in urban labs to addressa wide range of urban problems. The MIT Senseable CityLab and University of Chicago’s Urban Labs are examples
in the developed world. Other collaborative urban techinitiatives like the Hyderabad Urban Lab or C4D Lab(University of Nairobi) and iHub in Nairobi are supported
by foundations, civil society and multilateral aid. Still others
are housed within city government, like the Laboratorio deInnovación Quito (LINQ), LABcapital in Bogotá and theLaboratorio para la Ciudad in Mexico City, which closed in
2018. These kinds of urban tech collaborative networks andspaces are growing globally, and cities can encourage themby providing affordable space, open data and collaboration.
Research is a critical building block for urban innovation
systems that spawn new civic-oriented tech companies.

197

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable UrbanizationBox 6.7: New York City’s “Town and Gown”
programme
Created in 2009-2010, Town+Gown is a city-wide
university-community partnership programme, resident
at the New York City Department of Design andConstruction, that brings academics and practitioners
together to create actionable knowledge in the built
environment.
Town+Gown is an open platform research program thatuses service (experiential) learning and faculty-directed
research to facilitate partnerships between academics
and practitioners on applied built environment research
projects through the collaborative inquiry model ofsystemic action research.
Town+Gown aims at increasing evidence-based analysis,
information transfer, and understanding of the built
environment, using, in many instances, New York City’sbuilt environment as a laboratory for practitioners
working in the city’s physical spaces, and academics
in the built environment disciplines, with the ultimate
objective of making changes in practices and policies
based on research results. The programme involves city
departments partnering with university teams sharing
data and insights on problems that university teams work
on. The city then organizes for events where the projects
are presented and discussed in public. Joint solutions tocity problems emerge out of this dynamic.
Source: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ddc/about/town-gown.page

6.5. Cities and the Uneven Geography ofTechnological Innovation
Technological innovation requires public investment inresearch and development (R&D) and venture capital,
or funding that goes into risky new projects or ventures.
These components are unevenly distributed across theworld. Large technology innovation networks and thecompanies within them are almost always located in
global cities that can also attract young well-educatedworkers, many of whom are immigrants, while lessglobally connected cities are left behind.76 These workers
are sometimes called the creative class, a term thatencompasses artists and entrepreneurs of all kinds thatwork in lucrative creative industries.77 In 2015, creative
industries generated over US$2.2 trillion with more than
29.5 million jobs worldwide, which is equivalent to three
per cent of the world’s GDP.78 While creative industries
are open to people of all ages and backgrounds, they
offer significant pathways to youth employment andconnect the formal and informal sectors, generations andregions, bearing a largely untapped potential to improveurbanization by 2030.
Although it is hard to measure precisely, some estimatessuggest that the digital economy alone in 2016 was worth
US$11.5 trillion globally, equivalent to 15.5 per cent of global
GDP, and is projected to grow to 24.3 per cent of global
GDP by 2025.79 If the Silicon Valley region were a country,
it would be one of the richest in the world with annual
production valued at US$275 billion.80 As technology andrelated knowledge spreads, which happens quickly in thedigital age, innovation supports other economies both
directly and indirectly through productivity gains.81

The geography of current technologicalinnovation, however, is riven withinequalities, with many profound
implications for society
The geography of current technological innovation,
however, is riven with inequalities, with many profound
implications for society that express themselves atdifferent levels: within and between these metro areas,
between metro areas and rural areas, and across cities andcountries around the world. Currently, the San Francisco
Bay Area in the US is the largest tech innovation ecosystemin the world. Many of the largest tech companies, like
Google, Facebook, Uber and Airbnb, are based there andhave outsized impacts locally because of the wealth theygenerate and globally because of their impact on rental
housing markets, the taxi industry, political advertisingand data privacy. It is important to understand these
dynamics because most cities are now impacted by these
giant technology firms that are, in many cases, wealthier198

Waste to Compost
8

Waste Water to be Treated

9

Recycling and Reduction of C&D Waste
OthersWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Water Management

19

Smart Meters & Management

Tele-Medicine & Tele Education

10

20

11

Leakage Identiﬁcation, Preventive Maint.

Incubation/Trade Facilitation Centers

21

12

Water Quality Monitoring

Skill Development Centers

Figure 6.4: Global distribution of top 100 digital companies and market capitalization (US$ billion)

CanadaCGI ($16.5)

United States
CGI ($873.2)

China
Tencent($448)

FranceCapgemini ($17.9)
India
HCLT Tech ($8.7)

Japan
Sony($54.9)

TaiwanASUS($5.5)

Source: Murphy, 2018.

and more powerful than many countries and have wideranging impacts, including on city governance.
Venture capital supports technology companies by lowering
the barriers to taking products to market. This financing
also tends to be concentrated in the US, especially in
the San Francisco Bay Area and the Northeast Corridor(Boston-New York-Washington), with most venture
capital-backed high-tech start-ups found in global cities
like London, Paris, Toronto, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Shanghai,
Mumbai and Bangalore, among some others (Figures 6.4
and 6.5).82 While much of this venture capital goes into
investment in local technological innovation, some of itis exported to support technology companies globally,83
sometimes creating conflicts between more locally funded
and developed technology firms and global players thatmake for a very uneven playing field and what some term
“tech or digital colonialism.”84

distributed globally, which raises a problem for the enabling
environment envisioned in the New Urban Agenda andSDGs: “access to science, technology and innovation andenhanced knowledge-sharing.”85 According to UNESCO,
while global spending on R&D has reached a record high ofalmost US$1.7 trillion, only 10 countries account for 80 per
cent of spending which consists of both private and public
sector support.86 Part of this public sector R&D support
makes it into universities that either incubate or spin off
start-ups or provide breakthroughs in science that enablefurther technological advances.

Public sector investment in scientific,
engineering and technology researchthat forms the basis of much of the coreof technological innovation is also very
unevenly distributed globally

Even though some of the benefits of improved technology
Public sector investment in scientific, engineering andspread across the globe, the spatial distribution of venturetechnology research that forms the basis of much of the
Venture capital
CapitalandInvestment
public sector R&D along with the technology
core of technological innovation is also very unevenly(US$ Millions)

10,000
5,000

199

1,000
100

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

Figure 6.5: Global distribution of venture capital

Venture Capital Investment(US$ Millions)
10,000
5,000
1,000
100

Source: Martin Prosperity Institute, 2016

companies that draw on them is profoundly concentrated.
One implication is that large technology firms are players
in many cities across the globe, creating new power
dynamics as was the case of Sidewalks Lab in Toronto.
As the technology sector can generate employment andeconomic dynamism with the production of new services
and increased efficiencies, many cities strive to foster
conditions for these kinds of businesses to flourish. Witness
the dozens of cities around the world that have attempted
to brand themselves with the moniker “Silicon,” from the
Silicon Wadi of Tel Aviv to the Silicon Savannah of Nairobi.
However, cities also are highly unequal in the extent to which
they can develop policies to encourage technology firms as
an economic strategy. Some cities with more resources areinvesting in innovation districts, incubator and accelerator
spaces, knowledge centres and universities, as well as
providing land or tax breaks to tech companies. Other cities
simply host technology firms but are not focused on building
innovation systems. Overall, a great diversity exists among
cities in terms of their orientation towards the innovationand technology firms that increasingly dominate the world’s
most economically dynamic cities.87

A great diversity exists among cities interms of their orientation towards theinnovation and technology firms that
increasingly dominate the world’s mosteconomically dynamic cities
One of the most dramatic examples of the ambivalentrelationship cities can have toward the technology sector
is San Francisco. In 2015, the mayor faced a budget deficit
and created tax breaks for tech companies to move into
the city. The incentive created a dynamic hub that boosted
city employment and generated substantial revenues, but
the influx also raised rents and property prices feeding a
housing crisis that has made San Francisco one of the mostunequal cities in the US.88 In 2018, city voters responded
to the changes in their city by approving a tax on techcompanies to fund housing for the homeless over strenuous
opposite from the tech industry.89 But Silicon Valley ismore than just a single city’s policies. A detailed analysisof the Bay Area’s innovation ecosystem by the Bay Area
Science and Innovation Consortium (BASIC), which brings
together local government, companies and universities in200

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

6.6. Digital Exclusion, Data Privacy and thePerils of New Technologies

an innovative form of cooperative networked governance,shows a whole set of complex public and private actorsthat interact to produce the region’s wealth, including
universities, accelerators, big companies and venture
capital (Figure 6.6).90

Historically, every set of profound technological changes
has led to transformations in labour, social and political
relations. This section systematically examines some of theperils of the movement towards ever more automationand digitization. These include digital exclusion, questionsof data control and digital colonialism, privacy andVery high - 39,890KESconcerns, political misuse of social platforms
surveillance
and impacts on labour, poverty and inequality.

So far efforts to kickstart innovation systems in othermetropolitan areas have brought mixed but usually lower
than expected success.91 This outcome is because it is hardto nurture a complex ecosystem that involves a form of
networked collaborative governance, which is in and of itself
a kind of institutional innovation. This conclusion reinforces
the insight that innovation in the broad sense lies both inscientific and technological developments, but also in thecreative actions of governments and citizens that strive to
use new institutional arrangements to address economic
as well as social and environmental challenges. However,even if a city is not actively trying to build local innovation
systems, we have seen many ways for cities to leverage newtechnologies from the bottom up to become “smarter.”

Income Group - Avg. shillings/mo.

high - 22,084KES

Mediumproblems
high - 13,352KES of digital exclusion and inequality in accessThe
to the benefits of new technologies persist. Despite theMedium - 6,153KES
fact that internet use and mobile phones are expanding
rapidly,
with approximately one million people going
Medium low - 3,854KES
online each day for the first time and with two-thirds of
Low - 2,165KES
the global population owning a mobile device, about halfof theworld’s
Very low- 1,301KES population (3.9 billion) do not have internet
access,92 with0%a majorityof thesebeing
rural dwellers, low20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of Income Group’s Population

Figure 6.6: The San Francisco Bay Area innovation system
Representative Collaborative Patterns in the Bay Area Innovation System
CIRM
Buck
Institute

Gladstone

SFVA

QB3

UC
Berkeley
UCSF

Gallo

UC Davis

Palo Alto
VA

CITRIS

UC
Santa Cruz
Industrial Innovation
Centers (e.g., Autodesk)

In-Q-Tel

Stanford

Corporate Innovation
O ces – US HQ

DIU

Entrepreneurs
andStartups

AngelsCorporate Innovation
O ces – Overseas HQ

VC

DHS

Accelerators

GoogleGenentech

Agilent

HP

SLAC

SRI

PARC

LBNL
Joint Genome
Institute

IBM

LLNL
JBEI

201

CCC

Lockheed
MartinCSU

IntelNASA’sAmes RC

SandiaSETI

Design Firms(e.g., IDEO)

Source: Bay Area Economic Council, 2019.

KaiserOracleInnovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

The problems of digital exclusion andinequality in access to the benefits of
new technologies persist
income, elderly, illiterate and female. The offline population
faces four kinds of barriers: low incomes, affordability, user
capability and infrastructure.93 While digital exclusion is aclear problem in rural areas, urban areas with increasingly
large populations of poor residents face serious problemsof digital exclusion, even in wealthier countries.94
This disparity means that cities need to have digital
inclusion strategies if they want smart city or citizen
programmes and outreach to work in an equitable way
for all residents. Several strategies exist from providing
free wi-fi in public places like plazas and public transit tosponsoring municipal broadband as a utility to promoting
digital literacy, especially among women and children, by
distributing low-cost devices or integrating coding into
school curricula. However, many cities across the world arethemselves slow to digitize data and take advantage of the
new technologies available to them, which means they arealso slow in addressing digital inclusion problems.
Another key challenge is privacy. Cities must work topromote good policies to protect citizen data that getcollected via these new services and empower citizens
to understand how to protect their personal data. Whilestatic open data like the number of light posts or housing
locations raise few legal problems, profound concerns exist
around making health or real-time data open.95 This concern
is applicable to many of the emerging apps associatedwith tracking and contact tracing COVID-19 cases. Morework needs to be done to develop data protection laws,
education programs and policies especially in contexts
where such laws are currently weak or underdeveloped.96
Some cities are hiring staff tasked with managing open
data portals and protecting privacy. Big tech firms offering

Cities must work to promote good
policies to protect citizen data that getcollected via these new services andempower citizens to understand how toprotect their personal dataservices in cities use private data often in ways that leave
citizens unaware. As cities embrace and promote digitaltechnologies by partnering with tech companies, they needto act to protect user data, especially at a moment when
profound ethical and political questions exist around theuse of tech for surveillance and manipulation to undermine
democratic processes.97
Another problem is how to regulate technology companies
providing new types of services that lead to problematic
impacts, particularly in the realm of labour disruption,
regulation and city planning. Cities, for example, are being
inundated by new mobility services from ride hailingcars and vans to scooters, with big tech firms also testing
autonomous vehicles. By claiming to be a technology
company and not a transport company, new mobility
companies often attempt to evade regulations, and many
cities need to update their legal frameworks and policies toaddress these kinds of new services and experiments.

How to manage and regulate technology
companies is a major challenge
How to manage and regulate technology companies
is a major challenge. For example, Uber and its manyequivalents provide a service connecting passengers witha ride through an e-hailing app that uses geolocation
and algorithms to calculate costs. In many cities like
Johannesburg, South Africa, Uber has displaced lowincome workers in the taxi sector with immigrant drivers
who are still nevertheless paid poorly,98 triggering violent
strife and raising questions about unfair competition.99
Evidence is also accumulating that in some cities, Uberis causing additional traffic congestion by creating an
incentive for many more vehicles circulating on the road.100
Thus, cities need to find ways to manage these new services
and ensure they complement existing mobility paradigms.
Whether these powerful tools will be used to improveurban life depends on “who controls the technology, who
has access to the data, who interprets them, and of course,
what they are used to achieve.”101 With data and analysis
an increasingly lucrative business, a scramble exists forurban data collection with many firms offering services
but keeping both the data and the software they use as

202

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

private property. This tendency creates a strong data andtech dependency, which some call “digital colonialism” thatstifles potential innovation and spinoffs from the data.
Hence, developing strong governance frameworks built on
digital rights is key to ensure that technology is deployed
in a way that improves public life in cities and feeds into
the value of urbanization.

6.7. The Importance of Governance andDigital Rights
Given the concentration of power in technology companies
and the pace of technological change, governments areunder pressure to play a more active role in enhancing
the positive aspects of technology while safeguarding
against its negative effects. Governments must ensurethat there is a comprehensive and functioning regulatoryenvironment that builds citizen trust and sets clear rules
for technology companies.
To realize this goal, governments need to put in place
regulations and policies that govern technologicaldevelopment, addressing issues such as interoperability,
procurement, public-private partnerships and issues to dowith privacy and security raising from the use of digitalplatforms and data collection. To build trust, governments
need to enact privacy laws that respond to the concerns ofcitizens, businesses and civil society in relation to security
breaches, the handling of personal data and surveillance.
Clear, ethical frameworks and institutional arrangements
for data collection and data sharing should be put in place,especially in relation to data collected from different
sources as well as around algorithms and the use of artificial
intelligence, which have in-built biases.102 These governanceframeworks need to set out ethical standards, including who
has the right to data, access and ownership, and who should
enjoy the benefits from the data. Here, it is important that the
public sector, as the custodian of citizens’ rights, assumes its

Clear, ethical frameworks andinstitutional arrangements fordata collection and data sharing
should be put in place203

full governance responsibility. For many local governments,
this is a completely new area, and as such, digital policy andgovernance capacity need to be significantly strengthened or
built from scratch.

Municipal data is increasingly becoming
a strategic resource that enables local
governments to carry out their mission
and programmes effectively
Municipal data is increasingly becoming a strategic
resource that enables local governments to carry out
their mission and programmes effectively. Appropriate
access to municipal data significantly improves the valueof the information and the return on the investment ingenerating it. As discussed in relation to civic technologies,
well-governed municipal data ensures accountability andtransparency, promotes openness and public participationin government, and provides actionable insights. Cities
and local governments are realizing their responsibilities
when it comes to digital governance, data and upholding
citizens’ digital rights.
In 2018, the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights was launched
as a network of cities committed to upholding digital rights
and supported by the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights, UN-Habitat, Eurocities
and UCLG. The coalition is a global initiative that puts
citizens’ digital rights at the centre of policies relating todata and technology. The coalition shares best practices
and coordinates common initiatives and actions. Inspiredby the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, the workof 300 international stakeholders over the past ten years,
the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights is committed to thefollowing five evolving principles:i. Universal and equal access to the internet and digital
literacy: Everyone should have access to affordable andaccessible internet and digital services on equal terms,
as well as the digital skills to make use of this access andovercome the digital divide.
ii. Privacy, data protection and security: Everyone should haveprivacy and control over their personal information
through data protection in both physical and virtualInnovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

places, to ensure digital confidentiality, security,dignity and anonymity, and sovereignty over their data,
including the right to know what happens to their data,
who uses it and for what purposes.

a concerted effort from cities can assert regulatory power
to correct the negative impacts of companies working in
the digital economy.103

iii. Transparency, accountability and non-discrimination ofdata, content and algorithms: Everyone should have accessto understandable and accurate information about thetechnological, algorithmic and artificial intelligencesystems that impact their lives, and the ability to questionand change unfair, biased or discriminatory systems.

6.8. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
Policyiv. Participatory democracy, diversity and inclusion: Everyone
should have full representation on the internet, andthe ability collectively to engage with the city throughopen, participatory and transparent digital processes.
Everyone should have the opportunities to participate
in shaping local digital infrastructures and services and,more generally, city policymaking for the common good.
v. Open and ethical digital service standards: Everyone
should be able to use the technologies of their choice,and expect the same level of interoperability, inclusion
and opportunity in their digital services. Cities
should define their own technological infrastructures,
services and agenda, through open and ethical digital
service standards and data to ensure that they live up
to this promise.
The coalition and its principles are the start of a global
movement of cities that are taking digital rights seriously
to ensure that the new digital economy is having a
positive effect on urban life. Barcelona, for example,
whose residents have been experiencing major increases
in rents and neighbourhood displacement in recent
years, has banned landlords from renting out properties
without a tourism licence on Airbnb. However, thisregulation proved difficult to enforce because officials
would need to scroll through thousands of listings andcheck them against the register of tourism apartments.
In 2018, applying the principle of data transparency andaccountability, the Barcelona City Council signed anagreement with Airbnb in which the city was given fullaccess to properties being listed; thus, enabling officials toeasily corroborate the data against the tourism apartments
database. This successful enforcement demonstrates how

Advances in digital technology and innovation are
unleashing the underdeveloped potential to makemaximum use of local resources and assets and address
profound urban challenges. New technologies can also
boost economic growth and prosperity, but whether they
will be harnessed to the benefit of the majority is an
outcome firmly in the hands of cities and their national
governments. Decisions made by cities around how to
use and regulate rapid technological change within an
innovation strategy will have profound impacts anddetermine how much we capture the value of urbanization
to fulfil the aspirations for a sustainable future.

New technologies and innovation
provide opportunities for cities to meet
the SDGs and generate immense value
from the process of urbanization
New technologies and innovation provide opportunities forcities to meet the SDGs and generate immense value fromthe process of urbanization. Serious challenges also exist,
and regulatory and legal tools need to be applied to steer
needed innovation and manage new technologies that canharm as well as help. It is also important to reiterate that
not all innovation is about technology. Cities themselves
are innovators and incubators of innovation.
Cities are exploring new ways to engage with residents toensure equity and justice including access to and regulationand management of new technologies. They are developing

Cities are exploring new ways toengage with residents to ensure equity
and justice including access to andregulation and management of newtechnologies

204

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020and fostering new ways to provide high-quality services
to address the SDGs and New Urban Agenda as well as
confront the growing threats of climate change and theongoing threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology
is most effective in unleashing the value of sustainableurbanization when it supports city governance andinnovation including in operations, management andcitizen engagement and democracy.

Cities have become highly adept at
sharing and adapting new innovations
on their own, accelerating the diffusionof good ideas and speeding global
learning
It is most critical for cities to build capacities to manage
potentially tumultuous changes104 and to find pathways
towards national and global cooperation when confronting
these challenges especially as the impacts of technologicaland climate change are often highly uneven, creating deeper
inequalities in the absence of mitigation measures.105
Fortunately, cities have become highly adept at sharing andadapting new innovations on their own, accelerating the
diffusion of good ideas and speeding global learning. Moremust be done to support this trend.106
Several lessons emerge from the discussion in this chapter: New technologies and innovation provide
opportunities for cities to meet the SDGs and generateimmense value from the process of urbanization. Cities
that encourage creative activities, neighbourhoods andpeople are best able to innovate.
 Open cities that welcome and leverage diversity
and migrants and foster creative and collaborative
networks between levels of government, universities,
the private sector and citizens tend to build productive
innovation systems that enhance economic, social andcultural value.
 Developments in big data, quantum computing,networked IoT, automation and artificial intelligencehave the potential to reshape social relations, labour,
politics and city life in profound ways. Cities must

205

build regulatory and policy capacities to address thesechallenges and negotiate what is in the public interest,
ideally adopting strong frameworks for digital rights
and development.
 Technology firms are increasingly focusing on cities asmarkets for smart city technologies. Results of smart
city experiments are mixed and particularly poor whenthese efforts are technology- rather than people-driven.
Cities should focus on their existing problems, apply
their own civic technology and encourage innovations
to address these problems before pursuing private
sector technology products.
 Technology cannot displace citizen engagement inneighbourhood and city affairs. Technology is mosteffective when coupled with institutional innovationand is not a substitute for improving governance.
 Cities require data and data capacities and benefit
from building open data and open source ecosystems.
Developing open data portals, hackathons andinnovation challenges and support for research andlocal science along with needed labour retraining will
foster a healthy technology innovation ecosystem.
 Problems of digital exclusion in access to the benefitsof new technologies persist, potentially deepening
inequalities. In line with the New Urban Agenda
and SDGs, cities must actively develop programmes
and strategies to promote inclusion in technology
development, use and education.
 Finally, the need for innovation in its ancient Greek
philosophical meaning as “introducing change to theestablished order”107 has perhaps never been morecritical as we strive to build a new socio-ecologicalorder on the foundation of the SDGs, New Urban
Agenda and the Paris Agreement. Cities are thekey places where intense technological, social andpolitical experimentation is taking place to address
the challenges of urbanization: inequality, the fourthindustrial revolution and the climate crisis. The valueof their work in realizing sustainable development inthis context is immeasurable.

Innovation, Technology and theValue of Sustainable Urbanization

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

OECD, 2012.
Glaeser, 2011.
New Urban Agenda, 2017.
Ottaviano and Peri, 2006.
Glaeser et al. 1992; Stolarick andFlorida, 2006; Hauge and Hracs,
2010.
Townsend, 2013 p.xiv.
Cho, 2017.
Sprague, Grijpink, and Manyika
2014; Broadband Commission for
Sustainable Development 2017.
Rosenblatt, 2018.
Green, 2019.
Klopp and Petretta, 2017.
Bliss 2016, Gasparro et al, 2019.
Godin, 2019.
World Cities Report, 2016.
New Urban Agenda, 2017.
OECD, 2012.
Mazzucato, 2015.
Ford, 2015.
Kaplan, 2015.
Green 2019; Noble, 2018.
Fursman and King 2019; Ford, 2015.
Marr, 2018.
Union of Concerned Scientists 2017.
Hindustan Times, 2019.
Talbot, 2013.
Ratti et al, 2006.
Bhalla, 2019.
Tweya et al, 2016; Olopade 2014.
Klopp and Cavoli, 2019.

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

Williams et al, 2015; Klopp et al,2015.
Campbell et al, 2019.
Fried et al, 2020.
See DigitalTransport4Africa.
Huang et al, 2020.
Smart Cities World, 2020.
Nature, 2020.
World Health Organization, 2020.
World Economic Forum, 2020c.
Citizen science actively involves
citizens in scientific endeavoursor projects that generate newknowledge or understanding.
Citizens may act as contributors,
collaborators or as project leadersand have a meaningful role in the
project (Robinson et al, 2018).
deSouza et al, 2018; Pinder et al,
2019.
Bower and Price 2019.
International Telecommunications
Union, 2015.
Smart Cities Association, 2017.
Townsend, 2013.
Shwayri, 2013.
Petit and White, 2018; Poon, 2018.
Poon, 2018; Petit and White, 2018.
Townsend, 2013 p. 25.
Dawson, 2018; Kuecker, 2015.
Wainright, 2019.
Caprotti, 2014.
Sidewalk Toronto Tomorrow,

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.

undated.
Sidewalk Toronto Tomorrow,undated.
Summers, 2019.
Weiditz, 2020.
Government of India, 2015 p.5.
Lee et al, 2014.
Deka, 2019.
Sgeuo, 2016.
Barros and Sampaio, 2016.
Goldstein and Dyson, 2013; Mergel,
Kleibrink and Sorvik, 2018.
Principles for Digital Development,
2015.
ODI, 2018.
ODI, 2018.
McHugh, 2013.
Schweiger et al, 2015.
O’Brien, 2017.
Hogge, 2016.
Reed, 2015 cited in Hogge, 2016.
Hogge, 2016.
Hern, 2018.
Hill et al, 2020 p. 14.
Mergel et al, 2018.
Choong, 2020.
Rebuild by Design, 2013.
Royse, 2019.
Florida, 2002.
UNTAD, 2019.
Huawei and Oxford Economics, 2017.
Pulkkinen, 2019.
Cardon et al, 2013; Neibel, 2018.

82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.

94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.

Florida and CityLab, 2016.
Florida and Kenney, 1988.
Pilling, 2019.
United Nations, 2015.
UNESCO, undated.
Marceau, 2008.
Kuo, 2016.
Holder, 2018.
Bay Area Economic Council, 2019.
Rabelo and Bernus, 2015.
World Economic Forum, 2020a.
Sprague et al, 2014; Broadband
Commission for Sustainable
Development, 2017.
Levin and Downs, 2019.
Scassa and Diebel, 2016.
Nyabola, 2018.
Helbing et al, 2017; Moore, 2018;
Zuboff, 2019.
Rosenblat, 2018.
Burke, 2017,
Schaller, 2018,
Townsend, 2013.
Noble, 2018.
Tamajon et al, 2019.
Runde and Milner, 2019.
United Nations High Level Panel on
Digital Cooperation, 2019.
Townsend, 2013 p. 13.
Godin and Lucier, 2012.

206

Chapter 7
Local Governments andthe Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

Local governments are the prime movers of sustainable urbanization. As the unit of government closest to
everyday citizens, they are the most attuned to the needs and desires of urban residents. The successful
implementation of the global development agendas and effectively unleashing the value of sustainableurbanization thus depends on the democratic, efficient and inclusive functioning of this level of urban
governance.

207

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Quick facts
1. There is a growing movement of local and regional
governments advancing the localization of the global agendas
to harness the value of sustainable urbanization.
2. There is global progress on decentralization with local
governments increasingly playing a significant role ingovernance as decentralization processes get implemented
across various regions.
3. Weak institutional environments—the powers, capacities
and resources devolved—are hindering local action, andconsequently, the realization of the value of urbanization.
4. Cities are playing the role of experimental hubs in theimplementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda, and theirexperiences can be used to scaled up polices at the national
level.
5. Cities are increasingly integrating the SDGs in their policies
and strategic plans, which in turn enhances the value of
urbanization. Cities are also institutionalizing their engagementwith local stakeholders as the basis for more inclusive
decision-making.

Policy points:
1. Galvanize the forces of localization of the 2030 Agenda
and the New Urban Agenda in cities and territories bymainstreaming localization strategies in all plans, programmes

Local governments are at the forefront of urban governanceand are recognized as key players for progress toward theglobal development agendas. This acknowledgment isembedded in international agreements and supported by
the proven commitment of local governments and theirorganizations to the realization of these agendas. Local
governments have not only widely embraced these agendas
as they seek to implement them, but they were also actively
involved in their negotiation. Indeed, the New Urban
Agenda explicitly recognizes the proactive role played by
local leaders and the World Assembly of Local and Regional
Governments during the Habitat III process. The highly
symbolic gathering of this constituency’s political voicein Quito was facilitated by the Global Taskforce of Local
and Regional Governments (GTF), which was created in2013 and brings together the main global and regional
networks of local and regional governments to contributeto the post-2015 process.1 Their engagement has since been
reaffirmed and reinforced through the ongoing efforts by
local governments to “localize” these global agendas.2

The global agendas are intrinsicallyinterlinked and cannot be achieved
in isolation: all actions in pursuit ofsustainable development impact thehighly interrelated challenges affecting
cities and territories

and budgets from national to local levels.
2. National governments should strengthen local governments’
involvement in the definition, implementation and monitoringof national urban policies and the SDGs.
3. Countries should create enabling institutional environments for
local governments to operate in order effectively unleash thevalue of sustainable urbanization.
4. Strong multilevel governance frameworks are key to foster
vertical and horizontal cooperation between different levelsof government and between local governments. Additionally,strong metropolitan governance that responds to the realities
of economic and social geographies should be enabled.

From the perspective of local governments, the global
agendas are intrinsically interlinked and cannot be
achieved in isolation: all actions in pursuit of sustainable
development impact the highly interrelated challenges
affecting cities and territories. The New Urban Agenda
contributes to catalysing and complementing the SDGs,
yet it will not be possible to fully realize either the New
Urban Agenda or the SDGs without fulfilling the objectives
set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change and the
Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Prevention.

5. Cities must track the localization of the global agendas toensure that planning processes at all levels are founded onrealistic targets.

Moreover, although harnessing the potential of urban
systems to promote sustainable development is a decisive
measure to achieve the global agendas, the current reality

208

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Street cleaning to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in Santa Marta favela, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. © Photocarioca/Shutterstockof cities, as shown in previous chapters, is particularly
challenging. Often, cities and their local governments
are constrained in how they can respond to thesechallenges. Placed on the frontline of the COVID-19
crisis, the pandemic’s critical impact is also shaping
the modalities of the next phase of local governance forsustainable development. The successful implementationof the New Urban Agenda and the effective value ofsustainable urbanization will depend on the developmentof appropriate, democratic, efficient and inclusive urban
governance and institutional frameworks.
This first section of the chapter provides examplesof visionary local leadership promoting bottom-up
transformation and advancing initiatives to create moresustainable and inclusive futures for cities, including
some brief references to cities’ ongoing responses to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The second section gives an overview
of the governance challenges facing cities with a particularfocus on the evolution of decentralization processes to
explain local government’s institutional frameworks indifferent regions of the world. The third section discusses
the role of local governments’ in bringing together thesocial and economic forces that operate at the local level,
creating synergies that allow for the development of urban
governance systems that are able to steer the transformation

209of urban development patterns. The section identifies
the different instruments available to achieve this goal,
namely: planning, participation and multilevel governance.
This section further discusses the involvement of local
governments in national urban policies and in national
coordination mechanisms for SDG implementation.
Lastly, the chapter outlines the necessary changes for
local governments and their institutional environments toleverage the value of sustainable urbanization.

7.1. The Emerging Urban Alternatives for a
Sustainable Future
Cities on different continents are emerging as significant
examples of new urban development paths, enhancing
the transformative forces of urbanization and reshaping
urban-rural linkages.3 Ambitious local leaders, supportedby their networks, are pushing societal change forward,
increasingly embracing innovation and leading the way
towards solutions to global challenges. Their actions haveboth direct and indirect impacts on the wellbeing of
their inhabitants, as well as on the safeguarding of manyof humanity’s common goods. Cities from all size andtheir organizations are, as mentioned earlier, leading the“localization” of the global agendas (Box 7.1).

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Box 7.1: The localization of the global agendas for sustainable development
Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the local and regional government movement for the
localization of the SDGs has been progressively expanding to all parts of the world, albeit at a different pace within and between
regions. Progress is most noticeable in Northern and Western European countries.
Expenditures and Revenues
In North America, an increasing number of pioneering high-profile cities %andstates are demonstrating their commitment. For
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
example, New York City and Los Angeles prepared Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) to monitor their respective progress toward
Asia
the America, driven mainly by local governments associations in Brazil,
meeting the SDGs. Progress has been more varied
inand
Latin
PaciﬁcCosta Rica, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and by regional governments and large cities in Argentina and Mexico. In
Africaas a framework for public policies in 2018. Further, the cities of Barcarena,
Brazil, for instance São Paulo adopted the 2030 Agenda
Niterói and Santana de Parnaíba presented the outcomes and results of the localization of the SDGs through VLRs.

Latin America
and the Caribbean

In Africa, significant efforts have been made towards the development of local plans and strategies aligned with the SDGs in
Mewa Regions
countries such as Benin, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa and Togo. In Benin and Kenya, local governments associations developed
several voluntary subnational reports to contribute to theircountry’s respective VNRs. In Rwanda, the Rwanda Association of Local
CIS
Government Authorities (RALGA), in partnership with the national government and development partners, is strengthening local
government capacities to effectively adapt the SDGsEurope
to local contexts. Similarly, the South African Local Government Association(SALGA) is promoting the alignment of local plans with national strategies and the SDGs.
Global Average

In the Asia-Pacific region, local governments are advancing in the alignment of their policies and plans with the SDGs (Japan,
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Republic of Korea, China and Indonesia, followed by Australia, the Philippines
New Zealand and at the federated state level in% Direct andInvestments
India). Meanwhile, progress in Eurasian, Middle Eastern and Western Asian countries remains incipient (with the notable exception% Expenditures% Revenues% Direct Investments
of Turkey and with recent acceleration in the Russian Federation). In the Philippines, both the League of Cities (LCP) and the
League of Municipalities (LMP) are leading the charge on SDG localization.
Voluntary Local Reviews

Helsinky2019

Canterbury
2019

New York
2018

Mexico City
2017

Wallonia
2017
North Rhine-Westphalia
2016

Bistrol
2019

New York
2019

Los Angeles
2019

Gotenburg
2019

Mannheim
2019
Malaga2018

Basque Country
2018

Besancon 2018
Barcelona 2019

Shimokawa2018
Toyama2018
Hamamatsu
2019

Suwon
2018
Kitakyushu
2018

Valencian Country
2016

Deqing2017
Tapel and New Tapel
2019
Cauayan City
2017

Barcarena
2018

Oaxaca2019

Santana de Parnaiba
2019

Chimbote
2020

Marsabit County
2019

Busia County
2019

Taita Taveta County
2019

Kwale County
2019

La Paz2018

Niteroi
2020

Sao Paulo
2019
Santa Fe
2019
Buenos Aires
2019

Cape Town
2019

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: GTF and UCLG, 2020, GTF and UCLG, 2019; GTF and UCLG, 2018; GTF and UCLG, 2017; UCLG 2019.

210

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought
to the fore the critical role local
governments play as front-line
responders in crisis response, recovery
and rebuilding
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore thecritical role local governments play as front-line responders
in crisis response, recovery and rebuilding.4 They havebeen at the forefront of addressing the cascading publichealth, economic and social impacts of this crisis. Local
governments are stepping up to help their communities
and rapidly implement responses, focusing mostly on theinterlinkages between access to public services, poverty,social inclusion, economic development and environmental
protection. As cities innovated and developed new policy
responses to this unprecedented crisis, UN-Habitat incollaboration with United Cities and Local Governments(UCLG) and Metropolis established Cities for Global
Health, a knowledge-exchange platform and database formayors and local leaders in which cities across the world
are sharing their protocols, plans and initiatives.5
7.1.1. Environmental actions

A significant number of cities are at the forefront ofclimate action and resilience strategies. In 2019, more than
10,000 cities from 139 countries made commitments to takemeasurable climate action through the Global Covenant ofMayors for Climate and Energy (Box 7.2). Many cities aredeveloping renewable energy systems, divesting from fossil
fuels, making efforts to develop cleaner and more inclusive
public mobility systems through multimodal transportsystems, promoting active mobility and including distantand deprived neighbourhoods in the formal economic
fabric (e.g. Medellín’s Metrocable). In 2018, Guangzhou,
China, electrified its entire 11,220 bus fleet and installed
4,000 charging stations.6 Many leading cities have steppedup their actions for achieving zero waste, reducing waste
generation, moving away from landfill and incineration
practices towards transforming waste to energy andadopting zero-plastic policies. For example, the Accra
Metropolitan Authority in Ghana integrated informal
waste collectors into the city’s waste management system
in 2016 and increased waste collection from 28 to 48 percent in two years.7

211

An increasing number of cities are developing tools formonitoring air pollution and adopting air quality actionplans with policy tools like London’s Ultra Low Emission
Zone.8 At the same time, cities are also seeking to expand
public and green spaces9 to improve their urban tree canopy,
like Edmonton, Canada, which has developed an ambitious
Urban Forest Management Plan. Some cities of the Global
South are moving towards promoting the use of modern
cooking fuels and renewable energy to reduce indoor andoutdoor air pollution, as is the case with Dakar’s Territorial
Climate Energy Plan to reduce pollution in Senegal.

Box 7.2: Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate
and Energy (GCoM)
The Global Covenant of Mayors gathers over 10,200
cities from 139 countries on all continents committed
to reduce, by 2030, 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions inline with SDG 13 and the Paris Agreement. The covenant
is supported by a global alliance of local government
networks—C40, Climate Alliance, Eurocities, Councilof European Municipalities and Regions, Energy Cities,
ICLEI and UCLG—and international institutions—theEuropean Commission, the European Committee ofRegions, UN-Habitat, Bloomberg Philanthropies andthe European Federation of Agencies and Regions forEnergy and the Environment.
GCoM members commit to prepare a baseline emissions
inventory; submit a sustainable energy action plan;
carry out regular reporting for evaluation, monitoring
and verification purposes; and share experiences
and know-how. Global networks have also promoted
other collaborative climate actions, such as ICLEI’s
partnership with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
to develop a carbon climate registry to support
subnational climate action reporting. In addition to theglobal networks, numerous climate leadership networks
have emerged at country and regional levels (e.g.
Climate Mayors in the US, Climate Alliance in Europe).
Source: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/our-cities/; https://carbonn.org.

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Confronted with increasing disasters, cities areprogressively mainstreaming disaster risk prevention
and climate change adaptation programs into theirurban and territorial planning strategies. In partnershipwith UN-Habitat and other international organizations(such as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction and the now-defunct 100 Resilient Cities andits successor, the Global Resilient Cities Network)10 many
local governments are designing and implementing moreinnovative and comprehensive resiliency strategies, making
use of new technologies, promoting the involvement ofcommunities and the most vulnerable populations throughcomprehensive planning processes and mainstreaming
resilience into neighbourhood upgrading plans. Citiesof all sizes are assessing their sectoral interdependencies
to identify the critical points in their infrastructure andinform their planning processes, while involving theircommunities in the development of resilient strategies.
7.1.2. Local economic development initiatives

Local governments bear a large responsibility to promoteeconomic development and employment generation, as
highlighted in Chapter 3. In response to the increasing
inequality brought about by unsustainable economic
development, cities are supporting alternative economic
models to develop decent jobs in line with SDG 8 and the
NUA.11 They are building specialized networks to promote
the social, collaborative, circular, green, creative and cultural
economies while also fostering small, medium and microenterprises.12 Examples of circular economy initiatives
abound, from Cape Town, South Africa’s industrial
symbiosis programme or Circular Gothenburg in Sweden
to initiatives in Geneva (Switzerland), Maribor (Slovenia),
Phoenix (US) or Quezon (Philippines), among others, that
aim to increase efforts at reducing and recycling waste
through reuse and repair.13 At the same time, many cities
in developing countries are fostering the integration of
informal sector (such as waste collectors, informal transportand street vendors) into the formal economy in an effort toimprove labour conditions and public space use, as is thecase in Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Dhaka (Bangladesh) andCities are supporting alternative
economic models to develop
decent jobs in line with SDG 8
and the NUA

Manila (Philippines). In Qalyubeya Governorate (Egypt),for instance, integrated community-based solid waste
management system is improving waste collection whileadvancing the working conditions the informal workforce.14
Additionally, as mentioned in chapter 6, cities are
giving increasing importance to the leading role thattechnological innovation plays in sustainable development,
particularly in increasing productivity, employability andurban governance, which has fostered the growth of “smartcity” solutions.15 Many cities, of all size and regions, standout in the use of new technologies for urban development
and management. Examples of this trend include Lahore’s
deployment of surveillance technology to manage public
safety and Seoul’s innovative use of mobile data to plan public
transport routes.16 Networks like the Cities Coalition for
Digital Rights have also emerged to address the multifaceted
nature of the digital divide and advocate for the recognitionof big data for public services as a common good.17
Beyond just the digital divide, broader socio-economic
inequalities are growing both within and between cities (forexample between metropolitan areas and peripheral cities
and growing and shrinking cities), and between urban andrural territories. To reduce inequality in line with SDG10
and the NUA, local governments are advancing intermunicipal cooperation and forging new partnerships tofoster smart specialization that promotes the sustainable
development of rural and peri-urban areas located on
urban fringes.18 Key components of these partnerships
usually include shared development strategies like ecotourism, promotion of local food systems and urban
agriculture, provision of access to social services for periurban and rural areas and the protection of environmental
resources that are critical for urban systems (e.g. watershedmanagement, wetland conservation, coastal protection
and reforestation). These partnerships exist among various
national and international networks.19
7.1.3. Inclusiveness policies

Although extreme poverty has decreased in recent years,
urban poverty has persisted and even worsened in many
cities and territories, with the COVID-19 pandemic expected
to exacerbate the issue. Given the multi-dimensional
nature of poverty in cities, local governments are fostering
inclusive social policies to support their most vulnerable

212

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

populations in accessing basic public services, which arecore local government commitment to the 2030 Agenda andthe NUA.20 Although access to piped water has improved
overall at the global level, challenges remain in many cities,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In theface of increasing water stress, many cities are developing
renewed water management strategies from integrated
approaches inspired by the global agendas (e.g. Brisbane,
Australia; Cape Town, South Africa; and Quito, Ecuador)
while others are developing water management strategies toreduce flooding (e.g. Jakarta, Indonesia) and innovating toovercome sanitation challenges (e.g. Rajkot, India).
Informality and the expansion of informal settlements are
two of the more salient issues related to urban poverty, as
well as a prominent characteristic of urban settlements
particularly in African, Latin American and Asian countries.
Local governments are implementing incremental upgrading
programs with the participation of civil society and revisiting
land-titling procedures. Some local governments such as
Rosario (Argentina), Nairobi (Kenya) or Harare (Zimbabwe),
have developed participatory, inclusive schemes for slumand neighbourhood renovation or upgrading. In Nairobi,
for instance, a comprehensive approach to slum upgradingthat includes various stakeholders is being undertaken in
Mukuru slums through the development of an inclusive
integrated development plan. This effort follows thedeclaration of the slum as a “Special Planning Area” by the
Nairobi City County in 2017.21 Although local governments’
responses to informal settlements increasingly tend towards
in-situ upgrading, there are still cases where settlements faceeviction. Local authorities are assigned the responsibility
to relocate the settlements’ inhabitants, which is a highly
complex issue requiring forward-thinking policy innovation
to ensure respect for human rights.

Cities are also building multistakeholder alliances to facilitate accessto housing, like encouraging cooperative
housing in Montevideo (Uruguay) and
Bologna (Italy) and community land
trust initiatives in Brussels (Belgium)and Burlington (US)local and global development agendas. Leaders of the largest
cities, both in developing and developed countries, launcheda global initiative in 2018 to advance their populations’right to housing in an effort to address the effects ofthe commodification of housing, market deregulationand skyrocketing prices of land and houses (Box 7.3).
Nevertheless, action stemming from various regions is still
far from the scale needed, given the magnitude of the housingcrisis. Cities are also building multi-stakeholder alliances tofacilitate access to housing, like encouraging cooperative
housing in Montevideo (Uruguay) and Bologna (Italy) andcommunity land trust initiatives in Brussels (Belgium) and
Burlington (US).

In the framework of the global housing crisis, the right toaffordable and adequate housing is increasingly prominent in

Local governments are fostering
inclusive social policies to support
their most vulnerable populations inaccessing basic public services, which
are core local government commitment
to the 2030 Agenda and the NUA
View of low cost house apartment in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. © Hafiz Johari/Shutterstock213

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Box 7.3: Cities for Adequate Housing Initiative
The global housing crisis led several cities to bring to
the 2018’s United Nations High-Level Political Forum on
Sustainable Development (HLPF) a firm pledge for theright to adequate housing in the form of the Cities for
Adequate Housing declaration.22 This action builds on
the Make the Shift initiative promoted by the UN Special
Rapporteur on adequate housing.
With this declaration, a growing number of cities havecommitted to promote renewed housing strategies toovercome the obstacles to the realization of the right toadequate housing, such as the lack of national funding,market deregulation and housing commodification.
The declaration calls for more powers to better regulate
the real estate market, more funds to improve public
housing stocks, more tools to co-produce affordable
housing between the public and private sectors, urban
planning that combines housing with inclusive andsustainable neighbourhoods and the adoption ofmunicipalist cooperation in residential strategies.
Source: Cities for Adequate Housing, 2018 (https://citiesforhousing.org/).

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the criticaldimensions of inequalities and the role city governments
need to play in ensuring social assistance as well as
access to food and shelter for vulnerable populations
like older persons, persons with disabilities and people
experiencing homelessness. During lockdown, many local
governments took extraordinary measures to maintainessential public services at an adequate level and ensure thelivelihoods of both formal and informal workers despite
strong restrictions, so as to prevent the health crisis fromdramatically exacerbating their vulnerabilities. Cities are
increasingly appreciating the role of the communities living
in informal settlements, and the informal economy, in haverecovery from of the pandemic. Cities such as Subang Jaya
(Malaysia), Cali (Colombia) and Freetown (Sierra Leone)
are working with informal networks in such communities toboth raise awareness about the pandemic and include thesecommunities in the recovery phase.

7.1.4. Strengthening right-based approaches

As progress is made in increasing female representationin elected government, local agendas are increasingly
cognizant of gender-based discrimination. In turn,
local governments are now seeking to mainstream
gender-specific approaches to urban management andpolicymaking through programmes whose goals include
addressing gender-based violence, acknowledging
women’s role in the informal economy and developing
targeted initiatives to promote equality for women andgirls in line with SDG 5 and the NUA.23 Many cities aretaking preventive and policing measures against domestic
violence and harassment in public spaces, such as in parks
or on public transport.24

Following SDG and NUA principles,
local governments are also choosing to
mainstream rights-based approaches
into their development strategies totackle all forms of discrimination andsupport diversity and social inclusion
Following SDG and NUA principles, local governments
are also choosing to mainstream rights-based approaches
into their development strategies to tackle all forms of
discrimination and support diversity and social inclusion(such as extreme poverty, youth, minorities, persons withdisabilities and immigrants). Within the framework of
the preparation of Habitat III, local governments andcivil society organizations developed a joint initiative tosupport the “right to the city” approach that was includedin the outcome document. It recognizes “the right of all
inhabitants … to inhabit, use, occupy, produce, govern
and enjoy just, inclusive, safe and sustainable cities,
villages and human settlements, defined as commons
essential to a full and decent life.”25 More than 400
mayors from all regions have signed the Global CharterAgenda for Human Rights in the City and implemented
awareness-raising campaigns and education programmes,
as well as created human rights commissions and offices,
ombudspersons or mediateurs.26 These networks havealso taken an active role in the process opened by theUnited Nations Human Rights Council to recognize local
governments’ role in the promotion and protection ofhuman rights.27

214

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Cities are also working to protect
migrants during a time when more
people are displaced worldwide than any
time since World War II
Cities are also working to protect migrants during a time
when more people are displaced worldwide than any
time since World War II. More than 500 jurisdictions in
the US describe themselves as “sanctuary cities.” Morethan 80 European cities and towns formed the Solidarity
Cities network to welcome refugees and asylum seekers.
In December 2018 the Marrakech Declaration of Mayors—
adopted at the Fifth Mayoral Forum on Human Mobility,
Migration and Development—acknowledged the role ofcities in the implementation, follow-up and review of boththe Global Compact for Safe,
Cities are also taking the lead in promoting culture andrespect for diversity through local policies (e.g. Belén,
Costa Rica) as well incorporating culture as a priority
component in urban plans and strategies (e.g. Bilbao
in Spain and Canoas in Brazil).28 More than 500 local
governments have adopted the Agenda 21 for culture which
elevates cultural rights and policies as one of the pillars ofsustainable strategies fostering diversity and inclusion.29

7.2 The Evolution of Local Governments’Institutional Frameworks and its
Relevance to Harnessing the Potentialof Sustainable Urbanization
Despite these encouraging examples, there remain
important gaps between more dynamic local governments
and many other less economically developed and fragile
cities whose ability to address urban challenges ishampered by weak local capacity, minimal resources,
inadequate national institutional frameworks and national
or international crises.
The transformation of the urban landscape—with the
expansion of borderless metropolitan areas and urban
regions as well as the expanding role of intermediate cities—
poses incremental challenges to both local and national
urban governance. At the same time, globalization has

215

reshaped the political economy of urban governance. While
globalization has created unprecedented opportunities
and revitalized the role of cities and territories, it has
also fostered the financialization of urban assets andthe commodification of public services. This trend has
stressed urban systems and increased social and territorial
inequalities and environmental challenges. Rising civilsociety discontent with political systems and public
institutions should also be considered in the list of the key
policy challenges facing future urban governance.
Within this global context, national institutional
development along the lines of decentralization, theevolution of urban legislation and the political economyof these reforms all determine the ways in which local
governments’ actions can contribute to leveraging theopportunities brought about by sustainable urbanization.
7.2.1. Global decentralization trends by region

Since the 1980s, and particularly over the last decade,major reforms of local governments’ legal, fiscal andadministrative frameworks have ranked high on national
policy agendas. A majority of countries have implemented
decentralization processes that have resulted in locallyelected governments with management authority overcities and territories, including the delivery of basic services
to respond to local communities’ needs. In all regions,
local governments play an increasingly significant rolein urban governance. On average, they represent 24.1 percent of general government public spending, 25.7 per centof general government public revenue and 36.6 per cent ofgeneral government public investment (Figure 7.1).30
Similarly, many metropolitan areas have been increasingly
endowed with more powers to address the challenges ofcomplex, diverse and vast urban areas covering multiple
jurisdictions. Globally, urban laws remain highly segmented
and not well articulated to the evolving reality of urban

Globally, urban laws remain highly
segmented and not well articulated tothe evolving reality of urban settlements
and the realities in which local
governments and agencies operate, forexample with limited funding

New York2018

co CityPaz
18

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Figure 7.1: Average of local governments expenditures,
revenues and direct investments as a share of total public
expenditures, revenues and direct investments by regions,
2016

governments typically account for a significant share of
public revenue and expenditure (25.7 per cent on average
but up to 52 per cent in Northern countries) and play a
crucial role in public investment (40 per cent).32
In Latin America, decentralization has progressedsignificantly since the 1980s. Local governments represent
on average 19 per cent of public expenditure and 23 percent of public revenues and play an important role inpublic investment (39 per cent, albeit with great variations
between countries and cities). However, in many countries,
decentralization has experienced periods of stagnationand setbacks, while in others evolution has been slow.
Overall, local governments have been important players
in improving the coverage of basic services, either directly
or in partnership with other levels of government, theprivate sector and communities. Although inequalities
in cities have decreased globally during the past decades,
they persist or have worsened in some cities of the region,
impacting access to and the quality of public goods andservices by poor households.33% Expenditures and Revenues
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Asia and the
PaciﬁcAfricaLatin America
and the Caribbean
Mewa Regions

CIS

EuropeGlobal Average

In the Asia-Pacific region, urbanization has helped
millions escape poverty and rapid urbanization is putting% Direct Investments
the region at the forefront of urban innovation. Urban
development processes advanced during the past three% Expenditures% Revenues% Direct Investments
decades in parallel with decentralization processes.
Source: Based on Subnational Government Finance and Investment (SNG-WOFI) data baseIn 2016, local and regional governments represented(http://www.sng-wofi.org/data/).
approximately 33 per cent and 34 per cent of public
expenditure and revenue, respectively, and 37 per cent ofpublic investment, but with huge differences according tosettlements and therealities in which local governments
Helsinky2019
31
Gotenburg
each country’s economic development levels. Countries
and agencies operate,forexamplewithlimitedfunding.
2019
Canterbury
2019with higher economic development correlate with
The analysisof these reforms, and particularly of
Wallonia
Bistrol
2017
more favourable institutional environments for local
shows
that
implementation
has
been
New York decentralization,
2019
2019
North Rhine-Westphalia
2016
governments, as well as with higher quality of local public
complex
Mannheim and varied across regions with direct impact on
Shimokawa2019
Besancon 20182018services and wellbeing
outcomes. In emerging countries
the ability
to achieve theglobalBarcelona2019 agendas.
Basque Country
Suwon
Toyama2018
20182018 and the Philippines, decentralization
like Indonesia
MalagaHamamatsu
2018
Kitakyushu
2019
Most European and Northern American countries, for2018 processes are more recent yet relatively advanced. In
DeqingValencian Country
2016
China,2017
takingadvantage of their relative autonomy andexample, have a long-establishedtradition of local selfTapel and New Tapel
2019
national support,
local governments have boosted rapid
governance. Local governments have primary responsibility
Cauayan City
Barcarenaurban
development
and succeeded in delivering key
2017
for
urban
management,
publicservicesdelivery
and
key
2018
Countyinfrastructureandservices.
In the rest of the region, local
infrastructure (SDG 11). They also ensureMarsabit
local
economic
2019
Busia County
2019
SantanadeParnaiba
government reforms are still at an early stage, and indevelopment(SDG 8) and influence territorial
cohesion
Taita Taveta County
2019
many cases, local administration could more effectively be
and the protection of ecosystems(SDG 201910 and SDG 15).
Kwale County
2019
described as “deconcentrated” rather than decentralized.
As most Niteroi
European countries (particularly Northern
2020
The progress made in the promotion of access to public
and Western
Europe) are highly decentralized, local
0

Sao Paulo
2019

nta Fe2019
Buenos Aires
2019

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cape Town
2019

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

216

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

services has been impressive, although middle- and lowincome countries are still lagging behind.34
Waves of decentralization have periodically swept across
Africa since the 1990s, yet levels of decentralizationvary between as well as within countries. As of 2019, 17
countries had signed the 2014 African Charter on Values
and Principles of Decentralization, Local Governance andLocal Development, but a significant gap remains between
de jure decentralization and the reality on the ground.
The participation of African local governments in public
expenditures and revenues is among the lowest levels of all
regions. They represent on average 15 per cent and 17 percent of public expenditure and revenue respectively, andonly 15.5 per cent of public investment. The 2018 UCLG
Africa assessment shows that only 14 countries appear tohave a stable “enabling institutional environment” or a“rather enabling” environment for their local governments.
Meanwhile, 33 countries either still require significant
reforms to achieve a favourable environment for theirlocal governments or show stagnant or regressing reform
policies.35 Most African cities have serious deficits in accessto quality public services, while access remains limited in
informal settlements.36
Since the end of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) underwent several reforms thathave either strengthened or reduced local government’s
autonomy, leading to strong spatial inequalities. The
region’s intermediary cities face big challenges, including
the “shrinking cities” phenomenon, while they havelittle control over market-driven urban development.
Local and regional governments have made significant
efforts to improve public services that degraded in the
1990s. The level of decentralization varies from highly
centralized systems in Central Asian countries to relatively
autonomous local self-government in Caucasus countries
at the municipal levels to the two-tiered system of local
self-government in Russia. Subnational governments in theregion have substantial budgets and investment capacities(41.9 per cent of public investment on average). However,in practice, they have rather limited control of theirexpenditure policy.37
The countries of the Middle East and West Asia are alsocharacterized by a high degree of centralization, except

217

Turkey and to a lesser extent Palestine (where local
governments account for 10.1 per cent and 10.8 per centof total public spending respectively, and 18 per cent ofpublic investment).38
7.2.2. Uneven fiscal decentralization and evolutionof services delivery models

Notwithstanding
overall
globalprogressondecentralization, however uneven, financing remains thedimension where progress is more constrained, raising
several paradoxes. One is that cities concentrate around 80
per cent of global GDP, but many rapidly growing cities failto capture the wealth they create and continue to struggle
with insufficient budgets and accumulate infrastructure
deficits.39 A second paradox stems from the disconnect
between the considerable amount of funds “available” at
the global level and the increasing investments being madein global cities despite the lack of financing reaching thosecities and territories most in need.

Cities concentrate around 80 per centof global GDP, but many rapidly growing
cities fail to capture the wealth theycreate and continue to struggle withinsufficient budgets and accumulate
infrastructure deficits
Across all regions, there is a critical mismatch between
the increase of transferred responsibilities and therevenues allocated to local governments. Effective
financial empowerment of local governments for theachievement of the SDGs and the NUA is the commitment
corresponding to paragraph 34 of the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda adopted by United Nations Members States.
Therefore, current local fiscal systems should be adapted
to foster an incremental approach based on a dynamic
and buoyant local tax system that ensures a fairer share ofnational fiscal revenues through regular and transparent
intergovernmental transfers and enhances responsible
borrowing to allow local governments to deliver quality
public services and support sustainable development.
However, this scenario is far from reality. For example,
local governments’ access to borrowing, although formallyallowed, is in practice strictly limited for most local

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

A street scene from Georgetown, Guyana. © UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

governments, especially in developing countries. A global
study identified only 22 countries where municipalities
are allowed to borrow without very restrictive controls.40
Reforms that improve the rationality of assigned powers,
capacities and resources to local governments are one of themost critical dimensions that can boost urban governance.
Local governments must be empowered to take proactive
decisions on urban development and infrastructure
investments, rather than perpetuating the status quo. Local

Reforms that improve the rationalityof assigned powers, capacities andresources to local governments are oneof the most critical dimensions that canboost urban governancepolicy priorities need to be included in an enhanced andcoordinated financing strategy that incorporates othertiers of government and the international sphere in order
to diversify sources of development finance.41
In recent years, different local government initiatives haveadvanced better ways of mapping and matching projects
with financial opportunities. Numerous city-focused
project preparation facilities have supported cities’ climate
project pipelines to meet bankability standards. Amongthese facilities are the C40 Cities Finance Facility and
ICLEI’s Transformative Actions Programme. The African
Territorial Agency championed by UCLG Africa and theInternational Municipal Investment Fund, set up by the
UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and UCLG incollaboration with the Global Fund for Cities Development

218

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

(FMDV), are also in the process of development. The
Global Covenant of Mayors and the European Investment
Bank have come together to help “prepare and fast trackfinancing of urban climate action projects.”42
Facilitated by limited local resources, market deregulationand the primacy of financial economy, public service delivery
models have evolved to respond to urban expansion and theaccompanying demand for infrastructure. This evolution has
also been supported by the continual expansion of private
sector participation in service provision (e.g. in water andsanitation, waste management, transport and energy). This
expansion has occurred through different externalization
models, such as concessions, public-private partnerships(PPPs) and privatization that have, in effect, transitioned
from a system of universal service provision (often with apublicly-backed operator monopoly) to a more fragmented
market for access with different distribution modes (frompublic utilities, using a large number of subcontractors, tosmall private operators, NGOs and informal delivery).
Once most prevalent in developed countries, this process
has since expanded to developing countries, particularly
large cities.43 Results vary widely, with positive andnegative outcomes depending on the sector and context.
In reaction to some negative experiences with service
accessibility and the necessity to foster multi-service
synergies and multi-stakeholder equalization, many cities
and communities are seeking alternatives by bringing
essential public services back in-house through a process
referred to as “remunicipalization.” Research from 2019listed 1,408 such cases since 2000 that involve 2,400
municipalities in 58 countries in relation to water, energy,
waste, telecommunications, transport, health and social
care, education and other local government services.44
7.2.3. The metropolitan challenge

The context of metropolitan areas, in the so-called“metropolitan century,” demands special consideration.
Despite the above-mentioned recent reforms in metropolitan
governance in many regions (e.g. Australia, Bolivia, Brazil,
Colombia, France, Italy, Japan, South Africa and the UK,among others), their pace has not followed the speed of
metropolitan expansion and socioeconomic transformation.
Today, metropolitan governance is becoming more complex;
large cities are usually governed through power-sharing

219

schemes that involve different levels of government,
agencies and utilities, both public and private, who operatewith varying levels of legitimacy and transparency, allwhile competing for resources. This convoluted governancelandscape poses daunting problems for spatial, politicaland social integration, which is reflected in the often
fragmented way that urban areas are managed and services
are delivered.45 As highlighted in Chapter 3, such inefficient
governance systems impacts urban economies negatively.
Paradoxically and with few exceptions (e.g. South
Africa), top-down attempts to create new metropolitan
governments have frequently been politically andoperationally cumbersome, with voluntary cooperation
between municipalities in many cases proving more
effective. Depending on how it is implemented or applied,
metropolitan governance can pose challenges to local democracy
if institutional legitimacy and accountability are not welladdressed. It can also perpetuate socioeconomic fragmentationand inequalities or aggravate environmental sustainability.
It is therefore to important implement appropriate andeffective metropolitan governance arrangements—suchas metropolitan government or stronger coordination
mechanisms that cover the full metropolitan functionalarea, depending on the local and national context. Thesearrangements should be transparent, accountable and haveinstitutions that enable citizen participation, all of which
are important elements in delivering an integrated visionof sustainable urbanization.
In the UK, the Cities and Local Government Devolution
Act 2016 provides for the election of mayors for theareas of, and confers additional functions on, combined
authorities.46 Eight combined authority areas—made up of
44 local authorities and covering nearly 12 million people—
now have elected metro mayors.47 In Chile, Santiago has
consolidated into a metropolitan government. In the US,
debates have also played out over proposals for city/county
consolidation in Syracuse, New York. Across the world, theExisting institutional environments andlocal governance systems are currently
not fit for purpose. Further evolutions
are needed to unlock local government’s
potential to build a sustainable future.

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

boundaries of city governance are in flux and the way theseexamples, among others, adapt to their new governancestructures has broader relevance for cities grappling withsimilar shifts.48
As shown in this section, the varied power dynamics—
including the type of institutional environments inwhich local governments operate—define local autonomy
in the management of cities. In general terms, existing
institutional environments and local governance systems
are currently not fit for purpose. Further evolutions areneeded to unlock local government’s potential to build asustainable future. These reforms, including the revision oflegislative, regulatory and fiscal frameworks, will have to
go beyond sectoral policies; foster a balanced distributionof powers, capacities and resources; and enhancecooperation between different spheres of government aswell as the involvement of non-state actors to support a
policy environment that enables the adoption of a truly
sustainable approach to development.

7.3. Local Governments as Pillars for the
Coalescence of the Transformative
Local Forces
The existing legal and institutional frameworks for local
governance and urban planning, a key local government
competence, are entry points for stronger citizen
participation and collaborative governance. The latter,in particular, is a key determinant for cities to drive
the coalition of forces needed to deliver on the New
Urban Agenda and realize the added value of sustainableurbanization.
7.3.1

Planning and the global agendas:
Contradictory trends

In the NUA, urban and territorial planning are introduced as
key levers to promote sustainable urban development.49 The
global agendas recognize planning’s ability to spur necessarychanges and drive towards sustainable development, which
has led to a planning resurgence in public policy.50 During
the past decade, UN-Habitat has supported the reinventionof urban planning principles and methodologies to fostera more integrated and participatory approach.51 The
International Guidelines for Urban and Territorial Planning

The global agendas
recognize planning’s ability tospur necessary changes anddrive towards sustainable
development, which has led
to a planning resurgence inpublic policy.
recognize the political dimension of planning and its
central relevance for local decision-making and longterm development agreements. In the NUA, planning is
acknowledged as the lever to promote economic growth,environmental sustainability and social equity, and as a
key local competence to address the different challenges
that cities face, such as the need to reduce urban sprawl,
strengthen resilience, foster mitigation and adaptation toclimate change and improve quality of life.
Certain cities are on the vanguard of revising their policies
or developing strategic plans in order to localize the global
development agendas. In doing so, they have been effectiveat breaking down existing silos between entrenched city
government departments by encouraging collaboration
through consultative processes. Mexico City, for example,
involved members of the government, officials andrepresentatives of the city’s main institutions to introduce
the SDGs as the roadmap for the new planning processthat began after the 2018 municipal elections.52 The Berlin
Strategy/Urban Development Concept Berlin 2030 provides
an inter-agency model for the long-term sustainable
development of the capital and was developed following
the participative process “Shaping the City Together,”
which involved more than 100 associations, local authorities
and institutions from the Berlin-Brandenburg region.53
In eThekwini, South Africa, the alignment of the 2030
Agenda with the metropolitan plan was carried out using abottom-up approach as part of the city’s strategic approachto sustainability and has focused on four main pillars:
human rights, people, the planet and prosperity. In 2019,
New York City released its “OneNYC 2050” strategic planthat outlines eight goals and 30 initiatives aligned with theSDGs.54 Similarly, Kitakyushu (Japan), Santana de Parnaíba(Brazil) and Seoul (Republic of Korea) —as illustrated in Box
7.4— are among other cities that have aligned their planning
processes with the global development agendas.55

220

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 7.4: Seoul: Urban planning and the global
agendasSince 1995, after the first mayoral election, the Seoul
Metropolitan Government has led sustainability
actions in many areas: participatory urban planning,
new technologies, social inclusion and climate change
mitigation. In recent years, it has aligned those efforts
with the global agendas. In 2015, the city establishedthe Master Plan for Sustainable Development(2016–2035) and also adopted a comprehensive strategy
to fight climate change, “The Promise of Seoul, Taking
Actions against Climate Change,” which outlines efforts
around energy, air quality, transport, waste, ecology, urban
agriculture, health, safety and urban planning. In 2017,the 2030 Seoul Plan for the implementation of theSDGs was adopted using a bottom-up approach. To
realize this 2030 vision, five core issues were identified:“people-centred city without discrimination; dynamic
global city with a strong job market; vibrant cultural andhistoric city; lively and safe city; and stable housing andeasy transportation, community-oriented city.”(Source: Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2015; Seoul Metropolitan
Government, 2018.

However, the existence of planning instruments andcapacities, although vital, does not necessarily guarantee
the achievement of local public goals. UN-Habitat
has established that local governments face numerous
barriers when using conventional urban management andplanning tools. Moreover, in many countries, particularly
in developing ones, cities’ capacities and tools to promoteadequate planning are deficient or non-existent. Planning
tools need to be linked and backed up to financial andlegal frameworks. The dominance of informality further
determines the capacity of local institutions to guide urban
development forms. At the same time, the study calls
for a transformation of the approach to urban planning:learning to work with informality. For instance, tapping
informality as a development force and guiding it towards
the making of better cities means, in essence, taking
advantage of alternative “non-formal” modalities createdby communities in their neighbourhoods.56

221

the existence of planning instruments
and capacities, although vital, does notnecessarily guarantee the achievementof local public goals. UN-Habitat hasestablished that local governments
face numerous barriers when using
conventional urban management andplanning tools
Regional differences in planning approaches are significant.
In Europe and North America, and to some extent Latin
America, planning systems are generally mature.57 An
important stimulus to positive reforms and culturalchange in planning came to these regions during the past
decades in the form of strategic and integrated planning,
promoting integrated development by combining urban
policies with economic development, inclusive policies
and management strategies.58 Nevertheless, not all
strategic plans are successful, neither in formulation nor
in implementation. Oftentimes, development priorities
are contested and there is the risk of meaningful citizen
participation being jeopardized by some government
decisions or private investment interests (e.g. by elites). In
addition, “splintered” urban fabric is evident across many
cities of the world, with serious implications for urban
governance and contradictory impacts on sustainability.59
In Latin America, some cities are at the frontline of strategicplanning approaches with the support of international
agencies like the Inter-American Development Bank,
which has assisted 61 secondary cities with the preparationof city action plans.60 Such multilateral support isnecessary because in smaller cities and middle-sized towns
there is often a lack of human resources and funding toplan effectively. Social exclusion and inequalities often
undermine the adoption of inclusionary planning processes.
Contrasts between residential and gated communities andmarginal neighbourhoods are aggravated, fuelled by social
crises and the expansion of urban violence.
In Asia, although traditional top-down planning approaches
are still present, new approaches such as those favouring
urban renewal are now emerging in the region. Countries
in the region are moving forward with national spatial
frameworks, city-region planning and local planning forLocal Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

urban regeneration. At the same time, cities are incorporatingstrong environmental and resilience dimensions to theirlong-term visions.61 China has moved rapidly to decentralize
certain planning functions, although state control remains.
In India, planning tends to concentrate at the state rather
than the local government level.62 Less economicallydeveloped countries are slowly transitioning from older
systems with top-down approaches to newer decentralized
systems for development policy and planning.
In CIS countries, the role of both local government andcivil society in the actual planning of urban development
is quite limited. With few exceptions, there is a persistenceof top-down master planning, weak plan implementation
at the local government level and little control on marketdriven urban development. In the Middle Eastern andWestern Asia Region, urban plans are often developed bycentral governments or district commissioners, assigningconsultative or follow-up roles to local government, as is thecase of Lebanon and Iran, respectively.
In Africa, urban planning systems remain highly centralized
in most countries, with cities being under-resourced andoftentimes operating within outdated or inappropriate
urban legal frameworks. While larger cities such as
Dakar (Senegal), eThekwini (South Africa), Johannesburg(South Africa), Lagos (Nigeria), Maputo (Mozambique),Marrakesh (Morocco) and Nairobi (Kenya) are bright spots,
overall, there is a lack of planning professionals and tools
to enforce planning and land-use regulations. In the midstof these challenges, collaborative partnerships with slum
dweller organizations and communities have emerged.63 A
critical urgency in Sub-Saharan Africa is to develop newplanning modalities and capacities to accommodate risingnumbers of urban dwellers.
It is worth noting that, in the framework of the SDGs, local
governments in all regions are being encouraged to design
local development plans aligned with the SDGs, including
SDG 11. In Colombia, for example, local governments havebeen required to develop local management plans since1997. Consequently, the majority of provincial capitals
have since aligned their plans with the SDGs.64 In other
Latin American countries, efforts to align the SDGs withlocal development plans have also intensified in recent
years with the adoption of more integrated urban andland management approaches (e.g. Bolivia’s Participatory
Municipal Planning System and Ecuador’s Decentralized
Participatory Planning System).65
Similarly, in Africa, where local development plans are also
mandatory, countries are revising their national planningsystems to support local governments’ alignment efforts(e.g. Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Rwanda and South
Africa). In Asia, alignment processes are also advancing
in countries such as Australia, China, Indonesia, Japan,
Republic of Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines.66
In China, for example, pilot cities have been selected—
Guilin, Shenzhen and Taiyuan—to promote innovationand drive policy learning and change, while many others
are also updating their sustainability policies.67 Some cities
adopted the SDGs as a reference framework to revise theirdevelopment strategies and plans, for example, eThekwini(South Africa), Mannheim (Germany) and Seoul (Republicof Korea) among others. This effort is expected to have apositive impact on planning processes.
Although enabling institutional environments determinedsome degree of planning outcomes, the capacity of cities
to plan in a participatory and inclusive way depends
strongly on their local leadership and their ability to bring
together heterogeneous local interests in a shared vision,then mobilize the means to implement that vision. Local
leaders that adopt strategic approaches accounting for thesystemic tensions between inclusion and sustainability are
better positioned for success. The likelihood of achieving the
expected outcomes is maximized if such visionary leadershipis underpinned by strong urban governance, institutional
coordination and broad coalitions that support and ensure
continuity of execution and implementation. As argued in
the World Cities Report 2016, “a city that plans” allows
local actors to learn and adapt on a continuous basis toface uncertainties and risk, as well as to support innovation

The capacity of cities to plan in aparticipatory and inclusive way depends
strongly on their local leadershipand their ability to bring together
heterogeneous local interests in a sharedvision, then mobilize the means to
implement that vision.

222

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

systems that connect institutions, businesses, academia andsocial movements, while embracing the views of various
stakeholders in the quest to build the collective citizens’
preferred future.68
7.3.2

Participatory policies

Participatory approaches to policymaking can create
virtuous circles of engagement between citizens and local
institutions that foster positive social forces and drive
sustainable urban development. Worldwide, many cities
have institutionalized different forms of citizen, private
sector and community participation, and these modalities
are being expanded as part of the localization efforts for the
global agendas. In almost all regions, local governments aredeveloping consultations, workshops and labs to involve
citizens in localization plans.

On-site meeting with Saida Municipality's technical office for data validation. © UN-Habitat

223

Bogotá, for example, used the SDGs to open up new
platforms for citizen participation. Amsterdam hosted a
two-day Global Goals Jam in 2017, which brought together
local creative teams of designers and developers alongside
the council’s technical staff to work on innovative ideas
to contribute to the SDGs. Jakarta has integrated thepriorities of Indonesia’s national plan and the SDGs into
its mid-term plan (RPJMD), supported by a participatory
electronic budgeting and planning approach known
as e-Musrenbang. Latin America has a longer and more
consolidated tradition of citizen participation, most notably
Porto Alegre’s pioneering work with participatory budgeting.
In Africa, citizen participation in municipal planning ismore incipient, although city development strategies in
Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and Douala (Cameroon), as
well as Uganda’s municipal development forums, are some

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

examples of dynamic participatory mechanisms that havebeen established. The approach remains very limited in the
Middle East, West Asia and the CIS region. On the whole,
the International Observatory on Participatory Democracy—
which collects experiences developed by local governments
across different continents through different modalities—has
established that there is notable progress in participatory
experiences across the world. For example, various
jurisdictions have adapted and reconfigured “participatory
budgets” or developed a broad set of mechanisms to involve
inhabitants in local decision-making processes.69
Some countries are going one step further and mandating
participatory planning, like Dominican Republic.
Meanwhile, citizen participation modalities are evolving
to new techniques like score cards for community-based
monitoring in different cities in Africa and Asia, withthe support of United Nations agencies and international
cooperation. E-democracy has also transformed
participation in the past two decades by supporting
citizen involvement in different stages of decision-making
through channels such as Smart Citizen and Digital Civics,
among others.70 In that vein, Argentina, Estonia, Italy,
Indonesia, Philippines and Mexico are among the countries
where open government practices are being promotedin partnership between local governments and NGOs.71
Private sector involvement in local forums and dialogues
on policymaking, planning and implementation can also
help to stimulate sustainable changes in business behaviour.
Their engagement in efforts like the United Nations
Global Compact Cities Programme creates incentives toadopt more socially responsible and sustainable principles,
promote decent work and ensure access to financing tosupport the transition towards sustainability.72
The integration of multiple participation channels is a
way of diversifying citizen engagement, accommodating
different interests and increasing the number ofparticipants. For example, Canoas developed 13 innovative
tools to encourage public participation through its Citizen
Participation System, which have since engaged over
185,000 residents. In Seoul, the metropolitan government
recently promoted the Citizens’ City Hall Programme thatcombines an open-door policy for ideas and opinions withsite visits, allowing the public administration to discoversolutions through direct community engagement.73

Participatory and rights-based approaches are developing
a new framework for the co-creation of cities andterritories in terms of urban design and service delivery—
for example, housing policies in partnership with NGOs
such as the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights or theKnow Your City initiative developed by Slum/Shack
Dwellers International to integrate slums in local planning
processes.74 The notion of participation, however, is not apanacea. Participatory budget experiments, for example,
span a broad spectrum from symbolic participatory
gestures with little transformative impact to meaningful
generators of structural change in urban governancesystems that allocate significant sums of public money toaddress different groups’ needs.75 Some experiences havebeen criticized for limiting citizens’ sphere of engagement,favouring already privileged social groups instead ofthose most excluded from public discourse, creating or
strengthening clientelist networks, weakening popularorganizations and risking political manipulation.76 In other
cities, participatory budgeting driven by a good governancelogic have contributed to reconfiguring relationships andresponsibilities among actors and institutions in the publicdomain, leading to measurable improvements in the overall
quality of life of their citizens.77

The concept of participation in urban
governance is changing as it moves
beyond simple consultation to the cocreation of a space that will contribute torebalancing the distribution of decisionmaking powers in society
The concept of participation in urban governance ischanging as it moves beyond simple consultation to theco-creation of a space that will contribute to rebalancing
the distribution of decision-making powers in society.
This shift requires local governments to respect somebasic conditions, such as the empowerment and autonomy
of social movements and local stakeholders. Enablersof citizen engagement need to be simple, reciprocal,
representative, inclusive and people-oriented. They
need to recognize formal participation procedures withtransparent and shared rules that are complemented bycollaborative partnership, take privacy rights and citizens’
initiatives seriously and endow citizens with real decision-

224

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

making powers. Furthermore, local governments must
develop an increasing number of participatory processes,
online and offline, which are balanced and implemented
with regularity and continuity. Alongside an active
participatory democracy, transparency and accountability
are the key pillars for new urban governance.78
7.3.3

Multilevel governance
While it is the responsibility of local governments to ensure
the effective leadership and coordination of development
policies in their cities and territories, functions relevant tourban governance and planning are usually spread acrossseveral departments and spheres of government, as well as
across private and civil society sectors. Vertical and horizontal
policy collaboration between different levels of governance(local, regional and national levels) and across institutions
at the same level (e.g. inter-municipal cooperation) are vitalto ensure the coherent development of urban areas. Policy
coherence and collaboration lie at the core of the NUA andare critical to achieve the “whole of government” and “wholeof society” approaches called for by the SDGs. In recent
times, public health crises that have a strong territorial
dimension and require an effective integrated response (likethe COVID-19 pandemic) have increased the necessity for
multilevel governance approaches.

Multilevel governance arrangements are instrumental
for the effective localization of the global agendas, aswell as for creating synergies, reducing overlappingand critical gaps between institutions, and promoting
trust and accountability that enhance policy coherence.
The progress in decentralization processes that has
been observed across the different regions has led togreater administrative, financial and socio-economic
interdependence between central and sub-national
governments. Yet it has also increased the complexityof decision-making and consensus-building, as more
actors and initiatives have become part of the process.
Well-tailored multilevel governance arrangements canMultilevel governance arrangements are
instrumental for the effective localizationof the global agendas, as well as forcreating synergies, reducing overlappingand critical gaps between institutions

225

facilitate the involvement of local institutions and actors,
and create local ownership, while fostering innovationand experimentation that allows for the adapting of
national strategies to local realities.79
In this regard, national urban policies (NUPs), understoodas “a coherent set of decisions through a deliberate
government-led process of coordinating and rallying various
stakeholders to maximize the benefits of urbanization,” are a
critical part of the process of building multilevel governancesystems, as recognized in the NUA.80 The implementationof the NUA and the 2030 Agenda undoubtedly represents
an opportunity to extend the processes of change and tackle
many of the existing challenges in relation to strengthening
and expanding multilevel governance.
The evolution of the institutional frameworks to facilitate
multilevel governance follows many of the patterns
described above regarding decentralization processes. In
Europe, multilevel governance is especially well-developedin countries showing a high degree of decentralization andincludes long-standing structures for dialogue between
central and local/regional governments in a wide range ofareas such as spatial planning, environment, infrastructure,transport, technology and development, as well as
multilevel fiscal coordination. European countries also
have a tradition of NUPs as levers to improve coordinationand ensure policy coherence.81 Europe is also the region
where local governments are most involved in national
coordination mechanisms for the implementation of theSDGs (a trend observable in 20 of the over 37 European
countries that have reported to the HLPF since 2016).82
Finally, the European Union places particular emphasison the concept of multilevel urban governance. The Urban
Agenda for the EU (Pact of Amsterdam) was adopted in2016, taking into consideration the New Urban Agenda andthe SDGs, with the objective of addressing the adoption of
an integrated and sustainable urban development approachin a broad multilevel framework.83
In Latin America, progress toward multilevel governancehas often been challenged by political cycles and instability.
Brazil developed a sophisticated multilevel approach inthe 2000s through the creation of the Ministry of Cities
and the National Conference of Cities, although following
recent political changes both of those pioneering efforts

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

In Latin America, 14 out of 19 countries
have NUPs in the implementation stage,
with different levels of local government
involvement in their definition
have faced increased headwinds.84 Other countries
developed mechanisms for dialogue, planning andcooperation and made progress in framing national urban
policies (for example, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and El Salvador).
The examples of Colombia and Ecuador illustrate thecomplexity of developing multilevel governance systems.
The two countries face coordination problems—not
only between national and local governments, but also
between local governments—that range from politicalsensibilities to important gaps in capacities and access tofinancing. In the region, 14 out of 19 countries have NUPs
in the implementation stage, with different levels of local
government involvement in their definition.
At the regional level, ECLAC, in cooperation withnational governments and UN-Habitat, has adopted
a Regional Action Plan for the Implementation of the
New Urban Agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean(RAP), and proposed the creation of the Latin American
and Caribbean Urban and Cities Platform to facilitate
the follow-up and monitoring processes. However,
local governments’ involvement is still limited in boththis regional initiative and the national coordination
mechanisms for the implementation of the SDGs (only 6
out of 17 Latin American countries have reported on theirprogress to the High Level Political Forum since 2016).
In the Asia-Pacific region, a few countries have developed
systematic multilevel governance mechanisms, like theCouncil of Australian Governments, the Local Government
Commission in New Zealand and the Union of Local
Authorities in the National Economic and Development

As of 2018, 24 out of 43 countries in the
Asia-Pacific region have NUPs in theimplementation stage or beyond

Authority in the Philippines. Others, like Indonesia,
have promoted coordination mechanisms at provincial
or regional levels. In China, multilevel governancearrangements are critical in many dimensions, for example,
in addressing the rights and living conditions of the morethan 200 million internal migrants that move between
rural and urban areas under the hukou system.85
At the same time, countries are developing dedicatedpolicies to strengthen coordination with cities and local
governments to implement the global agendas. For example,
the Government of Japan involved local governments in
its multi-stakeholder SDG Promotion Roundtable. It also
provides intensive support to selected local governments intheir implementation of the SDGs and the NUA throughdifferent programs, such as the Future City and Ecomodel
City.86 In the Republic of Korea, the new government
designed a roadmap in 2018 to implement the SDGs andlaunched a five-year Urban Regeneration New Deal; whilea handful of cities—such as Seoul, Gwangju, Suwon andDaegu—are concurrently advancing in their localization
efforts. Indonesia and the Philippines also strengthened
vertical coordination between different levels ofgovernment and non-state actors for SDG implementationand monitoring.87 In both countries, there are obstacles
and gaps to harmonizing these different processes, suchas overlapping roles between agencies and local public
enterprises, different planning timelines, insufficienttechnical support, weak local capacities, problems withdata and indicators and financing issues. Coordination
is particularly arduous in the main metropolitan cities,
resulting in weak planning and delivery of services inplaces like Jakarta (Indonesia) and Manila (Philippines).88
It should be noted that as of 2018, 24 out of 43 countries in
the Asia-Pacific region have NUPs in the implementation
stage or beyond. Participation by stakeholders has beenhighly uneven across the region—reflecting diverse
political arrangements.89 Each country determines its own
approach to improving its multi-level urban governance,
but very few make the connection between urban strategies
and the global agendas.
In Africa, multilevel governance approaches, althoughincipient, have made progress. Countries across theAfrican continent, such as Benin, Kenya and South Africa,

226

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

21 out of 38 African countries have NUPs
in the implementation stage or beyond,but many countries lack the resources
and technical capacity to deploy
comprehensive NUPs
have started promoting an “all of society” approach tothe implementation of the SDGs and the NUA throughthe creation of multilevel governance frameworks. Whilesome challenges have emerged, like incomplete fiscal
decentralization accompanied by a lack of coherence
between local policy guidelines, the different global
agendas and their follow-up and review mechanisms, it
is notable that all of these countries have NUPs in place.
Following a consultative process, the South African
national government adopted the Integrated Urban
Development Framework in 2016 to coordinate and guideurban management.

Multilevel collaboration is also making progress in termsof climate adaptation policies. In the eThekwini area,
coordination is envisioned vertically and horizontally
between contiguous local governments and involving
local stakeholders.90 Various countries are taking
advantage of national coordination mechanisms created
for the SDGs to ensure greater collaboration between
national and subnational levels. Benin, for example,
involved local governments in the National Steering
Committee for Planning and Development for the
SDGs and made significant strides in the integrationof the SDGs in national and local plans in 10 of thecountry’s 12 departments. In Kenya, the secretariat of
the Council of Governors established an SDG liaison
office and focal points in all 47 counties to improvecoordination between the two levels of government.
Ghana and Burkina Faso, among other countries, aretaking advantage of their decentralized planning system
to ensure better coordination of the SDGs, strengthen
regional coordination and support the alignment of local
plans with national ones, while also focusing on specificHouses built on the ruins of South Africa's oldest slums, Cape Town, South Africa. © Authentic Travel/Shutterstock227

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

local priorities. Efforts to adopt and implement NUPs
are underway across the continent (21 out of 38 Africancountries have NUPs in the implementation stage or
beyond), but many countries lack the resources andtechnical capacity to deploy comprehensive NUPs.91
7.3.4

Monitoring urban policies
Admittedly, there are still significant problems in many
countries in the production of disaggregated data as well
as joint indicators for national and local governments.
Both of these factors make it difficult to monitor the
implementation of the SDGs and the NUA, and toensure national and local planning processes are foundedon realistic targets. Many local governments currently
have no access to localized data and thus do not have thecapacity to make informed decisions that allow them tobetter prioritize local policies, as well as ensure effective
implementation.

This limitation, combined with the difficulties that local
governments in all regions have encountered in being
included in reporting processes at the national level, makes
monitoring and reporting one of the core, urgent challenges
for localization. UN-Habitat, international organizations,and countries including Belgium, Colombia, Indonesia
and South Africa are developing solutions. UN-Habitat’s
City Prosperity Index, for instance, provides a flexible
monitoring framework for the SDGs, applied in morethan 400 cities in all regions.92 In addition, UN-Habitathas developed the New Urban Agenda Platform, an
online platform to facilitate monitoring, reporting andinformation sharing on progress on the implementationof the NUA and SDGs (Chapter 9). In parallel, local
governments and their networks are also promoting
initiatives to support monitoring. For example, in Germany,a coalition of public and private partners built a national
platform to collect SDG data from municipalities. In Brazil,
the National Confederation of Municipalities developed
an SDG dashboard called Mandala ODS. In Africa, theKnow Your City initiative has long collected data acrossinformal settlements that can now inform local monitoring
efforts.93 More than 40 local governments have devised
their own Voluntary Local Reviews that complement theircountries’ Voluntary National Reviews with local on-theground information, oftentimes including different sets ofindicators (Box 7.1).94 The European Commission and theOECD have also developed different proposals to support
local data and indicators to monitor the SDGs and facilitate
benchmarking.95
The task of monitoring and evaluating the implementationof the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda will require thesupport of national statistical offices in collaboration
with local governments, stakeholders and internationalorganizations to ensure the follow-up of public policies.
National governments should promote the involvementof local governments and stakeholders in the definition,
implementation and monitoring of urban policies andplans, as well as in the disaggregation of data and indicators.
Finally, despite the notable progress highlighted in thissection, much more work remains to be done as there is stilla long way to go in achieving the effective transformation ofurban governance. Many urban areas suffer from inadequate
multilevel governance schemes, unclear distributions ofresponsibilities between different spheres of government
and weak cooperative mechanisms. It is also worth notingthat the participation of local governments in the national
coordination mechanisms for SDG implementation is still
limited and their involvement varied in the definition anddevelopment of national urban policies.96 Such ineffective
multi-level governance systems compromise planning
processes and hinder the engagement with civil society
and key stakeholders. Creating a culture of co-operationis thus crucial to achieving effective multilevel governanceand paving the way for the effective implementation of the
NUA and the SDGs.

Creating a culture of co-operation is thus
crucial to achieving effective multilevelgovernance and paving the way for theeffective implementation of the NUA andthe SDGs

7.4. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
PolicyThis rapid review of local governments’ initiatives,opportunities and challenges to contribute to leveraging
the potentialities of sustainable urbanization offers a228

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

promising but heterogeneous picture. This timely review
comes at the onset of a decade that is marked by anambitious call for action to deliver the SDGs by 2030, theDecade of Action. The discussions in this chapter indeed
show that local governments and their associations have apivotal role in mobilizing actions to accelerate sustainable
solutions, particularly on the three fronts of this ambitious
call: global, local and people action.
Local governments have been leading the efforts to localize
the global agendas. Cities on the forefront with visionary
leaders and local government networks are contributing
to shifting development patterns along many dimensions,such as climate change mitigation, urban resilience,
alternative economic models, social inclusion policies
and mainstreaming human rights-based approaches. They
have been, and continue to be, on the frontlines during
the COVID-19 crisis to ensure the continuity of essential
public services and respond to emergencies by providing
the public with necessary information and protection as
well as facilitating provision of food and transitory shelterto those in need. In the aftermath of the pandemic, theirrole will also be critical to pursuing a resilient, inclusive,
gender-equal and green economic recovery that is
indispensable to achieving the SDGs.97 Cities are alreadyplaying a crucial role as experimental hubs and theirexperiences can be used to inform policies that are scaled
at the national level.
Yet from a global perspective that takes into account themagnitude of the challenges, the scope of local government’s
actions could be perceived as piecemeal, geographicallyconcentrated and subjected to conflicts and adverse
economic cycles. Clearly, the global movement that local
governments are leading has made important progressin the last four years, yet this progress is still partial andshould be reinforced. At the same time, in many regions
the institutional environments are not fit for achieving thispurpose, hindering local governments’ capacity to expandand scale up the most ambitious and innovative actions.
Local governments cannot act alone, but they can be thepillars that support coalescing transformative forces that
advance sustainable urbanization.
Thus, the need is urgent to strengthen efforts to galvanize
the forces of localization of the global agendas in229

cities and territories. Localization strategies should bemainstreamed in all plans, programmes and budgets fromthe national to the local level. Cities need to adopt theSDGs and the New Urban Agenda as reference frameworks
to guide their policies and plans, as well as ensure
coherent and integrated implementation. Countries needto integrate or strengthen robust localization approaches
into their sustainable development strategies and actionplans to expand the involvement of local governments
and actors, accelerating and scaling up sustainable urban
development. Coordinated strategies for the global
agendas—New Urban Agenda, SDGs, Paris Agreement
and Sendai framework—are an imperative. No single
agenda can be addressed in isolation.
Strong and capable local governments are key levers
to unleash the value of sustainable urbanization. To
enhance their involvement in these efforts and strengthen
their capacities, local governments and their networks,international organizations and national governments
should join forces to strengthen the dissemination of the
global agendas, boost knowledge-sharing and training andtake advantage of peer-to-peer learning and decentralizedcooperation in order to assist local governments and local
actors in the development, implementation and follow-up
of localization strategies.
To harness the transformative potential of local governments’actions and adequately leverage the possibilities ofurbanization, countries should ensure an enabling
institutional environment for local action. Effective
decentralization policies strengthen local authorities’
capacities to effectively contribute to sustainable urban
development. These policies are particularly urgent indeveloping countries where urban growth will concentratein the coming decades, so as to allow local governments tocontribute to improving access to basic services as essential
rights and manage urban expansions in a sustainable way,thus preventing the derailment of the global agendas.
As part of the empowerment of local governments, special
attention should be given to fiscal decentralization andadequate financing flows to support urban investments.
As acknowledged by the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(paragraph 34) and already stressed in previous chaptersof this report, local governments need strengthened local

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

tax systems, including the power to capture part of landand property added-value, a better allocation of national
fiscal revenues through intergovernmental transfers andaccess to responsible borrowing. Equalization funds arealso necessary to ensure the adequate redistribution of
resources to support intermediary cities and small towns
so as to avoid leaving any territory behind. A suitable
spectrum of debt finance options needs to be adapted andmade accessible to cities of different sizes and financial
capacities, contemplating multiple sources of financing
and innovative financial instruments.
Sustainable participatory urban and land planning are
critical to harness the co-creation of cities and support
the momentum for sustainable urban transformation.
An integrated planning approach, as reflected in the New
Urban Agenda, is imperative to strengthen the inclusive
dimension of cities, facilitate climate adaptation andmitigation and strengthen urban resilience strategies, thus
multiplying the benefits of existing interlinkages between
urban and territorial areas. Inclusive and participatory
planning are key levers to involve local actors in thedefinition of a shared vision and support the coalescenceof transformative local forces. Deep reforms of planning
regulations and frameworks are a critical part of SDG
localization and the New Urban Agenda. Urgent actions
to boost urban planning are needed in regions where rapid
urban growth will be concentrated (Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia and South-East Asia).
It is also of great importance to create strong multilevelgovernance frameworks as one of the pillars of the New
Urban Agenda, built around institutionalized mechanisms
for vertical and horizontal collaboration and coordinationand enshrined in broad consultative processes. Effective
multilevel governance requires clear legal and institutional
structures, which are based on the principles ofsubsidiarity and decentralization, as well as the adequate
intergovernmental allocation of financial resources.
Effective multilevel governance is essential to build robust
national urban policies that are well-articulated with theSDGs and national and territorial policies that promotebalanced and polycentric urban systems.
Strong metropolitan governance is a key component of
new urban governance. National governments should

enable metropolitan governance, ensuring the involvementof both local and regional governments in the reform
process. At the same time, the lack or the inadequacyof policies for intermediary cities prevents the creationof strong systems of cities and, thus, balanced regionalsocioeconomic development.
A new culture of participation involves the clear
recognition of citizens’ rights and, more specifically, of
their right to the city. Local governments should promote
an increasing number of participatory processes, bothonline and offline, that manage to engage organized civilsociety in all its forms (grassroots organizations, NGOs,
private sector, social partners, academia, etc.) and thatpays special attention to specific groups (e.g. women, theyouth, the elderly, people with disabilities, vulnerable
minorities and the urban poor). These processes should bebased on transparent and shared rules, endow citizens withreal decision-making power and be implemented withregularity and continuity. Formal participation proceduresshould be complemented by collaborative partnerships
which go beyond formal consultation, recognizing civilsociety groups as active partners in new urban governance.
This mindset requires public institutions to respect somebasic conditions, such as the empowerment and autonomy
of social movements and local stakeholders.
The effective involvement of local governments is criticalto strengthen the participatory governance of the New
Urban Agenda and the SDGs and contribute to thevalue of sustainable urbanization. At the national level,
there is much to do in terms of effectively involving local
governments and stakeholders in the national coordination
mechanisms for the implementation of the SDGs, as wellas in terms of strengthening their involvement in thedefinition, implementation and monitoring of national
urban policies. Limited consultations and uncoordinateddecision-making presently hinder the policy coherencenecessary to achieve the SDGs and the New Urban
Agenda and reduce local ownership. The production
and dissemination of disaggregated data for monitoring,evaluation and impact evaluation of the localization of the
global agendas is key to ensuring that planning processes at
all levels are founded on realistic targets and that effective
implementation can be monitored, as well as to ensureaccountability and citizen follow-up.

230

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Endnotes
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

231

The GTF brings together the main
25 global and regional organizationsof local and regional governments.
The GTF supports to the strong
engagement of local leaders in the
preparation of the Post-2015 Agenda,
as well in during the COP process.
UCLG President, the Mayor of
Istanbul, was nominated by Ban Kimoon as member of the High-Level
Panel of Eminent Personalities for
the Post-2015 Agenda in 2012. For
more information, visit: https://www.
global-taskforce.org/.
Localization is described as ‘theprocess of defining, implementing
and monitoring strategies at the
local level for achieving national,
regional and global sustainable
development goals and targets.’
More specifically, it takes into
account sub-national contexts in theachievement of the 2030 Agenda,
from the setting of goals and targets
to the determination of the meansof implementation and the use of
indicators to measure and monitor
progress. See: GTF and UCLG (2019);
UNDP, UN-Habitat and GTF (2016),
Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs:
Implementation and Monitoring at
Sub-national Level; UN Development
Group (2014), Localizing thePost2015 Agenda (the outcomeof the global UN dialogue processthat took place from June 2014 to
October 2014
Urbanization is not only the resultof the expansion of cities but also
the result of the transformation offormer small towns and rural areas,
called ‘in situ urbanization’. Half
to two thirds of urban population
growth from 1980 to 2000 in China
and roughly 30 per cent of China’s
GDP was produced in these in situ
urbanized areas at the peak of theirdevelopment at the end of 1990s (YuZhu, 2017
United Nations, 2020.
Cities for Global Health (https://www.
citiesforglobalhealth.org/).
The C40 Knowledge Hub, 2019a.
The C40 Knowledge Hub, 2019b.
NUA 63-64; SDG 11.6.
NUA 13, 37, 53, 67, 100; SDG 11.7.
In 2020, Members of the 100
Resilient Cities program officiallyreunited under a new city-led
network, the Global Resilient Cities
Network (GRCN).

11.
12.

13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.
26.

NUA 43-62; NUA 59, 100.
Several sharing economy networks
have emerged like the Sharing Cities
Alliance that started in 2012. A
global social and solidarity economy
network emerged from the 2013
Global Social Economy Forum(GSEF) held in Seoul. In 2016, the
GSEF launched the International
Center for Innovation andKnowledge Transfer on the Socialand Solidary Economy. See: https://sharingcitiesalliance.com; http://
www.gsef-net.org/en
C40 and EIT Climate-KIC, 2018.
Urban Sustainability Exchange,
undated.
This is in line with NUA 156, SDG 8& 9; UCLG Committee Digital andKnowledge-Based Cities and Bilbao,
2017.
ARUP, undated.
Cities Coalition for Digital Rights(https://citiesfordigitalrights.org).
NUA 5 and 136.
See, for example: Sustainable Food
Cities in the UK, Red de ciudades
por la Agroecología in Spain,
Rete Città Sane in Italy, City Deal:
Food on the Urban Agenda in the
Netherlands, BioStädte network inGermany, AgroEco Cities European
Network and ICLEI-RUAF CITYFOOD
network. One of the most meaningful
initiatives is the Milan Urban Food
Policy Pact, with 203 signatory cities
from every continent representing
450 million inhabitants since 2015.
NUA 14.a, 25-42, 70, 91 and 99;
SDGs, particularly 1, 6 and 11.
Mejoramiento Integral de Barrios
Project (http://isvimed.gov.co/programa/mejoramiento-integralde-barrios); Mukuru slum project,(https://www.iied.org/specialapproach-slum-upgrading-specialplanning-area-mukuru-nairobi).
The declaration was signed by:
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin,
Birmingham, Buenos Aires, Durban,
Geneva, Jakarta, Lisbon, London,
Mexico, Medellin, Montreal,Montevideo, New York, Paris, Seoul,
Strasbourg, Taipei and Vienna.
NUA 13.b, 14.c, 92.
Metropolis, 2018.
United Nations, 2017.
https://www.uclg-cisdp.org/en/rightto-the-city/world-charter-agenda. The
European Coalition of Cities Against
Racism (ECCAR) gathers more than

27.

28.
29.

30.

31.
32.
33.

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42.

43.

100 European local authorities andhas worked on non-discrimination
issues over more than a decade.
Similar regional coalitions exist
in different continent after theumbrella of ICCAR, a partner entity of
UNESCO whose name was recently
transformed to that of International
Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable
Cities (See: https://www.eccar.info/).
Role of local government in the
promotion and protection of humanrights – Final report of the Human
Rights Council Advisory Committee[A/HRC/30/49 (2015)]; Local
government and human rights [A/
HRC/RES/33/8(2016)].
NUA 10, 26, 124; SDG 4, 11.4.
Culture 21: Agenda 21 for Culture(http://agenda21culture.net/sites/
default/files/files/culture21-actions/c21_015_en.pdf); A database withcase studies is available at (http://
obs.agenda21culture.net/en/
home-grid).
OECD and UCLG, 2019; Thesefigures are based on a sample
of 106 countries for expenditure,
104 countries for revenue and99 countries for direct public
investment.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
OECD and UCLG, 2019.
UN-Habitat, CAF and Fundación
Avina, 2014; ECLAC Stat: Gini
coefficient in urban areas movefrom 0.51 in 1990 to 0.46 in2014(see: https://cepalstatprod.cepal.org/cepalstat/tabulador/ConsultaIntegrada.
asp?idIndicador=250&idioma=i).
UCLG ASPAC, Cities Alliance, UNDP,
2018.
UCLG Africa, Cities Alliance, 2018.
UCLG, 2019a.
UCLG, 2019a.
UCLG, 2019a.
OECD and UCLG, 2019.
Ivanyna,. and Shah, 2014, p. 14.
The study includes 160 countries.
Local borrowing rules are more
accommodating in Europe and Latin
America.
Inter-agency Task Force on Financing
for Development, 2018.
Contribution of C40 to GTF and
UCLG, 2019; European Investment
Bank “Global Climate City
Challenge.2019”
UCLG, 2014.; Villes en
Développement n. 111 (2019).

44.
45.
46.

47.
48.
49.

50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

58.

59.
60.

S. Kishimoto et al, 2019.
OECD, 2015; Gómez Álvarez etal,2017.
Combined authorities may be set
up by two or more local authorities.
They may take on statutory functionstransferred to them by an Order
made by the Secretary of State, plus
any functions that the constituent
authorities agree to share (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/
research-briefings/sn06649/)
Local Government Association,
undated; Centre for Cities, 2019.
Harkness. and Katz, 2017.
UN General Assembly (2017),
particularly section “Planningand managing urban spatial
development”, par. 93-103; UNHabitat, 2016.
Bhan et al, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2009; UN-Habitat, 2015a.
See: https://proyectoallas.
net/2018/03/02/fortalece-cdmxtrabajo-de-la-agenda-2030-dedesarrollo-sostenible/
Senate of Berlin, 2018.
OneNYC 2050 (https://onenyc.
cityofnewyork.us/).
UCLG,2019; GTF and UCLG (2018,2019).
UN-Habitat, 2010c.
UN-Habitat, 2016; Bhan, et al,
2018; In OECD countries national
governments provide enabling
legislation for planning and carryout strategic spatial nationaland regional planning, with local
governments undertaking land
use planning. In federal countries(especially the US) planning operates
primarily at state and local level.
UN-Habitat, 2016; Strategic plans
have flourish in cities in all regions,such, Barcelona (since the 90s),
Dar-es-Salaam, Johannesburg, Lima,
London, Melbourne, Nairobi, New
York, Quito, Seoul, Shanghai or, Tokyoand in cities from all sizes. Strategicplanning and Cities Development
Strategies were also propelled bycities networks and international
agencies with the aim to give a voice
to residents on the future of theircities (e.g. Cities Alliance or currently
by different partners, for example, theMedinatouna project in nine middlesize cities in Tunis).
UCLG, 2016; Graham and Marvin.
2001; Sassen, 2018.
https://www.iadb.org/es/desarrollo-

Local Governments and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

61.
62.

63.
64.

65.

66.
67.
68.
69.

urbano-y-vivienda/programaciudades-emergentes-y-sostenibles:
Programa de ciudades emergentes ysostenibles
UNESCAP and UN-Habitat, 2019.
V. Watson, Contribution to the local
and regional governments report to
the HLPF in 2018 (unpublished)
SDI and Know Your City, 2018.
POT, which include spatial andenvironmental development, landuse, risk prevention, infrastructuresand housing, etc. Gobierno de
Colombia (2017 and 2019); UCLG,
2019a; In order to encourage theimplementation of the SDGs, thegovernment proposed to strengthen
the use of various mechanisms suchas plan contracts (to encourage
co-financing from central and local
governments and private sector)
and projects financed through the
General System of Royalties (UNHabitat, 2017).
https://observatorioplanificacion.
cepal.org/es/territorial-planning,
Countries with territorial and urban
mandatory plans at local levels:
Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Honduras, México,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Uruguay, Venezuela). See also UNHabitat, 2017.
Republic of Indonesia, 2019
UCLG, 2019a.
UN-Habitat, 2016.
The International Observatory on
Participatory Democracy collects
thousands of experiences developedby local governments acrossdifferent continents through different
modalities (e.g. neighbourhood
committees and assemblies, open
town council meetings, councils
for the elderly and the youth,
participatory budgeting and planning,referenda and e-democracy, among
others) [IOPD (https://oidp.net/en/)];These experiences are in Brazil,
China, Republic of Korea, Russia,

70.
71.

72.
73.

74.

75.

76.

77.
78.
79.
80.

the US, as well as African, Arab andEuropean countries (Cabannes,2018).
UN-Habitat, 2015b.
https://www.opengovpartnership.
org/stories/new-approaches-newopportunities-expanding-the-reachof-local-open-government/; https://
opengov.uclg.org/
See. UN Global Compact.
More information on the Voice ofthe Mayors programme, the Seoul
case, and the activities of Metropolis
are available online: http://www.
metropolis.org/voice-mayors. https://www.uclg.org/en/media/news/
citizen-participation-part-everydaylife-city-canoas
Asian Coalition for Housing Rights(ACHR), Report on Housing Policies
in Asia Region, (report prepared for
UCLG-GOLD); https://knowyourcity.
info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/
SDI_StateofSlums_LOW_FINAL.pdf.
A large number of innovative
solutions have been experimented
to include and benefit specificexcluded and disadvantaged socialgroups: homeless (i.e. Paris, SãoPaulo), LGBT+ (various Brazilian
experiences), migrant workers (i.e.
Taoyuan, Taiwan Province of China),
youth (multiple experiences, e.g.
Valongo, Portugal), women (e.g.
Solo/Surakarta, Indonesia, Seville,
Spain), ethnic minorities in cities(i.e. São Paulo, Brazil or Rosario,
Argentina), extreme poor (i.e.
Yaoundé, Cameroon), disabled (i.e.
Sanxia district, Taiwan Provinceof China; La Serena, Chile); ruralcommunities in cities (i.e. Quito or
Cuenca, Ecuador; Chengdu, China)
etc.
S. Langelier, 2011; Ghertner(2011; Allegretti et al, 2016; UNHabitat,2016, p.110
Cabannes and Lipietz, 2017.
Allegretti et al,2016; EIP-SCC,2015.
UNDESA, 2018.
NUA paragraphs 89 and 149; UN-

81.

82.
83.

84.

85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

Habitat (2016), p.117
OECD, 2017; UN-Habitat andOECD,2018; 10 countries in Europe
and North America adopted explicit
NUPs and 23 partial NUPs.
GTF and UCLG, 2019.
For more information, see: Urban
Agenda for the EU (https://ec.europa.
eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/
themes/urban-development/agenda/
pact-of-amsterdam.pdf); The
Belgian Presidency of the EU in 2010
published a handbook for multilevelurban governance in Europe (http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/TA-8-2018-0273_EN.html)
Based on the legal frame createdby the Statute of Cities (2001) andsupported through the Ministry of
Cities, Brazil promoted a national
participatory dialogue - throughthe National Conference of Cities–
comprising national and local
governments and civil society
organizations to support national
urban development and promote
multilevel cooperation. But in 2017,
the national government limited thepowers of the National Council ofCities and postponed the national
conference (Decree 9076/2017.
See: UN-Habitat (2016) p. 106; E.
Fernandez, “Urban Planning at a
crossroads, A critical assessment ofBrazil’s City Statute, 15 years later,” inGautam Bhan et al (2018), pp. 48-57.
For more details see Zhu and Lin,
2011; Multilevel arrangements arenecessary for the design of policies
concerning their rights, social
security and public services provisionand financing.
See: https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/
oda/sdgs/pdf/about_sdgs.pdf
UCLG, 2019a.
UN-Habitat, 2015c.
UN-Habitat and OECD,2018.
Leck and Simon ,2013.
UN-Habitat and OECD, 2018;
Cartwright et. all. (2018) identify
the following 18 African countries

92.
93.

94.

95.
96.

97.

as having dedicated urbanization
strategies in their NUPs: Algeria,
Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Gabon, Kenya,
Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria,
Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa,
Swaziland and Uganda.
UN-Habitat (http://urbandata.
unhabitat.org/partners).
For more information, see forGermany (https://sdg-portal.
de/); for Brazil ( http://ods.cnm.
org.br/mandala-municipal); for
Africa ( https://knowyourcity.info/
wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SDI_StateofSlums_LOW_FINAL.pdf.).
See: https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/sdg11/local; The first VLRs
were elaborated by New York, andthe Japanese cities of Toyama,
Kitakyushu and Shimokawa. Buenos
Aires, Barcelona, the Basque Country,
Bristol, Canterbury, Helsinki, La Paz,
Los Angeles, Mexico City, Málaga,
Mannheim, Oaxaca, Santana deParnaíba, Sydney, Suwon, Taipei,
Valencia followed suit.
OECD ,2020; EC-JRC, 2020.
GTF and UCLG,2019; Only in 47
countries out of the 142 countries
that presented their VNR to the
HLPF between 2016 and 2919,
local governments are associatedor consulted by the national
coordination mechanisms for the
SDGs follow-up. With regard NUPs,
a survey realized by UCLG IN 2016
show some involvement in Latin
American countries, but limited
involvement in Asia and in Africa.
United Nations, 2020.

232

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Chapter 8
Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Significant investments are required to enhance the economic, environmental, social value of urbanization,
including the intangible conditions of cities, all of which are critical for to realizing sustainable urbanization.
Just like all aspects of development, sustainable urbanization requires adequate financing. The extent towhich cities and countries attract and leverage the public and private investments required to achieve SDG 11
and the New Urban Agenda is key to enhancing the value of sustainable urbanization. Closing the investment
gap requires coordination and co-operation among diverse stakeholders, including all levels of government,
the private sector, and bilateral and multilateral development institutions.

233

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Quick facts
1. Adequate investment in urban infrastructure including physicalassets, human capital, institutions, effective governancestructures and innovative technology is central to enhancing
the value of sustainable urbanization.
2. Delivering on the urban dimension of the SDGs will cost US$38
trillion. The financial resources are available globally, but they
are not channelled to areas where they are most needed.
3. The investment needs of cities and countries required toachieve sustainable urbanization vary, and depend on city size,
demographic trends, urban configurations, geographic location,
the country’s level of economic development and the quality of

The Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs by 2030
represents a defining moment in the global development
agenda and in the drive toward sustainable urbanization
through the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.
This requires significant investment in the economic,
environmental, social and intangible conditions of cities,
all of which are critical components to realize the valueof sustainable urbanization. These investments include
the physical assets, human capital, institutions, effective
governance structures and innovative technology that are
the foundation of sustainable cities.1

existing urban assets.
4. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an uncertain investment
climate as only five per cent of public and private sector
leaders believe that investments will “increase significantly”
following the pandemic.
5. Local governments still face multiple constraints regarding
urban finance. These include insufficient and unpredictabletransfers from central government, weak fiscal management,poor revenue generation and legal constraints.

Policy Points
1. Local governments must be empowered to tap theirendogenous potential to innovatively increase and diversify
own-source revenues, which in the long-run enhances local
autonomy and financial sustainability.
2. Policy coherence between global, regional, national and local

Given the interlinkages of Goal 11 with other SDGs and the
NUA, investments in the various dimensions of the valueof urbanization as discussed in this Report are necessary
to achieve the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. For example, investments in adequate andaffordable housing, basic services and slum upgrading havedirect impacts on at least three-quarters of the SDGs.2
Likewise, investment in modern, affordable, reliable,
sustainable energy projects helps to achieve SDG 7.
Investment in capacity building of local government staff
and institutions contributes to SDG 16. Today, however,there is a shortfall in the investments required to achieve
the sustainable development objectives of these agendas,
including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. While
the shortfall is global in nature, it is more pronounced indeveloping regions with insufficient domestic revenues.

stakeholders is crucial for meeting urban investment needs toenhance the value of urbanization.
3. A multiplicity of actors and collaborative ventures is required toadequately fund urban infrastructure.
4. Institutions for public investment management should be
strengthened to achieve desired outcomes while maintaining
quality and efficiency in spending on the city’s physical assets.
5. Urban policies and investments to enhance the value of
urbanization should be evidence-based and grounded onrealistic targets that can be monitored.

Sustained financial commitments to economic,
environmental and social infrastructure are key to achieving
inclusive urbanization that provides vital public services
and social protection for vulnerable urban populations
discussed in Chapters 2 and 5. Action by local governments
is critical, but on their own, they cannot generate therequired financial investments to fully harness the valueof sustainable urbanization. Closing the investment gap
requires coordination and cooperation among diverse
stakeholders, including all levels of government, theprivate sector, and bilateral and multilateral development
institutions. The trends highlighted in Chapter 1 andsubsequent chapters of this Report indicate an urgent

234

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Running tram at Bahnhofstrasse Street of Zurich city center, Zurich, Switzerland. © Roman Babakin/Shutterstock

need to address the insufficient investment in sustainableurban development. The COVID-19 pandemic has further
amplified the urgency of addressing issues such as poverty,
hunger, precarious housing, health systems and climatechange through the SDG framework.
As pointed out in this Report, cities generate over 80 per
cent of global GDP. However, many rapidly growing cities
do not directly benefit from the wealth created within theirjurisdictions and continue to struggle with insufficientbudgets and accumulating infrastructure deficits.
Additionally, as pointed out in Chapter 7, while there isa considerable amount of funds ‘available’ at the global

Many rapidly growing cities do notdirectly benefit from the wealth createdwithin their jurisdictions and continue tostruggle with insufficient budgets andaccumulating infrastructure deficits

235

level and increasing investment in global cities, adequate
financing is not directed to sustainable urbanization in thecities and territories where resources are needed the most.
This skewed distribution is also visible in the investment
patterns supporting scientific and technological researchunderpinning the innovation economy (Chapter 6), as wellas investments in monitoring and reporting mechanismsthat should underpin policies and actions geared towardsustainable urban development (Chapter 7).
This chapter addresses how cities and countries attract andleverage available public and private financing to create
and maintain the investments required to achieve SDG
11 and implement the NUA, so as to enhance the value ofsustainable urbanization. While there are no easy answers,
the path forward is clear: domestic revenues, official
development assistance and private sector investments
need to increase. Further, coordination between global,
national and local stakeholders must improve to ensurethat the financial facilities available are contextually

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

appropriate so that investments are efficient and directed
where they are most needed. While the current investment
climate is characterized by uncertainty due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the need remains as critical as ever.
The investment decisions made today will determine how
cities will look and function tomorrow.

8.1. 		 Urban Investments DemandPresently, the global development agendas—SDGs, the
NUA, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction—are being implemented without
financial resources flowing at the speed and scale required torealize their goals.3 Endorsed in 2015 by the United Nations
General Assembly, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(AAAA) provides the framework to finance the collective
ambitions for sustainable development. As in the preceding
Monterrey Consensus, the AAAA recognizes that financing
for the SDGs is not just about more financial flows, butalso depends on public policies that strengthen national
and international fiscal environments.4 Both frameworks
call on governments and multi-stakeholder partners,
including businesses, foundations and individuals, tomobilize financial resources in a more coordinated mannerin pursuit of economic growth that enhances humanwell-being and preserves the environment, particularly indeveloping countries.5
Notably, five years after the AAAA was established, thepromised surge in finances available for countries toachieve the SDGs and related development agendas has
not materialized. Globally, government revenues are still
the primary source of financing for urban development,
but the average in low-income countries remains below
the 15 per cent of GDP threshold considered essential for
effective state functioning.6 The global supply of resources
to developing countries, where development goals are

A retreat from multilateralism,
discontent with and distrustof globalization, heightenedrisk of debt distress and more
frequent and severe climate
shocks have made sustainablefinancing more difficult

particularly pertinent, declined due to the global economic
crash in 2008 and never fully recovered.7 Further, in recent
years, a retreat from multilateralism, discontent with anddistrust of globalization, heightened risk of debt distressand more frequent and severe climate shocks have madesustainable financing more difficult.8
While the full impact (economic, social and environmental)of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be known for sometime, it is quite clear that the economic and financial shocks
associated with the pandemic threaten to further derail
SDG implementation.9 Due to the ongoing pandemic,
there will be a likely increase in development needs witha concomitant decline in funds available for investment,
particularly in making cities inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable. For instance, estimates show that the pandemic
will push between 71 and 100 million into extreme poverty.10
At the same time, revenues for local authorities are
predicted to drop between 15 to 25 per cent in 2021.11 This
contrast will not only make it difficult for cities to deliver
much-needed services, but also constrain the resourcebase crucial for improving economic, environmental
and social conditions for vulnerable populations, suchas those living in informal settlements and slums. Given
the multidimensional impacts of COVID-19 on bothpublic health and economic output, countries have been
forced to reallocate their domestic resources to deal with
the immediate needs of the pandemic. Simultaneously,
investors have fled emerging markets for safer investments,
which has sapped the developing world of necessary
revenue to tackle those domestic needs.12
Yet, demand remains high for investments in adequate
housing, basic services, sustainable transport systems, urban
environmental management and other needs that advancesustainable urban development, especially in developing
regions with rapidly growing urban populations (Chapter1). Different countries will have different investment needs
depending on their specific characteristics. However,the common underlying factor is that these investments
are related to the economic, environmental, social andintangible dimensions required for functioning urban
systems (Table 8.1). UN-Habitat estimates the total
investments needed for the urban dimension of the SDGs
and development of infrastructure at US$38 trillion for theyears 2020–2030 (Box 8.3).13236

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

To leverage the full potential ofsustainable urbanization, investments
made in hard and soft infrastructure
must be compatible with the 2030
Agenda, NUA and other development
agendasTo leverage the full potential of sustainable urbanization,
investments made in hard and soft infrastructure must
be compatible with the 2030 Agenda, NUA and otherdevelopment agendas. The goal should not merely bemore spending, but rather more efficient spending while
prioritizing sustainability. These investments should begrounded on the integrated and indivisible dimensionsof sustainable development and have the potential
to improve quality of life in meaningful, visible andtangible ways.14
Economically, these investments support countries aroundthe world to capitalize on the full potential of agglomeration
economies and structural transformation in cities.
Environmentally, these investments have the potential toimpact local, regional and global environments by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, improving natural resource
efficiency, mitigating the negative impacts of climate change
and safeguarding critical ecosystems and biodiversity.15
Socially, these investments promote inclusion and foster
access to equal opportunities. Finally, these investmentsin the three dimensions of sustainable urbanization are
managed by institutions at various levels of government thatare well-resourced.

Table 8.1: Investments required to enhance the value of sustainable urbanization
Value of sustainable urbanization

Elements of investments

Example of projects*

Economic

Investments in physical assets, systems, and facilities that
support the functioning of the urban economy

Capital projects such as housing, roads, bridges, highspeed railways, water and sanitation, public space andamenities, as well as technologies that contribute toefficient management of cities

Environmental

Investments that protect and improve the urban ecosystem,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, improvenatural resource efficiency, mitigate the negative impacts ofclimate change and other natural hazards, safeguard criticalecosystems and biodiversity

Renewable energy projects, retro-fitting buildings,
sustainable waste management, sustainable land use,
nature-based solutions, biodiversity conservation,
sustainable transport and climate adaptation projects

SocialInvestments that promote inclusion and are oriented toward
ending poverty. These are investments not only aimed
at ensuring that cities are just by promoting equal rights
and opportunities, they are vital for enhancing integration,
liveability, health and well-being in the urban space.

Affordable housing, slum upgrading, local government
facilities, human capacity, health care, youth
development, employment and training programmes,
accessible transport for all, technologies andinnovative solutions that improve social cohesion andtargeted services to specific population groups (suchas children, youth, the elderly, families, women, seniors,
migrants, indigenous people, etc.)

Investments in good urban governance (that is characterized
by the following norms that are interdependent and mutually
reinforcing: subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, transparency
and accountability, civic engagement, security, promotion
and protection of cultural diversity). Investments thatleverage culture and cultural diversity for sustainable urban
development.

Developing governance structures, institutions,
legal and regulatory frameworks, technical capacity,
monitoring and reporting systems and network
collaboration. Projects that safeguard and promotecultural infrastructures and facilities.

Intangible*Notes: Some investments fall in more than one dimension

237

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

8.1.1. The diverse nature of cities’ investment needs

A range of investments across multiple sectors is needed
for sustainable urban development (Table 8.1). The
quantum of these investment depends on numerous
factors including city size, demographic trends, urban
configurations, geographic location, the country’s levelof economic development, municipal revenue generation
and ability to mobilize domestic financial resources, aswell as the quality of existing urban assets. This diversityof investment needs based on city and country-specificcharacteristics is aptly illustrated by a recent pilot study
by UN-Habitat and AidData on investments needed forachieving SDG 11 (Box 8.1).
The current needs of cities in most advanced economies,
for instance, are the necessary upgrades to modernize
or replace ageing and increasingly outdated physicalinfrastructure such as bridges, power transmission anddistribution systems, water and sewerage pipelines, and
new investments in sustainable transport infrastructure.
Available evidence suggests that only a limited numberof countries, such as Australia and Japan, have invested
sufficiently over the past several years to meet or exceed
their infrastructure needs and will arguably be able tospend less going forward as a share of GDP than they havein the past.16 In contrast, countries such as Germany, theUK, and the US face major gaps between their current
spending commitments and estimated needs.17
Further, investments in urban transport infrastructure
continue to be driven largely by the demands of car culture.
In Europe, for example, roads account for more than halfof transport infrastructure investment.18 In recent years,
though, there have been shifts towards sustainable mobility
by investing in infrastructure and policies to encourage
non-motorized transport, digital technologies that enhance
efficiency across the whole transport system, shared mobility
solutions, clean vehicles and alternative fuel. The region
estimates that, by 2025, about one million public recharging
and refuelling stations will be needed for the 13 million zeroand low-emission vehicles anticipated on European roads.19
As pointed out in Chapter 1, there is an urgent need foradequate and affordable housing globally. Establishedmegacities such as London, New York and Paris have seen
demand for housing outstrip supply. These cities needto boost new supply of affordable housing so as to avoid
becoming prohibitively expensive to the younger workforce.20
Both public authorities and the real estate sector will haveto collaborate (e.g. on regulations and incentives) to drive
investment into the housing sector to increase the rate of
housing supply. For such cities to maintain their competitive
business climate and ensure affordability for new entrants,
deliberate and aggressive investments are required ininnovative, affordable and flexible office solutions toaccommodate growing innovation sectors.21
In major cities in emerging economies, such as Bangkok,
Delhi, Jakarta, Lagos, Mumbai and São Paulo, a very different
set of economic and social infrastructure challenges persists.
These cities are experiencing a rising pool of middle-classresidents and workers. Although infrastructure systems
are the backbone of city competitiveness and long-term
success, these cities still have deficits of both hard and soft
infrastructure. These cities have an increasing demand forinvestments in sustainable transport, particularly in wellfunctioning mass rapid transit systems. Traffic congestion
costs Mumbai and Delhi an avoidable cost of US$4.8 billion
and US$9.6 billion, respectively, while São Paulo residents
spend one month per year— or 2.4 hours per day— in traffic.22
São Paulo, for example, is currently making investments toboost the quality of urban transport services through theimplementation of Aricanduva BRT corridor project andthe phased construction of São Paulo Metro Line—which isalready yielding significant travel time gains.23
Similarly, cities in emerging economies need to enhanceenvironmental sustainability. The Yangtze River Delta
Region, the most prosperous region in China but also
responsible for a large proportion of Chinese energy
consumption and carbon emissions, has strong demand forinvestment in environmental sectors.24 For 2018–2020, theinvestment need for environmental protection sectors in
the Shanghai Metropolitan Area and surrounding lowertier cities alone amounts to about US$41.2 billion.25
Cities in emerging economies also require investments inpublic amenities and social infrastructure such as affordable
housing, child care, schools and health facilities.26 Given
the growing transition to a knowledge-based economy,
cities in emerging economies also require upfront capital
investment in digital and utilities infrastructure. These

238

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

investments enhance competitiveness and efficiency aswell as provide a solid platform for future development.27
Investment in research, technology development andinnovation are essential for countries and their cities totransition to a green economy.28
On the whole, in developing regions, especially in LDCs,
the quality, quantity and accessibility of infrastructure incities lags significantly behind cities in advanced economies
along several fronts: housing; utilities (electricity, watersupply, ICT, sewerage and waste management); public
works (roads, waterways, ports and airports); institutional
capacity and governance structures. Some regions, suchas Sub-Saharan Africa, have historically had inadequate

infrastructure, with urban population growth far outpacing
capital investment, leading to compounding shortages of
all types of infrastructure.29
The need for adequate and affordable housing is even more
pronounced in these regions; housing deficits are growing as
cities are overstretched to meet the demands of expanding
urban populations. Several countries, however, are making
strides in addressing affordable housing shortages for lowand middle-income groups in urban areas. In Sri Lanka, theUrban Development Authority plans to construct 50,000
units.30 Kenya’s Affordable Housing Programme aims toprovide 500,000 EDGE-certified homes in a bid to address
the country’s two million unit housing deficit (Figure 8.1).31

Figure 8.1: Housing deficits in Africa
Nigeria
Egypt
Tanzania
Democratic Republic of the CongoSouth Africa
Mozambique
Madagascar
Kenya
AngolaGhana
UgandaZambiaZimbabwe
Cameroon
Algeria
Ethiopia
Central African Republic
MoroccoCôte d'Ivoire
Mali
Libya
Togo
Liberia
Gabon
Chad
Sierra Leone
GuineasCongo
SenegalRwandaNiger
MalawiBurkina Faso
Cabo Verde
Namibia
Mauritania
Benin
BurundiSwaziland
Mauritius

17,000,000

3,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,300,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
600,000
600,000
400,000
350,000
250,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
166,000
140,000
140,000
125,000
109,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
80,00080,00050,00050,00030,00020,00020,000Source: Bah et al, 2018.

87.6

239

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Besides the much-needed hard infrastructure, developing
countries also need to invest in building and improving
human capacity, effective institutions, technology andinnovation, and sound governance structures in order tomeet the complex challenges presented by the sustainableurbanization imperative. Several Arab countries, forexample, have experienced not only the loss of urban assets
due to destruction but also loss the skilled human resourcesin government institutions due to violence and migration.32
Given the diverse investment needs of cities, adequate
internal coordination is imperative so that shared priorities
and consistent objectives are established between thevarious levels of government. Multilevel governanceshould ensure coherence between the sectoral priorities ofnational government departments and those of local andregional governments (Chapter 7). In addition, enabling
metropolitan governance, where appropriate, also ensuresa more integrated and efficient approach to territorial
development through cooperation of various municipalities
who jointly assess their needs.33 Evidence-based decisionmaking is essential to prioritize investment needs (Box8.2). It is also vital to assess the direct and indirect impacts
of investments (both short-term and long-term) so as
to ensure that there is a wider benefit—that is, ensuring
inclusive prosperity and opportunities for all.

Aerial shot of a public mass housing Neighbourhood in Lagos Nigeria. © Tayvay/Shutterstock

240

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 8.1: Financing Sustainable Urbanization: Counting the Costs
To fill the knowledge gap on investments for achieving SDG 11, UN-Habitat and AidData devised a two-phase effort to develop asystematic, replicable and scalable approach to capture both the “hard” and “soft” costs to support sustainable cities in run-up to2030. This calculation takes a city-centric view of the costs of urban sustainability, as opposed to previous studies that have looked
at costs on the national and global scale. The costing methodology takes into account both physical and institutional infrastructureneeds (e.g. city planning capacity and citizen engagement). It assesses the anticipated costs of realizing SDG 11 targets related to
five thematic areas: housing, transport, waste management, public spaces, and urban governance and planning.
The study undertook to establish the average annual cost of achieving SDG 11 from 2019–2030 for six pilot countries: Cote d’Ivoire,
India, Malaysia, Colombia, Bolivia and Sweden. However, estimates were realized for only four countries in the sample (Bolivia,
India, Malaysia and Colombia). These results should be interpreted keeping in mind that the sample size is small for this costing
estimation. In total, 129 cities of varying scale are included in the final sample. Results from the four sampled countries show thatthe total average annual cost for small cities to achieve SDG 11 ranges from US$18 million in Malaysia to US$54 million in Bolivia.
For medium-sized cities, the total average annual cost ranges from US$144 million in India to US$516 million in Malaysia. For thelarge cities sampled, the total annual averages range from US$645 million in Bolivia to about US$5.29 billion in Malaysia.
Table A: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Small Cities (<100k Inhabitants). Millions of USD.

Country

SampleSize

Housing Public Cost
(US$ m)Transport(US$ m)Solid Waste(US$ m)Bolivia

8

18.81

29.13

0.63

4.36

1.36

54.29

India

7

4.70

9.38

1.69

17.82

0.84

34.43

Public Space(US$ m)Governanceand Planning(US$ m)

Total(US$ m)Malaysia

7

0.06

16.43

0.18

0.09

1.72

18.48

Colombia

18

15.44

19.26

0.38

2.79

1.09

38.96

Table B: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Medium-Sized Cities (100k - 1 Million Inhabitants). Millions of USD.
Housing Public Cost
(US$ m)Transport(US$ m)Solid Waste(US$ m)Public Space(US$ m)Governanceand Planning(US$ m)

Total(US$ m)Country

SampleSize

Bolivia

11

79.5

62.9

3.49

40.4

4.66

190.95

India

18

16.28

42.74

9.3

72.66

2.81

143.79

Malaysia

12

23.43

424.05

3.69

58.75

5.88

515.8

Colombia

25

107.3

202.17

2.91

26.81

3.71

342.9

Table C: Estimated Average Annual Cost for Achieving SDG 11 in Large Cities. (>1 Million Inhabitants). Millions of USD.

241

Country

SampleSize

Housing Public Cost
(US$ m)Transport(US$ m)Solid Waste(US$ m)Public Space(US$ m)Governanceand Planning(US$ m)

Total(US$ m)Bolivia1

308.73259.98

14.54

47.81

13.6

644.66India

17

397.28626.01167.26817.37

8.22

2016.14

Malaysia

1

27.48

1617.5826.16

3597.2217.37

5285.81

Colombia

41324.57

1503.9649.68

217.0510.88

3106.14Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

This preliminary study shows that different countries will have different investment needs depending on country-specificcharacteristics. This study, however, indicates that for a small city in a developing country, total average annual costs can be
expected in the range of US$20 million to US$50 million. For a medium-sized developing city, the costs range from around US$140
million to more than US$500 million. Large developing cities can expect an average annual cost from around US$600 million to over
US$5 billion, with most country average results being in billions of US dollars per city, annually.
Lessons Learned
This study shows that costs are contextual. No one size fits all and translating a standard methodology to different countries
requires significant adjustments to which inputs to consider. Secondly, the baselines for least developed, developing and developed
countries are very different. This was illustrated by the case of Sweden, where expenditures are geared towards advanced
sustainability objectives, such as bike lanes and digital infrastructure for smart cities. In contrast, developing countries are working
towards creating basic bus services for their urban residents. Meanwhile, least developed countries lack basic records and data on
public services and, therefore, do not have actionable plans to achieve established targets.
Thirdly, the total required investments for achieving SDG 11 rises as cities grow, mainly because of the total population. Many cities
in our sample will transition in size from small to medium or medium to large over the next decade. To maximize the economies ofscale that sustainable urbanization offers in terms of dollars needed per capita to provide basic services, housing, transport etc.,
making strategic investments now before cities grow larger is essential.
Source: UN-Habitat, 2020e.

8.1.2. The case for investing in urban infrastructureOver 70 per cent of the global demand for infrastructure
is in urban areas.34 Closing the investment gap will not beeasy, but it is necessary, possible and urgent. The economic,
environmental and social case for investing in improved
and more sustainable urban infrastructure is compelling.
Investments in urban infrastructure can unlock endogenous
growth potential. Estimates suggest that an additional
one per cent of GDP spent on infrastructure investment
can have a multiplier effect of 1.0–2.5 on the original
investment, and this multiplier effect could be more
substantial for emerging and developing economies.35 For
instance, in Africa, infrastructure investment is estimatedto boost GDP per capita growth by an additional 2.2 percent a year; no investment impairs growth by two percent.36 In Latin America, three per cent of GDP is being
invested in infrastructure. However, an assessment by theDevelopment Bank for Latin America (CAF) suggests thatthe region must invest at least five per cent to take the leap
toward competitiveness.37 For advanced economies, theIMF estimates that if countries invest an extra one per centof GDP in infrastructure, it yields on average a 1.5 per centincrease in GDP within four years.38
By and large, investment in urban infrastructure hastremendous implications for countries at all stages ofdevelopment. Investment in economic, environmental andsocial infrastructure in cities is essential to reducing poverty
and strengthening resilience to climate change and extreme
natural events.39 For developing countries, infrastructure
investment is indispensable for economic development
and poverty reduction. It provides access to basic services,education and work opportunities that improve quality oflife. There are extensive studies that demonstrate public
capital spending fosters growth, especially in developing
countries with large infrastructure gaps.40
With the growing number of people residing in urban
and peri-urban areas, providing adequate and affordable
housing, sustainable transport, access to electricity andenvironmental infrastructure such as water, sanitation,
drainage and solid waste management are critical to242

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

A market at Dharavi slum during a nationwide lockdown as a preventive measure against the spread of the COVID-19, Mumbai/India. © Manoej Paateel/Shutterstockbuilding better livelihoods and enhancing quality oflife. Investment in sustainable urban infrastructure
yields both short- and long-term return. The COVID-19
pandemic has underscored the importance of this typeof urban infrastructure, as public health guidelines were
almost impossible to implement in informal settlements,
especially in developing countries.41 Basic services can also
contribute to climate resilience; a lack of adequate waterand sanitation infrastructure is closely linked to disease
outbreaks after severe weather events.42
Housing infrastructure is a vital part of the urban economy.
Without adequate and affordable housing for all urban
dwellers, economic development is inhibited. Investments
in housing have been shown to have direct positive effects
on employment, income generation, savings, labour
productivity and regional development.43 Moreover, as
mentioned earlier, investments in adequate, safe and243

affordable housing, basic services and slum upgrading havedirect impacts on at least three-quarters of the SDGs.
Investments in sustainable transport systems, public
spaces and parks that are safe, inclusive and accessible
for use by all, regardless of sex, age or disability, improve
the attractiveness of the city. The scope of investments,
as well as the type and scale of infrastructure, have major
implications for environmental sustainability. Despite
the uncertainties often associated with the amount ofinvestment needed, estimates should always be considered

Estimates should always be
considered alongside thesubstantial short- and long-term
benefits unlocked by sustainableurban infrastructure investment

100,000
100,000
80,00080,00050,00050,00030,00020,00020,000Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Commercial

219.2
661.5

664.7

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

South Asia

281.5

Middle east and North Africa

449.7
686.5

East Asia Paciﬁc

509.6

258.4

1476.73496.27126.68887.6

Figure 8.2: Investment opportunity across regions for green
buildings

Sub-Saharan Africa

Malawina Fasoo VerdeNamibia
uritania
Benin
Burundiazilandauritius

Residential

Source: IFC, 2019

alongside the substantial short- and long-term benefits
unlocked by sustainable urban infrastructure investment.

savings alone, within relatively manageable investment
payback periods.45 A study by McKinsey Institute also
demonstrates that, although green-district technologies
may at times cost more than the conventional alternative,
their internal rates of return range from 18 to 30 per cent—which translates to a breakeven rate of three to five years,
depending on the region and technologies deployed.46 In theUS, the National Institute of Buildings Sciences also found anational average benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 4:1 for a varietyof common building retrofit measures, a BCR of 4:1 for aselect number of utilities and transport infrastructure anda BCR of US$6 for every US$1 in grants spent on hazard
mitigation.47
The combined investment decisions that local, national andinternational stakeholders take during the Decade of Action
regarding urban infrastructure will determine whether thevalue associated with sustainable urbanization can be realized
in all regions. Adequate financing, including overcoming key
market and governance failures impacting sustainable urban
infrastructure investment, is imperative to the decade’s
success.48 Indeed, the propensity to underinvest in urban
infrastructure is not confined to developing regions; cities
in both developed and developing countries face a backlog
of infrastructure demands. Due to decades of underfunding,developed countries face the challenge of upgrading andreplacing ageing and increasingly outdated infrastructure.
In less developed regions, degraded neighbourhoods, urban
sprawl, growth of slum areas and weak institutions andgovernance structures are the consequence of, and catalyst
for, the ongoing social, economic and environmental costs of
inadequate investment.
While there are individual costs for each underfunded
sector, these chronic investments deficits compound one
another and often lead to exponentially greater humanInvestments in resilient and resource-efficient infrastructure
are central to sustainable urbanization. Today, there is anincreasing potential market for green buildings across all
Individual Local Government Credit Proﬁleregions (Figure 8.2). In advanced economies, studies indicate
The combined investment decisions
that retrofitting 20 per cent of buildings over the next fivethat local, national and international
Financial
Economyyears is projected to reduce
CO2 Management
emissions from heating Liquidity
stakeholders take during the Political& managerial
strength
cash flow
byIncomeLevelsone-fifth.44 Similarly,
arounda study
by New
Climate  Internal
Decadeofgeneration
Action regarding urban
Long-term capital & ﬁnancial
 Availability of external Economic diversiﬁcation
Economy in 2015 shows that evenwhen
high-end
incremental
infrastructure
will determine whether
planning
liquidity from capital markets
 Growth prospects
in sustainable & -theothervalue
sources associated with sustainable Revenueinvesting& expenditureinvestment
Accountabilitycosts are considered,management
infrastructure
can reduce
emissions and generate aurbanization can be realized in allurbanSocioeconomics&
 Debt& Liquidity
management US$17
demographic
proﬁle opportunity
globaleconomic
worth
approximately
regions
trillion by 2050 (in net present value terms), based on energy
Budgetary
Performance Operating Balance Balance after
capital accounts

Budgetary Flexibility

Debt Burden

Contingent Liabilities

 Revenues flexibility(tariffs asset sales) Operating & capital
expenditures

 Debt stocks
 Volatility of cost ofdebt Other potential

 Guarantees toother entities
 PPPs Securitizations

244

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Delays in investments and ongoing
spending inefficiencies create mounting
economic, social and environmentalpressures, as well as higher mitigation
costs to address increasingly degradedenvironments and disruptions to society
and economies
and financial costs if not urgently addressed. Delays ininvestments and ongoing spending inefficiencies create
mounting economic, social and environmental pressures,
as well as higher mitigation costs to address increasingly
degraded environments and disruptions to society andeconomies.49 Since underinvestment in infrastructure
produces no immediate negative effects besides distortionof aggregate demand,50 oftentimes urban infrastructure
continues to be a casualty of fiscal adjustments andausterity. Today, as the world grapples with the ravages of
the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured infrastructure
spending should be among priority measures to jumpstarteconomies. Governments can directly stimulate aggregate
demand through infrastructure-based stimulus packages
that increase construction activity and employment.51

maintenance of existing infrastructure have negative social,economic and environmental impacts if not addressed today.
Further, inefficiencies in investments are impacting healthoutcomes and decreasing educational enrolment in emerging
market economies and low-income developing countries.54
The lack of service delivery and social infrastructure frays
the social contract between residents and their local
governments, impacting revenue generation. Without
adequate resources, municipal authorities are further unable
to deliver services.55 This vicious cycle affects urban qualityof life and the ability of municipal authorities to attract theinvestment necessary to improve the city’s prospects.

Inadequate urban infrastructure
increases inequality and often threatensthe competitiveness and productivityof cities and national economies. It
negatively affects production costs
and the overall productivity of firms,
potentially leading to decisions to
relocate or not scale up their presence

While urban infrastructure accounts for a relatively
large portion of national investment in most countries,
the economic costs of insufficient investment andspending inefficiencies in new infrastructure as well as
deficient maintenance of existing infrastructure is high.52
Inadequate urban infrastructure increases inequality andoften threatens the competitiveness and productivityof cities and national economies. It negatively affects
production costs and the overall productivity of firms,
potentially leading to decisions to relocate or not scale
up their presence.53 Underinvestment in infrastructure,
particularly in cities, constrains the national economies
in developing countries as indicated above. In addition,
poorly maintained infrastructure often leads to economic
inefficiencies and has significant financial repercussions in
the long run in terms of rehabilitation costs or investments
in new facilities, as is the case of large cities in developing
countries around the world.
While the need for new capital investments is undeniable
and urgent, existing unmet needs in service provision and the245

Station platform full of people unable to get space in an over crowded train,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. © Hari Mahidhar/ShutterstockInvesting in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

8.1.3. Investing in human and institutional capacity

Making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
not only requires physical assets in cities, it also calls forinvesting in effective urban governance, sound legal andinstitutional frameworks, and strengthened capacities(individual, societal and institutional) to formulate,enhance, manage, monitor and evaluate the implementationof public policies for sustainable urban development.
The lack of adequate institutional capacity—whether inthe form of well-trained personnel, local leadership skills
or structures that ensure transparency, accountability andparticipation—pose immense challenges in advancing
sustainable urban development. Institutional fragmentation
and bloated bureaucracies, among other issues plaguing
urban governance, often translate into missed opportunities,
inefficiencies, waste and delays. As discussed in Chapter
7, strong and capable local governments, as well as strong
multilevel governance frameworks that facilitate vertical andhorizontal collaboration and coordination, are key levers tounleash the value of sustainable urbanization. These create
an enabling institutional environment for local action,
particularly when there is a consistent implementation of
the principle of subsidiarity.
The extent to which local governments can effectively
address urban challenges is significantly determinedby how well-resourced they are with human capital.
Decentralization of responsibilities to local authorities
must be accompanied by enhanced capacity in theinstitutional and technical capacity for effective urban
and territorial planning and management. Boosting thepersonnel capacity for urban administration, for instance,
is a prerequisite for sustainable urban development andthe successful implementation of transformative processes
that unlock the power of cities.56 These investments areespecially important for institutional capacity in revenue
generation, financial management and the structuring of
capital investment funding. Investments are also needed tostrengthen administrative capacity in order to harness thepossibilities offered by advances in digital technology andinnovation in urban service delivery and realization of the
SDGs. Investments that strengthen the statistical capacities
of various levels of governments promote evidence-based
urban governance (Box 8.2). Investments are needed toboost cities’ capacity for effective policy formulation as

well as to build robust legislative frameworks that support
effective urban management and development.
Investment in human capital formation is vital for inclusive
and sustainable urban development and aligns with SDG
8 to promote productive employment and decent work
for all. These investments help build and strengthen
productive capacities, thus enabling the economic value of
urbanization to be realized for all (Chapter 4). They alsobuild a healthy labour force with the skills and knowledge
to contribute to an innovative and competitive urban
economy.57 A stronger human capital base adapts faster totechnological change and advancement.58 It also improves
the climate adaptive capacity of a community.59 Whilemeasuring the returns of human capital is challenging as
investments in human capital may not produce economic
returns in the short term, targeted investments in the areasof education, health and technological proficiency have asignificant impact on future growth.60

A stronger human capitalbase adapts faster totechnological change
and advancement. It also
improves the climate adaptive
capacity of a community
Inequalities of opportunity, however, constrain the pool ofhuman capital that makes cities productive and inhibits
advancement toward sustainable urban development. It isthus important that gender disparities in education, pay andopportunities as well as discrimination against ethnic minorities,
people with disabilities and immigrants be addressed.61

8.2. The Urban Finance Challenge
Financing sustainable urbanization is an investment in
the present and future wellbeing of all nations. With thecontinuous increase in urban population, local governments
all over the world face the daunting task of providing thenecessary infrastructure and services to meet the growing
demand. However, lack of resources for investment insustainable urban development poses a serious dilemma
for most developing countries, particularly in LDCs. A

246

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Box 8.2: Investing in sustainable urbanization through effective monitoring and reporting
Policies and actions geared toward sustainable urban development should be underpinned by effective monitoring and reporting
mechanisms. It is thus necessary to ensure that urban policies at all levels are evidence-based and founded on realistic targets
that can be monitored, and that systems are in place to ensure accountability and allow for follow-up from all stakeholders. In
this regard, UN-Habitat is at the forefront of providing direct and indirect support to various levels of government (cities, regionaland national) across many countries in effective monitoring and reporting of progress toward sustainable urbanization. UNHabitat—through the Data and Analytics Unit (DAU), formerly Global Urban Observatory (GUO)—has been developing and refining
methodologies and tools for supporting data collection and monitoring of sustainable urban development at the local level.
In supporting SDG 11 and other urban-related indicators monitoring, UN-Habitat has been leading and coordinating activities fromvarious partner organizations in developing, refining and disseminating the methodologies that support assessment of progress in
implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In addition, UN-Habitat is providing technical support and capacity
development programmes to help countries generate relevant and accurate data for monitoring the SDGs and NUA. Some of thesecustomized trainings are delivered by DAU to countries and cities using a variety of tools that offer step-by-step guides on how to
implement different data generation workflows. Today, the Unit oversees 143 urban observatories in Asia, 130 in Latin America andthe Caribbean and 101 in Africa.
Besides maintaining a global urban indicators database, UN-Habitat has developed the City Prosperity Index, a data-based
framework that allow cities to collect, collate and analyse data on urban prosperity. All these are integral to formulating proper
policies, designing and implementing programmes and monitoring progress toward sustainable development at the local level.

Financing sustainable urbanization isan investment in the present and future
wellbeing of all nations
survey of about 100 cities globally found that 55 per cent ofmunicipalities cited lack of public funding as a barrier tosustainable urban growth.62
Local governments face multiple constraints regarding urban
finance, such as insufficient and unpredictable transfersfrom central government, weak fiscal management, poor
revenue generation and legal constraints. These challenges
and other institutional constraints pose enormous barriers.
For example, most local governments have restricted
access to capital markets based on credit rating criteria(Figure 8.3).63 By improving creditworthiness, cities
embed the principles of good financial management andtransparency.64 Only four per cent of the 500 largest

247

cities in developing countries are deemed creditworthy
by international financial markets, and only 20 per centare creditworthy in local markets.65 In addition, cities
face challenges in accessing resources for pre-investment
activities such as financial structuring necessary to bring
forth bankable projects and pilot projects that demonstrate
the capabilities of local government.66
8.2.1. Fiscal management

As discussed in Chapter 7, the decentralization ofadministrative and fiscal authority has been uneven, andintergovernmental systems of financial transfers andjurisdictional cooperation are often plagued with problems.
In most developing countries, financial devolution andlocal share of revenues are woefully inadequate. Poorly
functioning transfer systems further disincentivize
effective revenue generation and are an impediment tolocal government expenditures. These hurdles are further
compounded by a lack of adequate institutional capacity

Lati
Commercial

Residential
Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Figure 8.3: Sample of rating agency criteria
National & Local
Institutional factors
Institutional Framework Predictability
 Revenue & Expenditure
Balance Transparency &Accountability

Individual Local Government Credit ProﬁleEconomyFinancial Management

Liquidity

 Income Levels
 Economic diversiﬁcation
 Growth prospects
 Accountability
 Socioeconomics &demographic proﬁle Political & managerial strength Long-term capital & ﬁnancial
planning
 Revenue & expenditure
management
 Debt & Liquidity management

 Internal cash flow generation
 Availability of externalliquidity from capital markets& - other sources

Budgetary
Performance Operating Balance Balance after
capital accounts

Budgetary Flexibility

Debt Burden

Contingent Liabilities

 Revenues flexibility(tariffs asset sales) Operating & capital
expenditures
flexibility Debt stocks
 Volatility of cost ofdebt Other potential
liabilities

 Guarantees toother entities
 PPPs Securitizations
 Litigations

Rating (AAA to CCC-)
Notes: Rating agencies often categorize their criteria as being either “institutional framework” or under the “individual credit profile” of a city. Institutional framework includes all those factors that
constitute transparent, accountable and predictable government at both the local and national level. Individual credit profile constitutes the set of factors—economic, managerial and performative—
Morocco
1.75
that relate to the local authority’s
financial capacity to pay its debt obligations.

South Africa
Mauritius
Egypt
Mozambiqueat the local leveland overreliance on investment decisions
Mali
by higher levels ofgovernment.
LesothoTunisia
0.53
The Gambia
0.53
As highlighted
in various sections of this Report,
São Tomé & the
Príncipeinstitutional capacities
0.32
strengtheningof localCongo
0.32
governments is integral
tofacilitating
local
financialTogo
0.24
sustainability. Strengthening
financialmanagement
Benin
0.24
frameworks andNamibia
expertise, for 0.15
instance, is vital to the
Liberia
0.15
efficient allocationAngola
and use of publicresources. Today, a large
0.15
portion of investments
inefficiency and addressing
Senegal is lost to0.1
Rwanda0.1
this is critical to achieving
the SDGs—in
other words, there
African0.1
should not Central
only bemore spending,but better spending.67
Burkina Faso
0.1
Some ways in which
can be enhanced in
Tanzaniathis efficiency
0.08
urban investments
include embracing
technology throughCôte d'Ivoire
0.07
Niger
0.06ensuring that decisions are
cost-efficient IT deployment,
Madagascar
0.06
data-driven andBotswana
evidence-based,
eliminating duplication
0.06
or overlappingSwaziland
roles and 0.05
responsibilities in multilevel
Sierra Leone
0.05
governance arrangements,
engenderingtransparency andZambia0.03
accountability, promoting
integrated approaches andEquatorial
0.03
Kenya 0.01
Source: UN-Habitat, 2017c.

1.39

1.6

0.83
0.7 Strengthening the institutional capacities
0.7
of local governments is integral to
0.7

facilitating local financial sustainability

reviewing institutional processes to eliminate waste. In 2011,
New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority launcheda strategic procurement initiative aimed at realizing
savings of at least US$100 million.68 In South Africa, thecities of Tshwane, Cape Town, Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg
and Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality are
implementing sustainable public procurement practices
that not only achieve value for money but also drive
toward sustainability. Several national governments havealso launched online portals to enhance transparency andefficiency in procurement processes. In India, for example,
the Government e-Marketplace portal provides detailsof projects, policies, timelines, schemes and spending on
infrastructure.69

248

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

8.2.2. Poor revenue generation

Most cities in developing countries are dependent ontransfers from the central government and often have
limited financial instruments and mechanisms for revenue
generation. In a majority of regions, local governments have
low levels of autonomy with regard to revenue sources andfinancial management.70 Oftentimes, the more lucrative
sources of revenue potentially suitable for financing
urban development, such as income taxes, sales taxes andbusiness taxes, are controlled by central governments—
leaving city authorities with lesser revenues derived fromproperty taxation and service charges, which often needstrengthening. In addition, the high level of informality
in the economy negatively impacts own revenues. As
pointed out in Chapter 3, this scenario leaves most cities
in developing countries financially constrained as what
is annually generated from local government revenue
systems ranges from US$100 to US$500 per inhabitant,and even much lower (less than US$50) in smaller citiesof Africa and South Asia. In contrast, locally-based
revenues exceed US$3,000 per capita each year in cities
of advanced countries such as New York, Stockholm,
Seattle and Tokyo.71 Notably, the subnational taxes indeveloping countries are approximately 2.3 per cent of
GDP compared to 6.4 per cent in advanced countries.72
In most low-income countries, the ineffective systems for

The subnational taxes in developing
countries are approximately 2.3 percent of GDP compared to 6.4 per cent inadvanced countries

249

revenue generation contribute to an inability to develop
investment-grade credit ratings.73
A city’s ability to maximize its leverage of endogenous
resources is subject to appropriate institutionalarrangements, as well as its technical capacity for planning,accessing and administering the full range of financing
instruments (see examples of land-based instruments inTable 8.2). The scale and efficiency of revenue generationby employing such instruments is largely determinedby urban planning and management, the enforcementof land use policy (improved property rights via land
registration), productive capacities, political support
and commitment to implement instruments, as well as
financial management expertise.

A city’s ability to maximize its leverageof endogenous resources is subject toappropriate institutional arrangements,
as well as its technical capacity forplanning, accessing and administering
the full range of financing instruments
In most developing countries, property taxes are notefficiently administered and collected as most local
governments lack adequate capacities to systematicallymaintain and coordinate their physical and fiscal cadastre;
at times the political will to administer the property tax
is lacking across various levels of government. In OECD
countries, property taxes constitute about two per cent ofGDP, while across African countries the figure averages
0.38 per cent (Figure 8.4).74 Across LDCs, high-value
properties are sometimes undervalued or absent from city
databases. Even when local governments do possess thetechnical capacity to bring these properties into the tax
fold, often the political will to do so is lacking. In addition,some taxes need to be reformed as they do not reflectcurrent circumstances, capabilities or best practice. Several
cities that have reformed their property tax regimes haveseen an increase in revenues vital for investments in urban
infrastructure. In Sierra Leone, the cities of Bo, Kenema
and Makeni increased local revenues by 200–450 per centbetween 2007 and 2011 by implementing a simplified andtransparent system of property valuation.75 Similarly,
authorities in Bangalore instituted measures to improveAccountability

Budgetary
Performance Operating Balance Balance after
capital accounts

Budgetary Flexibility

Debt Burden

Contingent Liabilities

 Revenues flexibility(tariffs asset sales) Operating & capital
expenditures
flexibility Debt stocks
 Volatility of cost ofdebt Other potential
liabilities

 Guarantees to Investing in the Value ofother entities Sustainable Urbanization
 PPPs Securitizations
 Litigations

Rating (AAA to CCC-)

Figure 8.4: Property taxes as a percentage of GDP in selected African countries, (around 2012)
MoroccoSouth Africa
Mauritius
Egypt
Mozambique
Mali
LesothoTunisia
The Gambia
São Tomé & Príncipe
Congo
Togo
Benin
Namibia
Liberia
AngolaSenegalRwandaCentral African
Burkina Faso
Tanzania
Côte d'Ivoire
Niger
Madagascar
Botswana
Swaziland
Sierra Leone
ZambiaEquatorial
Kenya

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01

0.15
0.15
0.15

0.24
0.24

0.32
0.32

0.53
0.53

0.7
0.7
0.7

0.83

1.39

1.6

1.75

Source: Franzsen and McCluskey, 2017.

Metropolitan Transportation Plan. In Istanbul, the 2007
the assessment of property tax in 2000, which immediately
sale of an old bus station and government building raised
increased the city’s property tax collection by one-third.76
Total Public and Private Investment capacity (2020-30) $98 Trillion
US$1.5 billion, an amount more than the city’s total 2005
Benin has been implementing Registre Foncier Urbain
fiscal expenditures and infrastructure investments.78 In(Urban Land Registry) in Cotonou, Porto-Novo, Parakou
Infrastructure
and in smaller cities; this land information system has
Shanghai, 46 per cent ofSovereign
urban growthhas been funded
and Private
Wealthequity funds
77
positively impacted local finances.
through land-based financing
mechanisms
by which thefunds $6.7
$2.5T
city sold developed land to operators of commercial orindustrial zones.79 In Saint Lucia, revenue
Besides property taxes, many cities across the globe are
generated from
Publicleveraging their local assets to generate revenue andthe sale of serviced lots has been useddonors,
toestablish theEndowments
and 80finance their investment needs. For instance, in Cairo, the
Sites
and
Services
Revolving
Fund(SSRF).
Insurance and Private
Public pensions andfoundations
Commercial
bankshectares$33.3T
Investmentbankstown$24.2T in
pensions $21.7T
Pension plans $9.2Tauctionof 3,100of desert land for
a new
$0.8T
2007 raised US$3.12 billion—an amount 117 times greater
Since the early 2000s, there are many successful examples ofthan Egypt’s total urban property tax collections and about
cities using land value capture to finance urban projects in
one-tenth the size of national government revenue—toTokyo, Hong Kong, New York, London, Delhi, Nanchang,Investment needvs. build
public andprivate investmentand
capacity
2020-2030(US$ Trillions)finance internal infrastructure
anda connecting
São Paulo.
In HongKong and Tokyo, for instance, landCommercial
banks
highway to Cairo’s ring road. Similarly, Mumbai raisedvalue capture financing schemes$33.3
have helped them not only
Investment banks$24.2
US$1.2 billion inInsurance
2006–2007
byselling13
hectaresoflandtogenerate
funds
fortransit
investment
and operational andand private pensions$21.7
in the new Bandra-Kurla
Complexmaintenance costs but also to advance sustainable urban
Public pensions and pension
plans financial centre$9.2toSovereign wealth funds
finance urban infrastructure
projects identified$6.7by thedevelopment through transit-oriented development.81
Infrastructure and private equity funds
Public donors, endowments and foundations
Total infrastructure and SDG investment needed

$2.5
$0.8

$38.0

250

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

View of Shibuya Crossing, one of the busiest crosswalks in theworld, Tokyo, Japan. © Sean Pavone/Shutterstock251

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Table 8.2: Land-based finance instruments
Instrument

Description

Timing

Initial incidence

Minimum requirements

Recurring land/building value
tax(property tax)

 Recurring tax based on
estimated value of land or
building Assessed annually Can be collected ininstalments

 Either thelandowner or theoccupant

 Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Fiscal cadastre (land registry) that includes all
taxable land plots
 Appropriate estimate of taxable value Administrative ability to calculate tax due,deliver bills and collect tax

Betterment
levies Charges assessed inconnection with specificinfrastructure improvements
 Limited to recovery of actual
costs incurred Assessed and collected asa one-time charge Existing landholders
whose land
benefits from theimprovements

 Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Identification of all land plots whose value isaffected by the improvements
 Estimated impact of the improvements on theland value of each affected plot Accurate estimate of the cost of the
improvements
 Method for allocating the improvement costs
to individual plots based on the share of benefit
received
 Adequate one-time billing and collection
systemSpecialassessments

 Charges assessed inconnection with specificinfrastructure improvements
 Limited to recovery of actual
costs incurred Assessed once
 Collected over a period,
often as a temporary
addition to the recurring
property tax

 Existing landholders
whose land
benefits from theimprovements All requirements for betterment levies
 Adequate instalment billing and collection
system Agreement of a majority of landowners

Developer
exactions Charges assessedin connection with
development approval Can be paid in cash, in land
or in kind

 Assessed once
 Collected as project isapproved and completed

 Land developers
seeking city
approval

 Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Estimate of the impact of the proposeddevelopment on existing infrastructure Administrative coordination with city planning
functions Method for calculating the amount of exactiondue Adequate billing, collection and projectmonitoring system

Land value
increment tax

 Tax assessed as apercentage of the increasein land value due to public
actions or general market
trends Can be assessed whenland title transfers or when
specific public actions
result in increased land
values Collected when land title
transfers or by special
billing

 Either the original
title holder, the
new title holder orboth if tied to title
transfer Existing landholders
if by special billing Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Estimate of the “before” and “after” land values
 Administrative capacity to identify when the
tax is due
 Adequate billing and collection system

Sale ofdevelopment
rights Payments received in
exchange for permission todevelop or redevelop land at
higher density or changed
land use Rights can either be sold at
auction or at fixed price Rights may be transferable
to other locations or resold

 Collected once Purchaser of thedevelopment right Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Effective control of existing development rights
 Demand for additional development rights
 Administrative and planning capacity todetermine acceptable amount of additional
development Capacity to manage the process of selling
additional development rights as well as tomonitor use and any resale of rights sold252

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Instrument

Description

Timing

Initial incidence

Minimum requirements

Sale of publicland

 Payment received in
exchange for freehold title topublic land

 Collected once Purchaser of theland Appropriate enabling legal framework Administrative and planning capacity to determine
which lands should be privately developed Capacity to manage a transparent and fairsales process as well as to allocate andmanage sales proceeds

Lease Payment received in
exchange for right to occupy
and benefit from public land
 Permitted land use isspecified Terms vary from 2 to 99
years Assessed and collectedonce or recurring basis
depending on the contract
specifications

 Purchaser of theleasehold (lease) Appropriate enabling legal framework Administrative and planning capacity todetermine which lands are available for lease Appropriate estimate of market value of land
to be leased Administrative capacity to solicit and negotiate
leases; monitor leases for the duration of thelease; and to allocate and manage lease proceeds

Transfer taxes
and stamp
duties Charge assessed forrecording the transfer of aland title from one private
party to another Can be either a fixed fee
or a percentage of thevalue of the property beingtransferred • Assessed and collectedonce Either the original
title holder, the newtitle holder or both

 Appropriate enabling legal framework
 Effective land registration system Administrative capacity to identify when the
tax is due Capacity to estimate taxable value Adequate billing and collection system

Source: Adapted from UN-Habitat, 2016f.

UN-Habitat has been providing technical assistance tolocal authorities for improving their revenue generating
capacity by, among other measures, employing land-based
financing mechanisms (Table 8.2). In Afghanistan, forexample, UN-Habitat has been strengthening municipal
capacities in creation and maintenance of safayi tax
records. This municipal revenue generation system resulted
in a 15 per cent increase in revenue in some cities and 30
per cent for the national government in 11 major cities andmunicipalities where implemented.82 Through the Joint
Programme on Local Governance, UN-Habitat has beenstrengthening capacities for municipal revenue generation
in Somalia over the past decade with positive results.
Hargeisa Municipality, for instance, saw an increase in

UN-Habitat has been strengthening
capacities for municipal revenue
generation in Somalia over the past
decade with positive results. Hargeisa
Municipality, for instance, saw anincrease in revenue from US$1.3 million
in 2018 to US$1.6 million in 2019253

revenue from US$1.3 million in 2018 to US$1.6 million in
2019, which has facilitated the delivery of social and physicalinfrastructure. Similarly, with increased revenue, Berbera
municipality implemented 30 development projects in
2019, including construction of roads and improvements
to the health and education sectors. UN-Habitat has
also developed a Rapid Own-Source Revenue Analysis(ROSRA) tool, first piloted in Kisumu (Kenya), to support
local governments in optimizing their own source revenues.
The tool quantifies revenue leakages and deconstructs
known bottlenecks to identify root causes and entry points
for reform.
Oftentimes, with limited resources generated, local
governments tend to spend their existing revenue on
recurrent costs, neglecting maintenance of infrastructure
and leaving little for capital investments that havethe capacity to improve productivity. These types ofinvestments enhance competitiveness, which attracts
people and firms—the key elements vital for increasing
overall revenue. Yet, cities can improve revenue byendogenous growth. As has been highlighted, urban areas
have a tremendous amount of assets that can be unlockedInvesting in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Urban areas have a tremendous amount ofassets that can be unlocked for investments
and local economic development. Local
authorities must also find ways to link revenue
generation with their ongoing activities andwith urban growth in order for local finances tobe sustainable in the long term
for investments and local economic development. Local
authorities must also find ways to link revenue generation
with their ongoing activities and with urban growth inorder for local finances to be sustainable in the long term.83
8.2.3. Legal constraints

Building a strong local revenue base depends on
empowering local governments to grow and diversify theirown-source revenues to leverage external financial flows.
There is a diversity of legal and institutional frameworks
across and within countries, which either incentivize
or inhibit cities’ capacity to increase their local resourcebase and efficiency. In most developing countries, there isneed for national and local reforms to ensure appropriate
legal or institutional mechanisms are in place for cities tomaximize their leverage of endogenous resources. Also,these frameworks constrain the effective use of exogenous
sources of finance as borrowing is prohibited by law. As
a result, many local governments are not financially or
institutionally empowered for their larger role in service
delivery, which is key to achieving the Global Goals.
Equally important is the mandate empowering local
governments to spend. Central governments’ tightcontrol over spending and conditionalities tied tointergovernmental fiscal transfers often carry the risk ofCentral governments’ tight control
over spending and conditionalities tied
to intergovernmental fiscal transfers
often carry the risk of forcing local
governments to spend funds in ways that
do not match local needs, undermining a
key objective of decentralization

forcing local governments to spend funds in ways that do
not match local needs, undermining a key objective ofdecentralization.84 As pointed out in Chapter 7, countries
should ensure an enabling institutional environment for
local action through effective decentralization policies torealize the value of sustainable urbanization. The qualityof financial decentralization, for instance, significantly
impacts the investment capacities of local governments.
National governments have to demonstrate the political
will to make necessary intergovernmental structuralchanges and ensure that enabling legal frameworks are inplace for cities to be active participants in line with theprinciple of subsidiarity.

8.3. Mobilizing Financing for Sustainable
Urbanization
Investing in sustainable urban development requires
mobilization of financial resources from a range of actors.
However, a persistent challenge facing most developing
countries is how to establish an enabling environment
for local governments to mobilize financial resourcesfrom a wide array of players. National governments playa pivotal role in determining the fiscal, regulatory, policy,
institutional, investment and credit environments inwhich local governments operate, and consequently thescale of resources raised for sustainable urban development(Figure 8.5). As the vast urban investment need will not
be met entirely through the means of the public sector or
traditional financing, the path to long-term sustainablefinancing is to diversify sources using public finances
and assets as leverage. Thus, the various dimensions of
the private sector must play a critical role in advancing
sustainable urbanization. A recent UN-Habitat study
shows that while the necessary funding to meet theinvestment need exists—as the total public and private
investment capacity far surpasses the total investment
need—this funding is not currently flowing into the rightareas (Box 8.3). Local governments therefore need to work
harder at understanding the private sector approach to
doing business in order to demonstrate how projects
will deliver value to both users and investors. Other
needed improvements include stronger public financial
management, better creditworthiness to access financial
markets and more efficient local bureaucracy.

254

 Operating Balance BalanceBalanceafter Operating
capitalafter
accounts
 Balance
capital accounts
WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

(tariffs asset
sales)
 Revenues
flexibility
capital Operating(tariffs
asset &sales)
expenditures
 Operating& capital
flexibility
expenditures
flexibility

 Volatility Debtstocks of cost ofdebt of cost of Volatility
 Other potential
debt
liabilities
 Otherpotential
liabilities

other entities
 Guaranteesto PPPsotherentities Securitizations
 PPPs Litigations
 Securitizations
 Litigations

Rating (AAA to CCC-)
Rating (AAA to CCC-)
Morocco1.75
SouthAfrica1.6
Morocco
1.75
1.39
SouthMauritius
Africa
1.6
Egypt
0.83
Mauritius
1.39
Box 8.3: Cities:
Investmentneedvs.
publicandprivateinvestment
capacity
Mozambique
0.7 0.83
Egypt
Mali
Mozambique
0.70.7
LesothoMali of the development agendas in cities requires
0.70.7 substantial investment in urban areas across the world.
Successful achievement
Tunisia
0.53
Lesotho
0.7
UN-Habitat estimates
the total investment need for infrastructure
and the SDGs at US$38 trillion for the years 2020–2030. Further,
The
Gambia0.53
Tunisia
0.53
Tomé& Príncipe
Theon
Gambia0.53
estimatesSão
basedinvestment trends from the0.32
pre-pandemic
period indicated that there would still be an investment gap of US$5.6
Congo
0.32
São Tomé & Príncipe
0.32
trillion. With COVID-19
effects still unfolding,the gap may widen as the investment trend towards developing countries might take aTogo
0.240.32
Congo
downturn for some years,
investment gap wider.
Benin leaving the estimated
0.24
Togo
0.24
Namibia
0.150.24
Benin
Liberia
0.15
Namibia
0.15
In emerging markets
and developing
countries, reports show that only about half of SDG investment needs are being covered.
Angola0.15
Liberia
0.15
Senegal0.1
Angola
0.15
The magnitude of the investment need in cities underpins the urgency to utilize innovative mechanisms and new tools to
RwandaSenegal0.10.1
finance development
in cities—not
CentralAfricanRwanda0.10.1just the traditional source of subnational funding, such as taxes, fees and intergovernmental
BurkinaFaso
0.1 financing offers many opportunities to mobilize resources, including public, private, domestic,
African
0.1oftransfers. AnCentral
evolving
landscape
0.08
BurkinaTanzania
Faso
0.1
international andCôte
experimental
schemes.
New development partners, finance institutions, public-private funds, philanthropic
d'Ivoire
0.07
Tanzania
0.08
organizations Côte
andd'Ivoire
privateNiger impact
0.06investors have emerged or expanded their activities in recent years and now work actively
0.07
Madagascar
Niger
alongside traditional
donors.0.060.06
Botswana
0.06
Madagascar
0.06
Swaziland
0.05
Botswana
0.06
SierraLeone
0.05 global financial actors, UN-Habitat also developed an estimation quantifying the total public and0.05
To showcase theSwaziland
full capacity
fromZambia0.03
Sierra Leone
0.05
private investor assets.
While
there
Equatorial
0.03 is a large SDG and infrastructure investment need, results from this estimation show that theZambia
0.03
Kenya
0.01
0.03
total public and Equatorial
privateinvestment
capacity—totalling US$98 trillion—far surpasses the total investment needs. Commercial banks
Kenya 0.01

have an investment capacity of more than US$33 trillion, which is almost as large as the total investment need for 2020–2030.
Investment banks manage over US$24 trillion, while insurance companies and private pensions manage almost US$22 trillion.
The world’s 82 largest sovereign wealth funds jointly manage over US$6.7 trillion and remain largely underutilized for realizing
sustainable development.
Total Public and Private Investment capacity (2020-30) $98 Trillion
Total Public and Private Investment capacity (2020-30) $98 Trillion

Infrastructure
and Private
Infrastructure
funds
andequity
Private$2.5T
equityfunds$2.5T

Sovereign
WealthSovereignfunds $6.7
Wealthfunds $6.7

Commercial banks $33.3T
Commercial banks $33.3T

Investment banks $24.2T
Investment banks $24.2T

Insurance and Private
pensions
Insurance
and$21.7T
Privatepensions $21.7T

Public pensions andPensionplansand$9.2T
Publicpensions
Pension plans $9.2T

Publicdonors,PublicEndowments
donors,andEndowments
andfoundations$0.8T
foundations$0.8T

Investment need vs. public and private investment capacity 2020-2030 (US$ Trillions)
Investment
need vs. public and private investment capacity 2020-2030 (US$ Trillions) $33.3
Commercial banks

Investment
banks
Commercial
banks
Insurance andprivate pensions
Investment
banks
Publicpensions
and pension
plans
Insuranceand private
pensions
Sovereign
wealthfunds
Public pensions
and pension
plans
Infrastructure
and private
equityfunds$2.5
Sovereign
wealthfunds
Publicdonors, endowments
foundations$0.8
Infrastructure
and privateand
equity
funds
$2.5
Total
infrastructureand SDG andinvestment
needed $0.8
Publicdonors, endowments
foundations
Total infrastructure and SDG investment needed

255

$9.2
$6.7
$9.2
$6.7

$24.2
$21.7
$24.2
$21.7

$33.3

$38.0
$38.0

ENABLING ENVIRONMENTENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Investment policy aligned with:
Investment
policy alignedwith: 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable

Fiscal Policy:
FiscalPolicy: capital forecasting Long-term

National Urban Policies:
National
Urban connected
Policies: and coordinated Compact,

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Infrastructure and private equity funds (totalling at US$2.5 trillion in managed assets) and public donors, endowments, andfoundations (US$0.8 trillion) by themselves lack the capacity to meet this need, or even the gap highlighted above. However,institutional investors manage assets that far exceed the total investment needed.
Traditional financing is not enough to cover the total investment need for infrastructure and the SDGs, but combined institutional
investor assets could be sufficient. In other words, while financing capacity indeed does exist, it is currently not flowing into theright areas to meet this need. Redirecting even a part of these assets would make a significant difference, but it is imperative thatthese assets are matched to infrastructure and SDG projects to close the current investment gap. If investment is put on hold, theyearly needs will continue to grow over time due to a cumulative effect. In other words, there are significant and rising opportunity
costs incurred by delaying investments into infrastructure and the SDGs. The onset of the Decade of Action to achieve the SDGs
combined with the opportunity to build back better post-COVID-19 constitutes a unique opportunity to invest in sustainable
development.
Source: UN-Habitat 2020e.

Improving financing for sustainable urban development
also requires a coordinated and coherent approach. One
that effectively harnesses various fiscal instruments
within the frameworks set by strong national urban
policies which have been designed through a collaborative
process (Chapter 7 and 9).85 This approach should ensurethat investment policies are aligned with the global
development agendas and funding frameworks. With
the growth of potential investment partners including
development finance institutions, public-private funds,
philanthropic organizations and private impact investors
now working alongside the public sector, it is imperative toconsider how best to unleash the capacity of these investors
by channelling their capital and activities toward achieving
sustainable development outcomes in cities.

requirement necessary to deliver the needed transformations
toward sustainable urbanization. This ensures coordinatedactions that leverage collective impact. In financing
sustainable development (FSD) systems, for instance, policy
coherence ensures alignment of financing for sustainable
development with country development strategies as well aswith the SDGs, thus bringing better economic, social andenvironmental returns on each investment.86 As the numberof actors increases, so does the possible combinationof resources and leveraging of each actor’s comparativeadvantage. At the same time, challenges arise. For example,
there are discrepancies between project design and available
financing, as well as the question of whether impact
investments are aligned with sustainability as envisioned by
the global development agendas.

As discussed in Chapter 2, policy coherence between global,
regional, national and local stakeholders is a foundational

To address some of these challenges, UN-Habitat launched
the Cities Investment Facility, a technical assistance andmatchmaking platform that helps cities structure urban
development projects so that they are bankable andattractive to potential investors. In addition, UN-Habitat
also developed the SDG Project Assessment Tool, aninteractive guide that integrates a comprehensive setof sustainability principles to help align urban projects
with the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda. The tool isdesigned to improve the effectiveness, inclusiveness andsustainability of projects by facilitating dialogues between
public and private sector partners.

Policy coherence between
global, regional, national
and local stakeholders is afoundational requirement
necessary to deliver theneeded transformations
toward sustainableurbanization

256

Investment need vs. public and private investment capacity 2020-2030 (US$ Trillions)
Commercial banks
Investment banks
Insurance and private pensions
Public pensions and pension plans
Sovereign wealth funds
Infrastructure and private equity funds
Public donors, endowments and foundations
Total infrastructure and SDG investment neededWORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

$6.7

$2.5
$0.8

$21.7

$9.2

$33.3

$24.2

$38.0

Figure 8.5: Creating an enabling environment for scaling-up investment
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Investment policy aligned with:

Fiscal Policy:

National Urban Policies: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development
 Paris Climate Agreement
 Addis Ababa Action Agenda
 New Urban Agenda

 Long-term capital forecasting Multi-level governance Domestic revenue mobilization
 Enhanced creditworthiness Spending efﬁciency

 Compact, connected and coordinated Infrastructure investment andmaintenance strategy
 Integrated with economic and sustainable
development policy

FiscalpowersSuitable own-source
revenues

Taxation
instruments

National debt

PUBLIC FINANCIAL"READINESS"

National and local
insitutional capabilities

Municipal debt

PPPs

SCALING MECHANISMS
AND INSTRUMENTS

National to local
funding allocations

National and municipal
development bodies

Land-based
ﬁnanceDELIVERY PARTNERSHIPS
Scaled up investment for sustainable urban development
Source: Adapted from Ahmad et al, 2019.
Proportion of deals targeting region
Sub-Saharan Africa
SustainableurbanizationtoLatin America& the Caribbean requires local governments
20%
East & North
Africa18% and moveestablishMiddle
a diverse
portfolioof revenue streams
Global18%
away from being overly
dependent on any16%given
revenueSouth Asia
flow, especiallynational
East Asia& Paciﬁc government
10% resources. Local& Central
Asia
4% to tap their endogenous
governmentsEurope
must
be empowered

potential to innovatively increase and diversify ownsource revenues. This diversity in revenue sources enhances
local autonomy and long-term sustainability.87 Internallygenerated revenues ensure that a city’s economic base
2.7
is resilient to external
shocks as well as assisting local
17.1
authorities to34.0develop and meet competing priorities.
9.2

Local governments must be empowered
63.4
to tap their endogenous potential toinnovatively increase and diversify own480.3
source revenues
170.7

Average deal size
42%

$125M

Building a diverse$186M local revenue portfolio to finance$229M
sustainable urban
development is especially critical in$699M
the current economic
environment
where national and$108M
subnational governments
are facing enormous budgetary$150M
deficits and significant debt levels that may$1,905M
leave themunresponsive to local needs, particularly those of lowincome and slum residents across cities who consequently
have to seek capital from alternative finance systems tomeet needs such as affordable shelter (Box 8.4).
8.3.1.

Strengthening public finance systems

Strengthening the various legal, institutional, andproceduralelements of Middle
publicmanagement
East &investment
North Africa
BRl-participating
economies
MENA economies
North America
must precede discussions(excludingondiversified
investors,
publicidentiﬁed in the BRI)
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding
88
debt
and/orguarantees.
Domestic
revenue
mobilization
Australia
Sub-Saharan African economies
identiﬁed in the BRI)
economies
is a critical first step thatOther
bothrequires and demonstrates
Latin America
theUnionreforms
necessary to catalyse external investment.
European(excluding EU
economies
identiﬁed in
the BRI)receive varying portions of their revenue
Globally,
citiesfrom central government transfers, and as stated in previous

2.9

257

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Box 8.4: Urban poor funds: Leveraging
community financeIn recent years, alternative finance systems developedby the urban poor—which revolves around local savings
schemes—are challenging traditional development
assistance practices. Some development assistanceagencies and governments have recognized theirpotential in mobilizing resources for local development
interventions such as land acquisition, basic service
provision, new housing and housing improvements.
Today, external finance from donors is blended withsuch community-based savings to enable more sizeable
investments. The Urban Poor Fund International andAsian Coalition for Community Action are two major
decentralized funds established to address urban poverty
that have enabled organized urban poor communities toimprove access to housing and basic services.
The Urban Poor Fund International is a subsidiary of
Shack/Slum Dwellers International that provides capital
to member national urban poor funds while the Asian
Coalition for Community Action fund was set up by the
Asian Coalition for Housing Rights.
Source: Walnycki, 2015; Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (http://www.achr.
net/about-whatwedo.php); Urban Poor Fund International (http://www.upfi.
info/home/).

sections, these are not always predictable and most often
insufficient for delivering infrastructure and services. The
share of these funds in local government finance varies
between countries and regions. The share is much higher
in developing countries, around 70–72 per cent, compared
to 38–39 per cent in developed countries. This share has
seen a decline in some countries.89 In OECD countries, forinstance, central government funding as the share of total
municipal revenue fell by approximately 12 per cent, on
average, between 2010 and 2016.90 For urban infrastructure,
direct budgetary contributions from national government
remains a key source of finance, contributing about 40 per
cent of infrastructure investment in developed countries
and 60–65 per cent in emerging and developing countries.91

For urban infrastructure, directbudgetary contributions from national
government remains a key source offinance, contributing about 40 per centof infrastructure investment in developed
countries and 60–65 per cent inemerging and developing countries
Domestic revenue is an essential component of the spending
needed to achieve the development agendas in cities.
Therefore, strengthening domestic resource mobilizationin line with SDG 17 is essential. Approximately half of
low-income developing countries and nearly one-third of
emerging market economies have a tax-to-GDP ratio ofless than 13 per cent, which is considered a threshold fordevelopment. It is thus imperative that countries need toown responsibility for achieving the SDGs by building tax
capacity through well-designed tax policies.92 These revenue
optimization strategies should be socially acceptable,
have minimal adverse impact on the economy—e.g. notraising the cost of living nor negatively affecting thecompetitiveness of the city—and be easy to implement.93
Additionally, various levels of government need tostrengthen the effectiveness of their tax systems byidentifying and closing any existing loopholes. Existing data
show diminishing tax contributions from multinational
companies. This decline has been attributed to the “race tothe bottom” culture of corporate tax policies designed to
attract new investments.94 For instance, from 2005 to 2017,global corporate tax rates fell from an average of 27.5 percent to 22.9 per cent.95 Meanwhile, the net profits of theworld’s top ten global corporations have more than tripled
in real terms, generating profits larger than the combined
domestic revenues of 180 of the world’s poorest countries.96
Along with declining corporate rates, less developed
countries have a weak ability to effectively collect taxes.
Corporate tax evasion is further complicated by theprevalence of practices such as profit-shifting and tax
havens. Estimates suggest that profit-shifting throughcreative accounting and transfer pricing with affiliatedfirms costs host countries upwards of US$500 billion peryear worldwide.97 However, development partners are
already aiding countries to fix the loopholes in their tax

258

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

A covered market in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. © Andy Wasley/Shutterstock

systems. The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (PCT),
launched in 2016 by the IMF, OECD, the United Nations
and the World Bank, is supporting countries to achieve theSDGs by strengthening collaboration on domestic resource
mobilization.98 The Addis Tax Initiative, launched in2015 at the Third International Conference on Financing
for Development in Addis Ababa, is also helping build
capacity and foster partner countries’ efforts to increase
reliance on domestic revenue to fund their development
agenda and meet the SDGs by 2030.99 Studies show that
the LDCs could mobilize around US$36 billion annuallyin additional revenues at current corporate tax rates if

259

The LDCs could mobilize around US$36
billion annually in additional revenues
at current corporate tax rates if properly
enforced, and up to US$50 billion peryear if global cooperation also leads
to higher corporate tax rates, plus thephaseout of corporate tax havens
properly enforced, and up to US$50 billion per year if
global cooperation also leads to higher corporate tax rates,
plus the phaseout of corporate tax havens.100

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

While optimizing revenue mobilization matters,
improving value for money from investment is equallyimportant. This calls for strengthening institutions for
public investment management so as to achieve desired
developmental outcomes while, at the same time, achieving
quality and efficiency in spending on a city’s physical assets.
Efficient use of assets is also important, for instance by
providing sufficient financial resources for operating andmaintaining new and existing infrastructure. In Tanzania,
for example, the national government, in collaboration
with UNCDF, has trained 177 members of investmentcommittees from 60 local government authorities on
public investment management.101 Similarly, the African
Development Bank is assisting Dakar, Senegal, to improvefinancial and administrative management systems as wellas helping them to create financial mechanisms to attract
new investments for sustainable urban development.102

While optimizing revenue mobilization
matters, improving value for money frominvestment is equally important
In the Asia-Pacific region, Cities Development Initiative
for Asia (CDIA), a regional initiative conceived by
the Asian Development Bank, with financial support
from development partners, is providing investment
management assistance to medium-sized cities that is key
for bridging the gap between their development plans
and implementation of their infrastructure investments.
The initiative has worked with 125 cities in 17 countries
in Asia, providing needed support from strategic masterplanning to concrete policies and specific projects, as wellas support for cities to meet the requirements of financial
institutions for well-formulated infrastructure projects.103
8.3.2. Catalysing private investment

Today, private sector enthusiasm for sustainable
development is strong and growing. There is a drive forprivate sector businesses, philanthropic institutions andindividuals to help fulfil the global development agendas.
However, translating interest into action in cities has beenchallenging. In spite of this challenge, there is an increasing
appreciation of the role of private investment in closing thefinancing gap for hard and soft investments necessary forsustainable urban development. The major source of private

finance comes from corporate profits which can be invested
via the finance industry, banks or other financial institutions
such as pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds
and even foundations.104 The Ontario Teachers’ Pension
Plan (Canada), for example, has stakes in infrastructure
investments like airports, utility companies, high-speed rail
and toll roads in various regions of the world.105
In addition to domestic investment, overseas private
investment flows will be required to meet infrastructure
funding needs in many developing and emerging countries,
including foreign direct investment (FDI) which is vitalin generating new economic activities. In order to attract
private investments in sustainable urbanization, countries
must create an enabling environment with robust national
urban policies, urban and territorial planning frameworks,
and financial and legal systems. The availability of private
investments for sustainable urban development depends
on these pre-existing criteria to incentivize a greater shareof the total available finance to be directed to cities.

In order to attract private investments insustainable urbanization, countries must
create an enabling environment with robust
national urban policies, urban and territorialplanning frameworks, and financial and legal
systems
Institutional investors hold enormous assets and represent
a potential source of substantial new capital (Box 8.3).
The redirection of some of these assets would more thanadequately finance sustainable urban development. Oneof the critical challenges, however, is to match available
assets with infrastructure and SDG projects in a way thatmeets the needs of institutional investors and leverages theappropriate characteristics within their portfolios.
Of the many infrastructure financing methods, publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) have shown much promise inrecent decades, especially when they are well-structured.

Institutional investors hold enormous
assets and represent a potential sourceof substantial new capital

260

Wealthfunds $6.7

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Commercial banks $33.3T

Investment banks $24.2T

Insurance and Private
pensions $21.7T

Public pensions andPension plans $9.2T

and Private
equity funds$2.5T

Publicdonors,Endowments
andfoundations$0.8T

The fact that private capital flows have remained above the8.3.3. Tapping innovative financial resources
need vs.
publicand private investment
capacity
2020-2030
Trillions)source of subnational
Investmentflows
official development assistancesince
2005—except
Besidesstrengtheningthe(US$
traditional
Commercialbanks2015 and 2016—has sustained the interest of many parties
funding (such as taxes, fees and$33.3
intergovernmental
Investment banks$24.2
in searching forInsurance
profitableandimpactful
investment
transfers),sustainablefinancingforurban
development
and private pensions$21.7
106 However,opportunities in
urban
environmental
services.
necessitates
identifying
andemployingnewrevenue
Public pensions and pension plans$9.2
Sovereign
wealth funds$6.7
options. Today, there are several types of innovative
executing PPPs is rife withchallenges
such as: “(i) functioning
Infrastructure and private equity funds$2.5
financing mechanisms and instruments that could leverageof publicPublic
sectorand political systems; (ii) private
sector anddonors, endowments and foundations$0.8
sustainable resources for urban development. $38.0
commercial
realities;andand(iii) opposition
Total infrastructure
SDG investment
needed to private sector
involvement.”107 If PPPs have to play an important role in
Blended finance: The strategic use of catalytic capital fromregard to investing in the value of sustainable urbanization, it
public and philanthropic sources to mobilize additional
will require action on at least two important and interrelated
private sector investment has emerged as an important
fronts: first is addressing the mayors’ dilemma about the choice
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
approach to financing the SDGs.111 Sub-Saharan Africa
of PPPs to improve urban environmental services, andsecond is assessing the performance of all partners.108
has been the most frequently targeted region in blended
Investment policy aligned with:
National Urban Policies:
Fiscal Policy:
finance transactions, a reflection of the significant needs
 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Compact, connected and coordinated Long-term capital forecasting112of the continent as itInfrastructure
relates toinvestment
the SDGs
Additionally,
there are numerous ways that Multi-level
all levels
Developmentand (Figure 8.6).
governance Paris Climate
maintenance strategy
of governments
canAgreement
work with the private sector
to mobilization
The potential of this mechanism
is visible in UN-Habitat’s
Domestic revenue
Ababa Action Agenda
Integrated with economic and sustainable Enhanced creditworthinessmobilize Addis
investmentusing various public-private
Participatory Slum Upgrading
Programme(PSUP) wheredevelopment policy New Urban Agenda
 Spending efﬁciency
partnership structures to bring value to the public.
the European Commission is piloting blended financing
Besides leveraging fiscal resources, PPPs offer othermechanism to finance slum upgrading for cities in Africa,
potential benefits such as introducing private sector
the Caribbean, and the Pacific. The approach combines
technology and innovation, as well as securing private
EU grants with loans or equity from public and private
sector capabilities
inSuitable
the financing,
construction
financiers with over €23 billion worth of EU funds financing
Fiscalown-source design,
Taxation
National debt
Municipal debt
PPPs
powersrevenues
and managementof large
projects.109 instruments
around 280 projects.113 In the context of blended financing
for infrastructure, the Sustainable Development Solution
To grow investments will require a focus on developing
PUBLIC FINANCIALMECHANISMS
impact metrics and consolidating
impact frameworks that
Blended finance useSCALING
shouldbe anchored"READINESS"
AND INSTRUMENTS
are understood in both the public and private sectors. As
to a development rationale, designed tomentioned above, in emerging and low-income developing
increase commercial finance, tailored
and local
National toand
local governanceand municipal
Land-based
countries,National
strengthening
fiscal management
to a localNational
context,
designed to ensure
insitutional capabilities
funding allocations
development bodies
ﬁnanceinstitutions must precede discussions of PPPs, for instance,
effective partnering and monitored forto manage risk and avoid unexpected costs that undermine
transparency and results
DELIVERY PARTNERSHIPS
fiscal sustainability.110
Scaled up investment for sustainable urban development

Figure 8.6: Blended finance: Number of deals and average deal size by region
Proportion of deals targeting region
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America & the Caribbean
Middle East & North Africa
GlobalSouth Asia
East Asia & Paciﬁc
Europe & Central Asia

4%

10%

20%
18%
18%
16%

Note: “Global” refers to blended finance transactions that do not have a regional focus
Source: Convergence, 2018.

261

17.1
34.0

2.7

Average deal size
42%

$125M
$186M
$229M
$108M
$150M

$699M

$1,905M

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Network (SDSN) estimates that about US$50 billion peryear in market financing of infrastructure projects could
be raised through private debt and equity.114 The OECD
principles on blended finance provide a guiding framework
to ensure that sustainability is achieved. Blended finance use
should be anchored to a development rationale, designed
to increase commercial finance, tailored to a local context,
designed to ensure effective partnering and monitored fortransparency and results.115
Pooled financing mechanisms (PFMs): These entail acollaborative effort involving gathering the borrowing
needs of a group of municipalities and raising the
combined debt on the capital market or from other sourcesof finance. PFMs can be a viable way for most mediumsized and small local governments to access long-term andadequately priced debt financing. This is accomplishedeither through a state agency or through cooperation
among local authorities.116 The pooling of assets allows
for a diversification of risks for investors. PFMs offer thefollowing potential advantages:
 Give small and medium size local authorities access tocapital markets;
 Reduce the cost of borrowing; Reduce the processing costs;
 Reduce risk through diversification, even for big cities;
 Reduce risk by providing financial expertise; Give incentives to improve creditworthiness;

Bond Agency (UK). These are special-purpose agencies owned
and guaranteed by local authorities and, in some instances,with minority shareholding by central government or otherpublic stakeholders. LGFAs issue bonds in capital markets andon-lends the proceeds to local authorities that are members or
shareholders of the agency.118 Similarly, in the Veneto Regionof Italy, local municipal water utilities pooled individual minibonds into a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in order to issuea €150 million bond on the market. The SPV structure was
supported by a regional finance agency and utilities within
the SPV, then enabled by a cornerstone investor (European
Investment Bank).119
The Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia(Canada) has seen its objectives and mandate expanded overtime to include pooled investment funds (PIFs) in 1989 andequipment financing in 1995. In 2019, the authority issued
over Can$1.2 billion of long-term securities and Can$4.7
billion of short-term securities in the capital markets.120
In India, the Central Government approved the Pooled
Finance Development Fund Scheme in 2006 to provide
credit enhancement to “urban local bodies” (municipalities)
to access alternative sources of funding for their bankableprojects.121 In 2019, China launched an innovative financial
intermediary facility—the Shanghai Green Urban Financing
and Services Co., Ltd—that allows small cities and towns in
the Yangtze River Delta Region to access commercial fundingby pooling their investment demand.122 PFMs are emerging
in South Africa as an additional tool for mobilizing revenue.
In sum, PFMs can be prioritized as a source of financing
urban infrastructure needs in developing countries by giving
local authorities access to domestic and international capital
markets and by providing institutional investors with a new,attractive asset class.123

 Are a conduit for the transfer of knowledge; and Increase transparency.117
PFMs take many different forms depending on thecontext. In Europe, local government funding agencies(LGFAs) are the most common type of pooled financing
vehicles prevalent. They include Kommuninvest (Sweden),
Kommunekredi (Denmark), Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten(The Netherlands), Kommunalbanken (Norway), Munifin(Finland), Agence France Locale (France) and UK Municipal

Investment platforms: In recent years, investment
platforms have emerged as a way to tap private capitaland channel it into much needed projects. Such platforms
have the advantage of matching investors with appropriate
infrastructure projects and reducing transaction costs forinvestors. These platforms can operate at both municipal
and national levels. Investment platforms are currently
in operation in some major cities such as Chicago, where
authorities have set up the Chicago Infrastructure Trust(CIT) to match public infrastructure projects to private

262

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

investors. The city administration is paying for the CIT’s
US$2.5 million running costs, while private financial
institutions have committed to investing US$1.7 billion
in the scheme.124 Presently, investment platforms exist
primarily in megacities, but smaller cities can benefit fromregional and national platforms, such as the West Coast
Infrastructure Exchange in the United States and theGreen Investment Bank in the UK.125 The aforementioned
Cities Investment Facility will connect partners from theprivate and public sectors to catalyse investments thatwill help achieve the urban dimensions of the SDGs. As

A busy street in downtown Chicago, USA © BrandonKleinVideo/Shutterstock263

the Decade of Action calls for accelerating sustainable
solutions, these types of investment platforms will be
instrumental to showcase a pipeline of bankable projects
and assist cities in attracting private sector investment.
Additionally, they are avenues for resource pooling, as
earlier discussed.
Green bonds: Green bonds are increasingly being mobilized
to deliver low-carbon infrastructure development. Global
green bond and green loan issuance reached US$257.7
billion in 2019, up by 51 per cent from 2018.126 Currently,

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

green municipal bonds account for a very small share of
the broader US$3.7 trillion bond market, but the market
is expected to grow as issuers look to diversify their buyer
base and appeal to the expanding investor class using
environmental, social and governance criteria to screen
their investments. The need for energy efficient and clean
technologies globally, especially in emerging economies
where there is high demand, will help drive issuance going
forward.127 If managed properly, the green bond market
can provide an important source of finance for sustainableinfrastructure projects. Green bond financings by public
and/or private entities have the potential to reduce
financing costs, given strong receptive demand driving
or encouraging environmentally supportive projects andeconomic growth.128

Green bonds are increasingly being
mobilized to deliver low-carbon
infrastructure development. Global green
bond and green loan issuance reached
US$257.7 billion in 2019, up by 51 percent from 2018
The bulk of green municipal bond issuance is presently
in the United States, Europe and Asia.129 Other regions
such as Africa and Latin America have the opportunity
to develop innovative projects to tap into the green bondmarket, but the issuance of green bonds will depend on local
market conditions, such as the administrative regulatoryenvironment, project type and investor appetite. Further,green bonds are more expensive relative to traditional bonds
and involve complex issuance processes. Local governments
require strong capacity to engage in green bonds issuance, as
well as monitor their environmental impacts.
8.3.4. Leveraging official development assistanceInternational development assistance remains a significant
source of external finance for the implementation of the
global development agendas; it makes up a significant
amount of infrastructure funding throughout LDCs.
The AAAA commits to reverse the decline in official
development assistance (ODA) to such countries andencourages developed countries to make ODA commitmentsof 0.2 per cent of GNI to LDCs. To achieve the goals of
the 2030 Agenda and the NUA, ODA and other forms of

To achieve the goals of the 2030 Agenda
and the NUA, ODA and other forms ofinternational public finance must be
deployed and utilized more effectively.
They should be aligned to local priorities
and development interventions should
carry a measure of local ownershipinternational public finance must be deployed and utilized
more effectively. They should be aligned to local priorities
and development interventions should carry a measure of
local ownership. They should be country-led and specific tolocal needs and context. Thus, the strategies for development
partners who are focused on supporting sustainable urban
development need to evolve and adapt to local situations—which means, among others, using local systems, including
results frameworks and public financial management andprocurement systems. International assistance can playa pivotal role in enhancing local institutional capacities,
which is an essential element of local ownership.
Finance is required not just for investments in physicalassets, but also for project preparation, implementation,technical assistance, capacity building and the structuringof capital investment funding.130 Further, international
assistance could include supporting access to capital
markets through soft funding and grants to blend with loans.
The Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA) guarantee instrument is playing a vitalrole in generating additional resources; the instrument is
promoting sustainable development, inclusive economic
growth and poverty reduction by unlocking existing
financial resources and facilitating access to credit to target
groups. In 2014, for instance, SIDA facilitated the Palestine
Housing Guarantee Facility of US$20 million to promotelending from Palestinian banks to SMEs in East Jerusalem,
Gaza and in Area C in the West Bank where the availabilityof credit is limited. The instrument also promotes housing
financing in East Jerusalem and Gaza. The guarantee isprovided to the Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII),
which in turn guarantees local banks.131
Since 2010, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) has emerged
as an important player in ODA. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

264

KEY CHALLENGES
Need fora commonandWORLD
CITIESREPORTframework
2020
policy principles between public
and private sectors

Need to stimulate investments inareas of signiﬁcant need

POLICY OPTIONS
Cross-sector guiding principles for sustainable infrastructure development:
Increasing the private-sector involvement in sustainable infrastructure investment aligned with SDGs need
to be guided by policy that addresses public vs private responsibilities with an agreed-upon set of broad
policy principles.
Attract investments to LDCs:
Policymakers and other stakeholders must focus their efforts on catalysing investments in the areas of
most need and signiﬁcant gap in infrastructure development.
Align macro- and micro-economic policy:

Need to ensureGCF
policy incoherence
135 and the transition
efficienttechnologies
Mongolia;national,
established2010 for“as an operating
entityareofrequired
the to ensure
Guidelines
policy coherence
betweenininternational,
and local priorities andinvestments
investment
financial mechanism of the Convention to
supportpolicies.
globalto low-carbon and climate-resilient development inclimate action by promoting a low-emission
and climateShandong Province, China, through the Shandong Green
Multi-agency technical assistance facility to support LDC involvement:
Global decision-making
132 GCF is
136
resilienttransition onin developing countries”
Development(FigureTechnical assistancewill be required
to ensure Fundthe countries
with8.7).
the most signiﬁcant infrastructure
investments in sustainable
investment gaps are participating in the decisions being made at the global level. Financing solutions andsupporting
resilientdevelopment must
includeand sustainable urban development
private-sector partnership arrangements are complex, requiring signiﬁcant technical capabilities andprojects
In recent years, China’s foreign aid and development
vulnerablearoundcountriesthe world, such as the metro network instrong institutions.
133
Tbilisi (Georgia); the development, construction andspending have grown in prominence. Within the context ofInternational
discussion on private-sector
investment
in sustainable
is dispersed
Belt and Road
Initiative,
Chinadevelopment
is providing
loans, among
grants,commissioning of renewable energy projects
in nine energymany organizations,forums,each addressing
speciﬁc areas of interest.
There is acrossa need for
andandother
resources
for infrastructure
investments
poor African countries through the Climate
Investorinstitutions
a common platform to discuss goals, approaches and mechanisms for mobilizing of ﬁnance andseveral countries(see Box 8.5).
One (CIO) facility;134 renewable energy
and investment
energy- into sustainablechannellingdevelopment.

Figure 8.7: Shandong Green Development Fund: Portfolio distribution

Climate Change Mitigation
Address the main sources of GHG Emissions in Shandong

75%

Renewable Energy

Green Buildings

Urban Transport

Energy Efﬁciency

51%

6%

13%

5%

Climate Change Adaptation
Improve people’s climate resilience
Coastal protection

Flood control

Drought/Agriculture

Heat/greening

10%

25%

Source: Jenny et al, 2020.

265

5%

6%

4%

Investment policy aligned with:

Fiscal Policy:

National Urban Policies: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development
 Paris Climate Agreement
 Addis Ababa Action Agenda
 New Urban Agenda

 Long-term capital forecasting Multi-level governance Domestic revenue mobilization
 Enhanced creditworthiness Spending efﬁciency

 Compact, connected and Investing
coordinatedin the Value of
Urbanization
 Infrastructure investmentSustainable
andmaintenance strategy
 Integrated with economic and sustainable
development policyBox
8.5: China’sSuitable
Belt and
Road Initiative
Fiscalown-source
Taxation
powersrevenues

National debt

instruments

Municipal debt

PPPs

China is bolstering global efforts in investment infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI aims to build
connectivity and co-operation across six main economic corridors encompassing China and: Mongolia and Russia; Eurasiancountries; CentralPUBLIC
and West
Asia; Pakistan; other countries of the Indian subcontinent; and Indochina.
The BRI-participating
FINANCIALSCALINGMECHANISMS"READINESS"ANDINSTRUMENTS
economies represent more than one-third of global GDP, and over half of the world’s population. The initiative is a large project
aimed at improving regional cooperation through better connectivity among countries lying on the ancient Silk Road and beyond. It
includes the Silk Road Economic Belt on land and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at sea. BRI investment projects are estimatedNational and local
National to local
National and municipal
Land-based
to add overcapabilities
US$1 trillion of outward
fundingfor foreign infrastructure over the decadedevelopmentfrom 2017–2027.
insitutional
funding
allocations
bodiesﬁnanceChina has proposed a holistic implementation of the BRI, covering a number of broad aspects that will be important for achieving
DELIVERY PARTNERSHIPS
the SDGs. Thus, while infrastructure investment is a key aspect of the BRI, China states that it is much broader in its objectives,
encompassing all aspects of sustainable growth for itself and including more balanced regional growth, the upgrading of its industry
Scaled up investment for sustainable urban development
and greener economic growth at home.
The main sources of funding are the Chinese development banks: China Development Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of
Proportionof dealstargetingregion Bank, Silk Road Fund, New Development
Average dealBank,
size and Asian Infrastructure
China, Bank of China, China
Exim Bank,
China
Construction
Sub-SaharanAfrica42%$125M
Investment Bank (AIIB), where China has voting rights.

Latin America & the Caribbean
20%
$186M
Middle East & North Africa
18%
$229M
Given the global infrastructure
financing deficit,18%
there is little doubt that the BRI is, by far, the most significant
contribution to
Global
$699M
meeting theseneeds.
Between
2005
and
2018,
China’s
globalconstruction
projects(mainly
infrastructure)acrossthe globe
South Asia
16%
$108M
East
Asia
&
Paciﬁc10%$150M
amounted to US$814.3 billion. US$480.3 billion was in BRI-participating economies, US$170.7 billion in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Europe & Central Asia
4%

US$63.4 billion in Latin America and US$34 billion in the Middle East and North African countries not part of the BRI. Chineseconstruction projects are relatively smaller in OECD countries, with Australia having the most significant at around US$17.1 billion.

$1,905M

Chinese outward investment in the construction sector, cumulative notional amount expressed in billions of USD, 2005-2018

17.1

2.7

34.0
9.2
63.4

480.3
170.7

BRl-participating economies
North America
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding
Sub-Saharan African economies
identiﬁed in the BRI)
Latin America
European Union (excluding EU
economies identiﬁed in the BRI)

Middle East & North Africa(excluding MENA economies
identiﬁed in the BRI)
Australia
Other economies

2.9

Source: OECD, 2018.

KEY CHALLENGES

POLICY OPTIONS

266

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

An aerial view of Canterbury informal settlement, Montego Bay, Jamaica. © UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

8.4. Concluding Remarks and Lessons for
PolicyThe COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably created an
uncertain investment climate. The global economic
consequences of the pandemic have shaken confidence ininfrastructure investment with only five per cent of public
and private sector leaders believing that investments will“increase significantly” following the pandemic, a sharp
decline from 34 per cent before the crisis.137
This temporary setback notwithstanding, the amount offunding required to meet the investment need in orderto achieve the ambitions of the NUA and infrastructurerelated SDGs is available. The challenge then globallyis that these funds are not being invested in urban areas
to the extent necessary to achieve sustainable urban
development. In fact, investment levels decreased aroundthe financial crisis of 2008 and have remained stagnant.
There is no simple answer to closing the investment gap,
but there are tangible actions that, if taken in a coordinatedfashion, will create the necessary enabling environment

267

for governments to mobilize domestic revenues and build
credit-worthiness so that they can attract increased private
sector investment. Global institutions have a significant
role to play in supporting LDCs. There is also a need forcountries to ensure that investments in cities are alignedwith the global development agendas.
The need for private-sector investment highlights
competing priorities between maximizing economic
returns and optimising environmental and social benefits
on the other. Moving forward, the broad policy principles
within the NUA and the SDGs must continue to berevisited and used as a guide to balance competing tensions(Figure 8.8). While the AAAA laid out investment
targets, there is a need to focus targets in areas that havethe largest investment needs, yet at the same time, havethe least conducive investment climates, if cities andhuman settlements are to be inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable for all. LDCs will require focused and strategic
work from policymakers to improve public financial
management and catalyse domestic revenues in order toattract investment. This work requires policy coherence170.7

economies identiﬁed in the BRI)

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

2.9

Figure 8.8: Sustainable urban investments: Key challenges and policy options for LDCs

KEY CHALLENGES

POLICY OPTIONS

Need for a common framework andpolicy principles between public
and private sectors

Cross-sector guiding principles for sustainable infrastructure development:
Increasing the private-sector involvement in sustainable infrastructure investment aligned with SDGs need
to be guided by policy that addresses public vs private responsibilities with an agreed-upon set of broad
policy principles.

Need to stimulate investments inareas of signiﬁcant need

Attract investments to LDCs:
Policymakers and other stakeholders must focus their efforts on catalysing investments in the areas of
most need and signiﬁcant gap in infrastructure development.

Need to ensure policy coherence forinvestments

Align macro- and micro-economic policy:
Guidelines are required to ensure policy coherence between international, national, and local priorities andinvestment policies.

Global decision-making on
investments in sustainable
development must include
vulnerable countries

Multi-agency technical assistance facility to support LDC involvement:
Technical assistance will be required to ensure the countries with the most signiﬁcant infrastructure
investment gaps are participating in the decisions being made at the global level. Financing solutions andprivate-sector partnership arrangements are complex, requiring signiﬁcant technical capabilities andstrong institutions.
International discussion on private-sector investment in sustainable development is dispersed among
many organizations, institutions and forums, each addressing speciﬁc areas of interest. There is a need for
a common platform to discuss goals, approaches and mechanisms for mobilizing of ﬁnance andchannelling investment into sustainable development.

Source: Adapted from UNCTAD, 2014.

across jurisdictions and levels of government, as well as Sustainable municipal financing: To realize theglobally, with internationally supported investments. The
investments necessary for sustainable urbanization,
ClimateMitigation
policyaimsChange
will notbe fully responsive to the priorities ofmunicipal finance needs to move towards a position
Addressthe main sources
GHG Emissions
in Shandong
any onestakeholder,butof global
platforms
that continue toof self-sustainability. This calls for cities to have abring public and private sectors together are crucial (Figure
diverse portfolio of revenue sources (and an improved
8.8). In order to ensure that the most vulnerable countries
capacity for revenue collection) as well as harness tools
EnergyGreen
Buildings
are represented, and their needs recognized, international Renewableandinnovative mechanisms (e.g.
pooledfinancingorganizations must continue to provide technical assistance 51% mechanisms, blended finance,13%
green municipal bonds
and capacity building across levels of government.
and land-based finance instruments) to mobilize theresources needed to finance necessary infrastructure.
Although progress is being made in some contexts, action
Discussions about diversifying revenue sources
Urban Transport
Energy Efﬁciency
to realize the SDGs is not yet advancing at the speed ornecessitate a continued focus on
public financial
6%
5%
scale required to ensure that no one is left behind by
management practices at all levels of government, but
2030. Among the key aims of the Decade of Action isparticularly within local government. Involving theto mobilize movement toward attainment of the SDGs
private sector and attracting investment funds will
Changefinancing
Adaptation for investment, especially inand Climate
unlockingrequire evidence of efficient financial management.
cities where the vast proportion of the global population
Improve people’s climate resilience
resides. As has been discussed throughout this chapter, Accelerated actions: The time to realize theCoastal protection
Flood control
raising adequate finance requires concrete efforts. Sometransformative commitments of the NUA and achieve
10% the urban-related SDGs is short; 6%
salient policy options are recounted below.
five years have

75%

25%

Drought/Agriculture5%

Heat/greening

4%

268

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

already lapsed. It is thus imperative for policymakers
to catalyse actions to support adequate investmentin the four dimensions of the value of sustainableurbanization including human capital, institutions,innovation and technology that are crucial for making
cities safe, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable. If
investments are well planned and managed, they canaccelerate city-led economic growth and serve as abridge to ongoing involvement in the global market
and in return create productive environments that
attract additional investment.
 Policy coherence: Globally, urbanization is shapedby international cooperation policies and decisions
made at all levels of governance. For cities to leverage
investment for the development of sustainableinfrastructure, they require alignment between
international frameworks and domestic policies.
Investing in sustainable urbanization calls for apolicy framework that realigns local financial flows
with local public goals. Urban governance should beunderpinned by well-coordinated fiscal, political andadministrative decentralization efforts, where local
expenditure responsibilities are backed by reliableintergovernmental transfers and fiscal empowerment(e.g., the legal and technical capacity to levy taxes).
Sustainable urbanization must be responsive tonational context and sensitive to political and culturalcontext while guided by a lens of inclusiveness andequity. The NUA and the SDGs provide a broad
framework guiding investment, but international
actors must work with and support national and local
governments to collaborate on decision-making inregard to achieving these international development
agendas in a way that is responsive to local realities.

269

 Precise estimate of needs: The fiscal needs andcombination of potential sources is unique for eachcountry. Countries need to conduct precise estimatesof their financing needs. They also require technicalassistance to develop a national reform agenda thatmaps the infrastructure needs and the SDGs tonational circumstances and aligns the complementaryroles the various development partners can play infinancing infrastructure development and maintenanceneeds.
As discussed in this chapter, the investment need in urban
areas is significant and the need to meet it is urgent. While
there is no simple answer to the challenges facing countries
around the world, there are clear and critical first steps tosecuring investment. Globally, national governments, inassociation with their respective lower levels of government,
must be empowered and equipped to build their own
optimal financing mix in support of their efforts to invest in
sustainable urban development. Creating the appropriate
enabling environment for such investments demands acoordinated and coherent approach to sustainable urban
development. Importantly, strengthening the various legal,
institutional and procedural elements of public investment
management must precede discussions of public debt andguarantees. The investment need will not be addressedby any actor in isolation; rather, it requires an impactfocused ecosystem of actors including the private andfinancial sector, public sector, civil society, residents andcommunities.

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization

Endnotes
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.
33.
34.

This chapter uses infrastructure inits comprehensive sense, coveringboth hard (physical assets) and soft
(institutions that are vital to theeconomy and quality of life such as
health, education, financial, security,
legal, regulatory and cultural).
SDGs 1-10, 12, 13, 17.
United Nations, 2019e.
UNDESA, 2015.
OECD, 2019b.
In 2016, for instance, the tax
revenues in developing countries
amounted to US$4.3 trillion (OECD,
2019b).
OECD, 2019b.
United Nations, 2020.
United Nations, 2020.
Mahler et al, 2020.
United Nations, 2020.
Brooks et al., 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2020e.
The Inter-American Development
Bank, for instance, defines
sustainable infrastructure as“infrastructure projects that areplanned, designed, constructed,
operated, and decommissioned ina manner to ensure economic andfinancial, social, environmental(including climate resilience), andinstitutional sustainability over theentire life cycle of the project.” (IADB,2018).
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Woetzel et al, 2017.
Woetzel et al, 2017.
European Environment Agency, 2016.
European Commission, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
UN-Habitat, 2017c
Boston Consulting Group, 2018;
Zottis, 2014.
World bank, 2019f.
UN-Habitat, 2019e.
World Bank, 2019g.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
UN-Habitat, 2017c
UNDP, 2012.
Hommann and Lall, 2019.
Government of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, 2018.
Government of Kenya, 2018; -EDGE(Excellence in Design for Greater
Efficiencies).
UN-Habitat, DERASAT and UNDP,
2020.
Global Taskforce of Local andRegional Governments, 2016.
Cities Climate Finance Leadership

35.
36.

37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

58.
59.
60.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.

68.
69.

Alliance, 2015.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
2.2 per cent when benchmarked
against Mauritius (the regional leader
in infrastructure); catching up with
the Republic of Korea would increase
per capita growth by 2.6 percentage
points (Foster and BriceñoGarmendia, 2010).
CAF, 2017.
The New Climate Economy. 2016.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Gaspar et al., 2019; Romp and deHaan, 2007; Hague and Kim, 2003.
UN-Habitat and UNICEF, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Tibaijuka, 2009.
IEA, 2020b.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Bouton et al, 2015.
National Institute of Building
Sciences, 2019.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Societe Generale and UNEP FI, 2018;
IMF, 2015.
Walter (ed.), 2016.
ILO, 2020f; Lieuw-Kie-Song, 2020.
Good maintainance of physicalassets in urban areas generate
substantial savings from reduced
total lifecycle cost.
World Bank, 2010.
Grigoli and Kapsoli, 2018; Grigoli,
2015.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
WBGU—German Advisory Council on
Global Change, 2016.
United Nations Conference on
Housing and Sustainable Urban
Development, 2017.
World Bank, 2018c.
Monslave and Watsa, 2020.
World Bank, 2018c; Jamison andSummers, 2013; Hanushek andWoessmann, 2008; Barro, 2001.
Midgley, 2020.
Floater et al, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
UN-Habitat, 2016e.
World Bank, 2013a.
UN-Habitat, 2017c; Bonilla andZapparoli, 2017.
A large portion of the expected
returns from spending on
health, education, among otherinfrastructure is lost due spending
inefficiencies (Gaspar, et al., 2019).
McKinsey & Company, 2013.
Government e-Marketplace(https://www.india.gov.in/topics/

70.
71.
72.
73.
74.

75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.

93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.

99.

100.
101.

infrastructure).
UCLG, 2010.
UN-Habitat, 2017b.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Ahmad et al., 2019.
OECD.Stat (https://stats.oecd.org/I);
Franzsen and McCluskey, 2017: In
OECD countries recurrent property
taxes constitute about one per centof GDP, which is more than two andhalf times higher than the value inAfrican countries.
Collier et al, 2018.
Godfrey and Zhao. Page 13; UNHabitat, 2011d.
UN-Habitat, 2012b.
World Bank, 2013; UN-Habitat, 2017c.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
UN-Habitat, 2020f.
Suzuki et al, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2019f.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Hart and Welham, 2016.
National Urban Policies typically
identify new policy actions that
require funding. The need for fundingin turn requires a suitable financing
framework that can achieve
funding objectives according to thecapacities of actors at various scales(national, regional and local). How
funding is raised and allocated has
a bearing on the efficacy of urban
policies (UN-Habitat, 2019g).
OECD, 2019b.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016
IMF, 2015.
Alam, 2014.
AlMujadidi et al, 2019.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Gaspar, et al., 2019: IMF recommends
that countries increase their tax-toGDP ratio by 5 percentage points
of GDP over this decade (Gaspar, etal., 2019).
AlMujadidi et al, 2019.
SDNS, 2019.
Jahnsen and Pomerleau, 2017.
SDSN, 2019; McKinsey 2015; Global
Justice Now, 2015.
SDSN, 2019.
The Platform for Collaboration on
Tax (https://www.tax-platform.org/
who-we-are).
SDNS, 2019; Addis Tax initiative(https://www.addistaxinitiative.net/
about).
SDSN, 2019.
United Republic of Tanzania, 2019;
UCLG, 2019b.

102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.

116.
117.
118.
119.
120.

121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.

AfDB, undated.
Bonilla and Zapparoli, 2017.
OECD, 2019b.
See: https://www.otpp.com/home.
Dahiya and Gentry, 2020.
Dahiya and Gentry, 2020.
Dahiya and Gentry, 2020.
Ahmad, et al., 2019; World Bank,
2016.
Irwin et al, 2018.
Convergence, 2018.
Convergence, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2016g.
SDSN, 2019.
OECD Blended Finance Principles(https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/
blended-finance-principles/).
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Andersson, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2017c; Andersson, 2015.
Oliver, 2016.
Municipal Finance Authority of
British Columbia (https://mfa.bc.ca/
about-us/history); Municipal Finance
Authority of British Columbia, 2020.
Government of India, undated.
World Bank, 2019g.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Godfrey and Zhao, 2016.
Climate Bonds Initiative, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
Investment Industry Association of
Canada, 2019.
See: GIZ, 2017; IISD and DRC, 2015.
UN-Habitat, 2017c.
SIDA, 2017; SIDA 2006.
Green Climate Fund, 2019.
Green Climate Fund, 2020b.
Green Climate Fund, 2020c.
Green Climate Fund, 2020d.
Jenny et al, 2020; Green Climate
Fund, 2020e.
The Construction Specifier, 2020.

270

Chapter 9
The New Urban Agenda
and the Value of Sustainable
Urbanization

Sustainable urbanization generates economic, environmental, social and intangible value that can beharnessed for the wellbeing of all. This message can and should guide development efforts during the Decadeof Action to achieve the SDGs and as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, there is aroad map to sustainable urbanization in the New Urban Agenda, which provides a comprehensive framework
for unlocking the value inherent in well-planned, managed and financed cities.
Unlocking the value of sustainable urbanization is a multisectoral and multi-stakeholder endeavour. National
governments must create an enabling environment for cities to thrive. Local authorities must seize theopportunities given to them and govern their territories effectively, as called for in the New Urban Agenda.
The private sector must invest in sustainable urban development, from affordable housing to climate-friendly
infrastructure. Civil society must strengthen institutions and create a welcoming environment for a diverse
citizenry. Philanthropy must fill in the gaps to support the most vulnerable. Universities must educate the next
generation and foster research and development opportunities for innovation and inclusive prosperity. When
all the interlocking parts operate in harmony and are supported by appropriate institutions and policies, cities
will thrive and their value will be enhanced and shared by all.

271

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Policy points
1. There should be a sense of urgency and a long-term
commitment to implement the New Urban Agenda as the basis
for achieving sustainable urbanization.
2. The effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda
through supportive urban governance structures, urban andterritorial planning, and effective means of implementation—adequate financing, capacity development, information,technology and innovation— will harness value of sustainableurbanization in all its dimensions.
3. Unlocking the value of sustainable urbanization is amultisectoral and multi-stakeholder endeavour.
4. Collaboration and cooperation across scales is central toenhancing the value of sustainable urbanization.
5. Cities should undertake periodic audits and map their efforts
onto the transformative commitments of the New Urban
Agenda, SDG 11 and the urban dimensions of the other SDGs.
6. Appropriate institutional frameworks and urban legislationneed to be in place to support effective multilevel governanceThis chapter discusses how the effective implementation of
the New Urban Agenda can contribute to the economic,
environmental, social and intangible value of urban areas
and thus enhance the value of sustainable urbanization.
This Report has demonstrated that well-planned andmanaged urbanization can generate interconnected value
for sustainable development. But there is a sense of realurgency as well as the need for long-term commitments
to implement the New Urban Agenda as the basis forachieving sustainable urbanization, particularly SDG 11,
indicating that the NUA is an accelerator of prosperity anddevelopment for the different targets of Goal 11 and theurban dimension of the SDGs.

This Report has demonstrated thatwell-planned and managed urbanization
can generate interconnected value forsustainable development

and enhance the value of sustainable urbanization.
7. Participatory data platforms and effective monitoring systems
are integral to enhancing the value of sustainable urbanization
8. Cities need to feature prominently in the stimulus packages
and economic recovery plans following the outbreak of COVID19.
9. Government at all scales will have to implement the New
Urban Agenda at least in the short- to medium-term, within thecontext of the impacts and uncertainty associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic.
10. COVID-19 provides cities a unique opportunity to build backbetter, by focusing on greener, more sustainable business andconsumption patterns, digital economies and quality urban
spaces.

For all urban stakeholders, inaction is no longer a plausible
or expedient option. Regardless of data deficiencies orresource constraints, there are many appropriate andessential steps that must be taken urgently in every context
by individuals, communities, local authorities, national
governments and international bodies. Only by acting
consistently and collaboratively across administrative andpolitical boundaries at all scales, from local communities
to international organizations, can the global scope of thechallenge for sustainable urbanization be tackled. The costs
of inaction are too high and, as highlighted earlier in thisReport, particularly in Chapters 4 and 7, profound andtransformative rethinking to formulate appropriate action
is urgent.1 The survival of humankind and our increasingly
urban planet as a whole are at stake.
As articulated in Chapters 1 through 5, the value ofsustainable urbanization is conceptualized as the totalityof a city’s economic, environmental, social and intangible(institutional, governance, political, cultural and civic272

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

perception) conditions, features or outcomes that havethe potential to meaningfully improve residential qualityof life. This definition provides sufficient flexibility toaccommodate regional and cultural diversity, as well as
differing legal notions of what constitutes “value.” This
concept resonates closely with the three transformative
commitments of the NUA, namely social inclusion and ending
poverty; sustainable and inclusive urban prosperity andopportunities for all; and environmentally sustainable andresilient urban development. By synthesizing key messages
from the previous chapters, this chapter demonstrates
how implementation of these commitments can accelerateachievement of the NUA and SDGs. This chapter also uses
UN-Habitat’s definition of prosperity as encompassing
productivity; infrastructure development; quality of life;social inclusion and environmental sustainability.2
As explained in Chapter 1, understanding the relationshipbetween the NUA and SDGs is crucially important,particularly SDG 11 and the urban-related elements of theother goals. which are articulated in the Secretary-General’s
Quadrennial Report on the New Urban Agenda.3 Since
that report in 2018, UN-Habitat has documented 550 cities
that are working on improvements to their NUA and SDG
monitoring tools.4 However, those efforts are merely thestarting point. Through specific examples, policy pointers
and tools under development, this chapter goes a stepfurther by offering practical action to achieve the SDGs
and accelerate the value of urbanization through changes
in the way cities are planned, built, managed and financed.
Fulfilling the transformative commitments of the NUA andachieving the SDGs are not ends in and of themselves but
rather means to achieving the ends of urban sustainability.
Accordingly, this chapter develops a positive, forwardlooking argument about the need for a close relationshipbetween the NUA and SDGs, as the NUA lacks a specific,
formal monitoring and evaluation framework while theSDGs have precise targets and indicators.

Fulfilling the transformative
commitments of the NUA andachieving the SDGs are not ends inand of themselves but rather means
to achieving the ends of urban
sustainability

273

To that end, UN-Habitat developed a valuable monitoring
tool known as the City Prosperity Index (CPI). This
tool is a composite statistical index that includes all theindicators of SDG 11 and selected components of other
SDGs to cover the dimensions of urban prosperity,
namely productivity; infrastructure development;
quality of life; equity and social inclusion; environmental
sustainability; and governance and legislation.5 This index
has the potential to synchronize progress on the NUA,
in all its breadth and ambition, with the more detailed
and specific SDG reviews for the benefit of Member
States, subnational entities and ultimately all urban
residents. Over 500 cities use the CPI, which suggests that
there is widespread anticipation that it will be a useful
tool to help implementation of the global sustainable
development agendas and hence enhancement of thevalue of sustainable urbanization.6

Implementing the NUA, with all the
supporting tools, stakeholders will go along way towards achieving sustainableurbanization
Hence, in implementing the NUA, with all the supporting
tools, stakeholders will go a long way towards achieving
sustainable urbanization. Drawing on case studies andevidence from preceding chapters, this chapter shows thatthe value of sustainable urbanization can be enhanced
by implementing the NUA through a dedicated action
framework that encapsulates key critical components suchas national urban policies, regulations, governance andurban and territorial planning.
This chapter also considers pathways to implement otherinternational agreements. The newfound sense that theplanet is in a “climate emergency” is proof that the climatechange agenda is now paramount (Chapters 1, 4 and 5) witha rapidly growing number of local governments declaring a
climate emergency in order to galvanize concerted action.
Similarly, the Coalition for Urban Transition’s 2019 report“Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity” makes a strong
case for investment in compact, connected cities poweredby clean energy to generate prosperity—and by extension
enhance the material value of urbanization—while
addressing the climate emergency.7

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Downtown Reykjavik. © Alexey Stiop/Shutterstock

The remainder of this chapter is divided into four sections,each addressing the following fundamental questions forleaders and policymakers:

9.1. Towards the Decade of Action: Rapidly
Harnessing the Value of Sustainable
Urbanizationa. Why should we seek rapidly to harness the value ofsustainable urbanization?

The United Nations global agreements and agendas
adopted since 2015 represent a landmark recognition of the
responsibilities of all countries, regardless of geographicallocation, historical circumstances and present-day
conditions, to promote sustainable development (Chapter1). Additionally, these agreements recognize the importanceof urban areas in achieving sustainable development, giventhat most of the world’s population lives in urban areas.
Crucially, the agreements also recognize that local andregional governments alongside other urban stakeholders
must play important roles as national governments cannot
achieve sustainable development alone.

b. What needs to be done to enhance the value of
urbanization?
c. How can we harness the value of sustainableurbanization?
d. Concluding reflections—implementing the NUA in
the context of uncertainty and unprecedented global
challenges

274

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable
development as ensuring that current generations leave
our children and grandchildren a world in which theirprospects are not adversely affected by our own and previous
activities.8 This formulation has often been regarded asa largely rhetorical commitment. However, as noted inprevious chapters, especially Chapter 4, future generations
are already holding those in power to their word. Worldwide
protests by schoolchildren and youth since May 2019 underthe banner of Fridays for Future underline their fear that theworld is heading on a dangerous course.
As we herald the Decade of Action for accelerating
sustainable solutions to the world’s biggest challenges—
including those associated with urbanization like poverty,
gender-based inequality and climate change—Member
States owe it to their citizens and future generations
to make a real difference now. Indeed, the room formanoeuvre and timeframe for action are shrinking.9 Bothmorally and practically, inaction is no longer an option:
the economic, human and ultimately social and politicalcosts are already rising and will rapidly and increasingly
outweigh the costs of undertaking mitigation, adaptationand transformative action. As shown in previous chapters,
relevant examples already exist in different urban contexts,
where local governments and stakeholders are innovating
solutions to address extreme weather events; chronic
health problems brought on by changes in disease patterns
and air pollution; and the loss of low-lying homes, land andassociated livelihoods.

Member States owe it to their citizens
and future generations to make a realdifference now
The level of voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions
to global greenhouse gas emission reductions agreed in the
Paris Agreement on climate change at COP21 in December
2015 were known at the time to be inadequate to keep themean global temperature at a sustainable level. Hence,
COP25 in Madrid in December 2019 called for new andmore ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions tobe presented at COP26, which has been postponed to 2021
due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The
most ambitious countries announced their intentions to275

commit to carbon neutrality sometime between 2040 and
2050. By the end of COP25, 73 national governments, 14
regions, 398 cities, 786 businesses and 16 investors were
working towards achieving net-zero CO2 emissions by
2050.10 These commitments underline the important rolethat subnational governments—especially cities—and nonstate actors are already playing in an arena traditionallyseen as the sole preserve of national governments.
Meanwhile, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
provides a 15-year timeline from 2016–2030 to achievesustainable development across the range of targets withineach goal. As noted in Chapter 1, with ten years left to achieve
the SDGs, the importance of sustainable urbanization as anentry point for ensuring progress across multiple goals of the2030 Agenda needs to be reemphasized by mobilizing action
globally, locally, individually and collectively; demanding
urgency and ambition in harnessing the value of sustainableof urbanization; and driving sustainable innovation, financial
investment and technology. While urban-focused Goal 11 andthe urban components of many other SDGs are important,these goals are most effective when pursued in relation to
the broad strategic framework for urban sustainability by
2036 as enshrined in the New Urban Agenda.
For the sake of clarity in making the case for urgent andintegrated action for sustainable urban development, Box
9.1 summarizes the essential normative ambition of the
NUA (see Chapter 1 for further details) through its effective
implementation, which is explored and exemplified in thischapter by drawing on key messages from earlier chapters.
The broad outlines and many key parameters of theintegrated actions required in any context are well known.
The World Urban Campaign and a coalition of urban
stakeholders clearly articulated that vision in The City We
Need 2.0, a manifesto prepared as the New Urban Agenda
was negotiated in 2016.11 Shortly thereafter, UN-Habitat’s
Action Framework for the Implementation of the New Urban
Agenda refined that vision in the wake of the agenda’s
adoption at the Habitat III conference in Quito.12
This Report is published four years into the lifespan of
the NUA and five years into that of the SDGs. As a resultof uncertainty within many national governments about
how best to proceed (Chapter 1), coupled with the lead

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Box 9.1: Harnessing the New Urban Agenda to Accelerate the Value of Urbanization
While broad in scope, the Means of Implementation section of the NUA contains a set of integrated guidelines to facilitateachievement of the value of urbanization (paragraphs 131–141):• All levels of government should deploy context-sensitive approaches to financing urbanization and enhancing financial
management capacities through the adoption of specific instruments and mechanisms to achieve sustainable urbanization.
• Endogenous resources and revenues generated through the capture of the benefits of urbanization, along with the catalysing
effects and maximized impact of both public and private investments, should be mobilized.
• Businesses should apply their creativity and innovation to solving urban sustainable development challenges.
• With appropriate support, subnational and local governments should register and expand their potential revenue base, e.g. throughmulti-purpose cadastres, local taxes, fees and service charges, in a socially just and equitable manner.
• Promote sound and transparent systems for making financial transfers from national to subnational and local governments basedon the latter’s needs, priorities, functions, mandates and performance-based incentives.
• Develop vertical and horizontal models of distribution of financial resources to decrease inequalities across subnational territories,
within urban centres and between urban and rural areas, as well as to promote integrated and balanced territorial development.
• Promote best practices to capture and share increases in land and property value generated through urban development processes,
infrastructure projects and public investments.
• Support subnational and local governments in their efforts to implement transparent and accountable expenditure control instruments
for assessing the necessity and impact of local investment and projects, based on legislative control and public participation.
• Support the creation of robust legal and regulatory frameworks for sustainable national and municipal borrowing, on the basis ofsustainable debt management, as well as sustainable municipal debt markets where appropriate.
• Support the development of appropriate and affordable housing finance products and encourage participation by diverse kinds ofexternal financial institutions to invest in all forms of affordable and incremental housing.
• Consider establishing urban and territorial transport infrastructure and service funds at the national level.
Source: UN, 2017, paragraphs 131–141

time required to prepare guidance documentation by
UN-Habitat and the Sustainable Development Solutions
Network, the start-up phase of implementation has beenslow, but the pace now needs to accelerate rapidly. While
there might be specific situations requiring more detailed

research or data, these factors are not plausible pretexts
for general delay. As outlined in Chapter 4, harnessing theenvironmental value of urbanization in contexts of limited
data and resources requires effective mobilization of existingdata from varied sources, but also necessitates delivering

276

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

strategic action through collaboration of multiple actors
and mapping current capabilities, critical knowledge
gaps and information relevant to specific forms of urbanchange. As highlighted in the first Quadrennial Report on the
New Urban Agenda, of particular importance is drawing on
multiple innovate data sources such as community-led dataand enumerations like the Know Your City global initiativeof Shack/Slum Dwellers International, which helps tostrengthen data and statistical capacities of governments
at all levels and provide a foundation for enhancing thevalue of urbanization.13

The efforts of national and subnational
governments in implementing the NUA
are being supported by a diverse set of
UN-Habitat programmes and activities at
the global, regional, national, subnational
and local levels
The efforts of national and subnational governments in
implementing the NUA are being supported by a diverse
set of UN-Habitat programmes and activities at the global,
regional, national, subnational and local levels, many ofwhich were implemented before 2016. The global category
includes Phase III of the Participatory Slum Upgrading
Programme in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific; Phase
III of the Global Land Tool Network; and Integrated andParticipatory Urban Plans and Public Space for Compact,
Connected and Inclusive Cities. These programmes areproviding concrete ways to address the convergent andcommon needs of the relevant Member States.14
These examples highlight the important point that progress
does not necessarily require entirely new and dedicatedactivities because many pre-existing or continuing
programmes and projects are fully appropriate. Hence,
undertaking a public policy audit and mapping onto the threetransformative commitments of the NUA and the 17 SDGs is
an important first step that will demonstrate what is alreadybeing done and thereby help to identify key weaknesses andgaps on which to focus new interventions and appropriate
resources. Many development interventions and actions canalso address several goals and targets simultaneously, thereby
reinforcing the need for harmonization and policy coherence
from the global to local scales (Chapter 2).

277

Being able to demonstrate progress early on even without
dedicated new investments has twin added benefits: It
reduces the scale of new costs relative to starting afresh, andalso makes it easier to gain support from elected national
representatives and officials who must make trade-offs
between diverse competing resource demands.

9.2. Enhancing the Economic Value of
Sustainable Urbanization
Urbanization creates economic value through the provisionof decent jobs, income and equal opportunities for all(Chapters 2 and 3). Ensuring access to sustained productive
employment, enhancing innovation and productivity,
nurturing the talent and skills required to thrive in amodern urban economy, developing creative industries
and utilizing viable forms of municipal finance all have a
key role to play in enhancing and sustaining the economic
value of urbanization. It is therefore imperative thatgovernments at all levels develop programmes and policies
to harness the economic value of urbanization to ensuresustainable prosperity for all. Governments policies mustbe accompanied by the creation of appropriate governance,
institutional and legal frameworks.

It is therefore imperativethat governments at alllevels develop programmes
and policies to harness the
economic value of urbanization
to ensure sustainable
prosperity for all
Employment generation is extremely important forenhancing the economic value of urbanization. Cities by
their nature offer significant opportunities for both formal
and informal employment; this is especially true for urban
areas that are planned, managed and effectively governed
as discussed throughout this Report. For instance, Chapter
3 shows that urban areas create employment opportunities
that build on their comparative advantage and uniquecharacteristics. The World Bank estimates that the private
sector (including informal sector jobs) accounts for 9 out of
10 jobs globally, most of which are in urban areas.15 Ensuring

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

adequate employment in urban areas is crucial if countries
are to meet SDG 8 on full and productive employment anddecent work for all, which are crucial ingredients to avoid
social disruptions and unrest created by unemployment
and inequality.16 Furthermore, when urban dwellers are
fully employed, they are able to fulfil their tax obligations.
This endogenous source of revenue provides governmentswith the necessary financial resources to provide basicmunicipal services.
Employment is the potential gateway out of poverty forbillions of urban residents and an important cornerstoneof economic and social development.17 Employment is also
a key determinant of peoples’ satisfaction with city life.
Rapidly urbanizing countries endowed with an abundanceof employable young people can integrate into the global
economy and generate extensive employment opportunities,
especially in light manufacturing and the outsourcing ofservices. East Asia has pursued this strategy over the last
five decades. More recently, large Bangladeshi cities suchas Chittagong and Dhaka have boomed with the garment
industry.18 Higher order economic activity can also employ
young people in the creative industries, which are at thecrossroads of the arts, culture, business and technology.19

The creative industry stands out as exceptionally urban. It
contributes significantly to the global, regional and urban
economy. It is estimated that the creative industry is worth
over US$2.2 trillion worldwide, which is equivalent to 3 percent of the world’s GDP. It employs 29.5 million people or
one per cent of the world’s economically active population.20
Notwithstanding the employment generation capacity ofurban areas, unemployment can be particularly challenging,as cities are often associated with a high concentrationof unemployed people, a phenomenon referred to as the“urban paradox.”21 In the Decade of Action to deliver theSDGs, the urgency of job creation is clear as the global
unemployment rate stood at 5.4 per cent in 2019.22 That
figure is likely to increase dramatically due to the impactsof COVID-19. More than 600 million additional jobs will
be needed by 2030 to keep pace with new entrants to thelabour market, mostly in urban areas.23
The unemployment challenge affects both the developing
and developed world. About 60 per cent of unemployment
in the UK, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands and the
US is concentrated in urban areas.24 As the world economy
is adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, cities

Fishing in Accra, Ghana. © UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

278

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Cities need to feature prominently
in national stimulus packages andeconomic recovery plans following theoutbreak of COVID-19
will bear a disproportionate burden of the unemploymentcrisis. For instance, the Las Vegas metropolitan area
experienced an unemployment rate in May 2020 of 29 per
cent, the highest of any US urban area at a time when every
major city has seen steep, sudden gains in unemployment.25
Chapter 1 clearly shows that job loss due to the pandemic
is most acute in the sectors closely associated withthe economic wellbeing of cities, with women, young
people and migrants being disproportionately affected.
Consequently, COVID-19 stimulus packages designed tojumpstart economies should specifically address urban
economic sectors. Cities need to feature prominently innational stimulus packages and economic recovery plans
following the outbreak of COVID-19.
In this uncertain economic context, proactive local
economic development efforts will be crucially important infacilitating urban livelihoods and harnessing the economic
value of urban areas. Local economic development efforts
should seek to enhance economic competitiveness, increasesustainable growth, ensure inclusive growth and produce
tangible benefits for local communities. Besides stimulating
economic growth and creating employment, a key goal of
local economic development initiatives should include
specific efforts aimed at poverty reduction and increasing
quality of life for all. Local development efforts will yield
the desired results if they are broad-based, with multiple
actors working together to stimulate and improve thelocal economy of a given area. Local governments should
lead the effort, but include civil society, the private sector,
public institutions and community-based organizations.26

Appropriate urban policies, supported byeffective governance systems, humancapacity, sound institutions, long-term
urban and territorial planning, andinnovative and sustainable financing
frameworks act as catalysts forsustained and inclusive economic growth279

At the national level, a stable macroeconomic environmentis crucial for enhancing urban productivity; in practice,
this enabling environment requires governments to remove
bottlenecks to investments in urban projects. Equallyimportant is adequate investment in the dimensions thatare the foundation of sustainable cities: physical assets,human capital, institutions, effective governance structuresand innovative technology. The drivers of change identified
in the NUA are central to harnessing the economic
value of sustainable urbanization (Chapter 3). In thisregard, appropriate urban policies, supported by effective
governance systems, human capacity, sound institutions,long-term urban and territorial planning, and innovativeand sustainable financing frameworks act as catalysts forsustained and inclusive economic growth They provide
an enabling framework for new economic opportunities,
regulation of land and housing markets, and the timely
provision of adequate infrastructure and basic services. The
way cities are planned and spatially organized provides anindication of how the economic value of urbanization canbe harnessed, as planning processes can either facilitateor hinder development. For instance, if housing andtransportation costs are high due to poorly defined property
rights and land use regulations that limit housing supply, theeconomic value of urban areas will be severely constrained.
Sustainable urbanization and productive cities go handin hand. In seeking to enhance the economic value of
urbanization, efforts should be made to ensure that
economically productive cities are also environmentally
sustainable, resilient, socially inclusive and safe. Throughstrong urban-rural linkages, they should also foster
sustainable rural transformation. This vision aligns with the2030 Agenda, especially the goal to make cities and humansettlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.27
Dedicated policy actions to enhance urban productively
will in part depend on a city’s level of development.28 The
management of urban growth is particularly important
for rapidly expanding cities in the relatively early stagesof development to enable them to fully capitalize on theadvantages of agglomeration economies and productivity
benefits, and to reduce future inefficiencies. Ineffective land
management, inadequate investment in infrastructure andbasic services, distorted taxation schemes and cumbersome
business and regulatory environment are detrimental tourban productivity.

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

It is important to identify the impediments that prevent
cities from maximizing their productivity potential. Thus,
addressing traffic congestion and other diseconomies
of agglomeration, enhancing mass transit options andproviding efficient, reliable services are key drivers ofurban productivity. In addition, cities at intermediatelevels of development should enhance their technologicalcapacities with a sharper focus on nurturing talent pools
and developing human capacity broadly.

Cities at intermediate levels ofdevelopment should enhance theirtechnological capacities with a sharper
focus on nurturing talent pools anddeveloping human capacity broadly
To sustain higher wages and better standards of living,
more advanced cities need to tap into innovationdriven productivity gains enabled by big data and othertechnological developments such as increasing automation,
artificial intelligence, IoT, nanotechnologies and blockchain(Chapter 6). To attract and nurture talent, experience from
cities like Bangalore, Boston, Dubai, London, Munich,
New York, Shenzhen, Tokyo and Vienna points to theimportance of supporting R&D in quality higher education
and research institutions with both public and corporate
investment.29

private sector and various development partners (Chapter
8). Countries and cities need to mobilize revenue from awide range of domestic and external sources to invest in thevalue of urbanization. The issue of municipal finance needs
to be addressed decisively and urgently to enable cities tofinance public expenditures and provide a wide range of
public goods and services. Similarly, the revenue generated
from endogenous sources and through the capture of thebenefits of urbanization should be integrated into legal andpolicy frameworks that improve the financial conditions
for urban development and facilitate access to additionalsources. The mobilization and effective use of domestic
resources are central in enhancing the value of sustainableurbanization.30
Finally, sound business and financial plans can generate therevenues required to support urbanization which, in turn,can be a source of further value generation. Local government
can reap some of the benefits of this process, which translates
into higher land and property values and can be captured byvarious taxation mechanisms. This virtuous cycle requires
appropriate financial frameworks and effective governancestructures, which includes the capacity of city governments
to finance and deliver infrastructure plans; effective
institutions with clear roles and adequate human andfinancial capacities; fiscal mandates and capacity to raise
revenues through land and property tax; and clear regulatory
and legal frameworks that guarantee accountability andtransparency in the use of the resources.31

But the value of sustainable urbanization cannot berealized without improving municipal finance mechanisms.
Harnessing the value of urbanization requires revitalized
funding partnerships, effective mobilization from multiple
sources and a strong commitment from government, the9.3. Enhancing the Environmental Value of
Urbanization

Harnessing the value of
urbanization requires
revitalized funding
partnerships, effective
mobilization from multiple
sources and a strong
commitment from government,
the private sector and various
development partners

The following discussion focuses on how the NUA canenhance the environmental value of urbanization, with
important economic and social co-benefits. Several chaptersin this report have provided important examples. One
central requirement for accelerating urban sustainability
and enhancing the environmental—but, crucially, also theeconomic—value of urbanization is for all stakeholders totake the green or circular economy seriously and to makeproactive strides in promoting it, “… while facilitating
ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration andresilience.”32

280

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Solar panels and wind generators against city view on sunset. © Artjazz/Shutterstock

One central requirement for acceleratingurban sustainability and enhancing theenvironmental—but, crucially, also theeconomic—value of urbanization is forall stakeholders to take the green or
circular economy seriously and to makeproactive strides in promoting it
Promoting the green economy does not imply a trade-off
with overall employment and economic growth, as sceptics
often claim, as there is no necessary or linear relationshipbetween increasing urbanization and conventional
economic development.33 Instead, over recent years, there
has been mounting evidence from diverse contexts acrossall regions that appropriately targeted and calibrated green

281

economic interventions can generate important synergies
and co-benefits, including generating a net increase inemployment.34 Indeed, this evidence provides both thebasis for the integrated approach to urban sustainability
represented by the SDGs and NUA and the incentive
for implementing appropriate measures to accelerateachievement of the environmental value of urbanization,
while simultaneously enhancing the social and economic
values of urbanization.
The circular economy, or a systemic approach to economic
development that is regenerative rather than linear, offers
a vision whereby economic and environmental value are
mutually reinforcing. Urban stakeholders should take thismethod more seriously over traditional “make-take-waste”
models. There are ever-increasing resources available toThe New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

policymakers and officials to assist in transitioning to thecircular economy, such as the Circular Economy in Cities
initiative of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.35
As explained in Chapter 4, global governance regimes
like the 2015 UNFCCC Paris Agreement can—despite
their voluntary nature—provide powerful collaborative
and also competitive impetus once a few ambitious
governments set more ambitious NDC targets, which
others then feel compelled to match or improve upon. A
good example is how OECD and some other national (e.g.
UK), regional (e.g. California in the US and HelsinkiUusima, in Finland) and local governments are ratchetingup their emissions reduction target levels or deadlines,
including by bringing forward the date by when sale of
new petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned, as partof the commitments to be reviewed at the next United
Nations Climate Change Conference. Ultimately, cities
must develop locally appropriate pathways to climatetransformation.36

National and subnational governments
should play a catalytic role by providing
effective incentives to promote green
industries, products and activities
National and subnational governments should play acatalytic role by providing effective incentives to promote
green industries, products and activities. They should also
disincentivize older technologies, products and activities
that are carbon-intensive, polluting and non-recyclable.
Increased capacity building for strengthening government’s
ability to effectively manage, deploy and regulate the useof technology is required for effective implementationof the NUA and for enhancing urban sustainability(Chapter 6). Moreover, evidence from around the world
demonstrates that proactive urban greening leads to a
net gain in employment across diverse skill categories,
thus ameliorating fears about job losses from phasing out
polluting and unsustainable products and services.37 For
example, in recent years China has placed increasing policyemphasis on green economic efficiency and nature-based
solutions to addressing climate change, such as in the 2016
Development Plan for the highly industrialized Yangtze
River Delta Urban Agglomeration.38

Such broad-based green economic credentials are often
fostered by city networks like the C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group and 100 Resilient Cities (as well as its
successors the Global Resilient Cities Network and Resilient
Cities Catalyst). They are rapidly becoming a source of
civic pride and city competitiveness, thereby encouraging
others to follow. But while nature-based solutions are a key
integrated approach to enhancing environmental value,
addressing the structural drivers of vulnerability will require
more transformative processes of socio-ecological change,
including improved social protections, critical services andinfrastructure (Chapter 4).
Diverse policy instruments are available to accelerate
green economic investment, such as regulations, fiscal
incentives or penalties, direct interventions in production
and activities to raise public awareness. The need for these
instruments will vary by context, including the balance
between ownership (e.g. public or private) and operational
control (e.g. via outsourcing, subcontracting or public–
private partnerships) over direct production and service
provision in areas like transport and utilities.
Many environmental interventions driven by personal
behaviour work on the basis of “nudge theory,” or the
principle that most people do not behave perversely andwill “do the right thing” when encouraged and shown how.
They change their behaviour modestly without the needfor more formal interventions. Such behaviour-changing
interventions work best when they are widely explained
and justified to the public, and where they respond to
public pressure to protect endangered species, conserve
green spaces, regulate pollution or eliminate waste. The
sudden international trend since 2018 away from single-use
plastics, especially those that endanger wildlife like plastic
drinking straws, illustrates this phenomenon. The resulting
aggregate impact of innumerable small progressive changes
can be considerable.
Subnational governments, particularly those of large
cities in developed countries, have considerable powers
to enact local regulations and taxes that lead the way
in implementing measures to support and enhancethe environmental value of sustainable urbanizationconsistent with the NUA. Indeed, since they face theimpacts of environmental challenges directly, many local

282

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Subnational governments, particularly
those of large cities in developed
countries, have considerable powers
to enact local regulations and taxes
that lead the way in implementing
measures to support and enhance theenvironmental value of sustainableurbanization
governments have already adopted progressive climatechange mitigation and adaptation measures at a fasterpace than their respective national governments. Many
are also setting examples through their own procurement
policies and practices, energy generation portfolios anddemonstration activities. Examples implemented by public
and private sector actors include retrofitting municipal
buildings and public housing, incentivizing green walls
and roofs, installing grey water recycling and encouraging
neighbourhood community gardens.
Local authorities can maximize impact with coherent
policies and programmes of integrated and complementaryinterventions rather than relying on isolated actions.
Solid waste management provides a case in point. Small
deposits on glass, plastic and aluminium drinks containers
create a financial incentive to return those items. Kerbside“single stream” recycling encourages higher participation
once households no longer have to sort their recyclable
waste, thereby reducing landfill utilization. Municipal
composting centres likewise reduce the amount of organic
waste sent to landfills, while providing a ready supply ofcompost for sale and municipal use. Each of these schemes
also generates local employment. The most appropriate mixof publicly-run and privately-contracted or outsourced
collection and operation will vary, but partnerships canbe effective. Residents can be encouraged with targets andregular feedback on how well they have performed.
One unresolved debate is how far the implementationof incremental reforms, such as those embodied in
the SDGs, can achieve the required rate and scope ofchange to keep global warming within safe limits.
Indeed, full implementation of the 2030 Agenda andthe NUA would require very substantive changes tothe status quo—as recognized in the frequent reference283

to the need for “transformation” and “transformative
commitments” for achieving sustainable urbanizationin the Action Framework for the Implementation of the
New Urban Agenda (AFINUA). This is often termed
adaptive transformation or transformative adaptation.39
It implies step changes in investment, inequality
reduction and major reorientations of urban planning
processes, including changing outdated zoning andbuilding regulations as well as encouraging multirather than mono-functional zones in order to change
mobility paradigms to reduce the number and distanceof intra-urban journeys. Such major reorientations are
anticipated by paras 77–81 of the NUA. Indeed, para 81
is explicit that these “transformative commitments” will
require different approaches from those currently used.
It will take time and considerable effort to build such agroundswell and make the required legal and regulatorychanges, so it should be commenced now to avoid
frustrating bottlenecks towards the end of the lifetimeof these global agendas. It is helpful to develop locallyappropriate pathways to transformation, including how
to address climate change in each city and region.40
Urban greening initiatives for sustainability havenumerous added co-benefits that can support simultaneousachievement of multiple developmental goals and targets,thereby enhancing the overall value of urbanization. For
example, safe green spaces that are designed in a gendersensitive manner can help address discrimination in supportof SDG 5 on gender equality and SDG 16 on peaceful andinclusive societies, as well as support improvements inhealth and community cohesion (Chapter 5). Moreover,as alluded to above, protection and enhancement ofgreen spaces and infrastructure can support disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation goals and provide
employment, all of which are key to maintaining andenhancing the value of urbanization.

Protection and enhancement ofgreen spaces and infrastructure can
support disaster risk reduction, climatechange adaptation goals and provide
employment, all of which are key tomaintaining and enhancing the value of
urbanization

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Effective integrated development planning for urban
areas requires critical attention to the interconnectedness
between vulnerability, risk exposure, development andresilience. These are core concerns in the SDGs, NUA
and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction,
as elaborated in Chapter 4. Processes of risk accumulation
are driven by social, political, economic and culturaldynamics, and may be highly differentiated across urban
spaces. Accordingly, by addressing cycles of urban risk
accumulation and reducing vulnerabilities, the valueof sustainable urbanization will be strongly enhanced.
The most vulnerable people in cities live predominantlyin the most vulnerable urban spaces.41 Consequently,
development-oriented approaches to disaster risk
management are key and critical attention to the riskdevelopment-climate change adaptation nexus is required.
Disaster prevention measures and responses are critical
determinants of urban resilience and the extent to whichcities can recover from a disaster, with considerable
co-benefits for citizens’ health and wellbeing.

Urban Planning and Design” to fill in their gaps on how totranslate principles into practice.42

9.4. Enhancing the Social Value of
Urbanization

Gender dynamics and norms are strongly shaped byprocesses of urbanization and while experiences varyconsiderably across diverse contexts, women and men
experience different challenges and opportunities incities, with women often facing additional threats anddiscrimination. Examples include more frequent physicalviolence and harassment in public spaces, exclusion fromdecision-making, higher unemployment rates and instancesof unpaid or exploitative work.43 Women’s health care isalso often deprioritized relative to that of family units andmen.44 Additionally, youth and gender non-binary people
are still commonly marginalized in urban policy, decisionmaking and interventions (Chapter 5).

Improving equity, enhancing social inclusion and ending
poverty are central to unlocking the social value of
urbanization. Public policy goals toward that effort include
upgrading slums and informal settlements, addressing
spatial inequalities, creating youth employment, promoting
women’s empowerment and supporting internallydisplaced persons (IDPs), migrants and refugees (Chapters
2 and 5). These efforts should adopt an intersectional lensthat recognizes the overlapping conditions and identities
leading to social vulnerability and marginalization. Whilestrongly acknowledged in the SDGs and NUA, theseissues require greater inclusion in the design of national
and local policies and actions for urban sustainability
and resilience. Local authorities should consult the WorldBank’s authoritative new “Handbook for Gender-Inclusive

Improving equity, enhancing social
inclusion and ending poverty are
central to unlocking the social value of
urbanization

The NUA acknowledges the “right to the city” and theimportance of citizens actively shaping value of urbanizationin their communities and beyond. Most existing smart
city initiatives are designed as elite enclaves linked to theworld economy but unsustainable in resource terms andof little relevance to the poor, who are often the majority
population in cities (Chapters 2 and 5). Technocraticinspired models can further embed social inequalities andoverlook structural factors that shape urban inequalities
in their quest to access future technologies (Chapter 5).
Furthermore, technology-based smart city initiatives need
to be people-centred and -driven (Chapter 6).

The NUA acknowledges the “right tothe city” and the importance of citizens
actively shaping value of urbanization in
their communities and beyond

IDPs and migrant groups are also often omitted fromconsideration in urban sustainability planning, possibly
because they are regarded as being temporary or transitory
residents (Chapters 1 and 5). However, in urban areas
near conflict and post-conflict zones, they can constitutea significant proportion of the population. As such,they contribute significantly to all aspects of urbanlife and integrating them into their host cities is key toenhancing sustainable urbanization. Yet, in practice, due
to discrimination or perceived transient status, they are284

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

almost invariably amongst the most vulnerable residents
and thus concerned principally with short-term survival
rather than long-term sustainability.45 Large influxesof refugees or IDPs can add substantially to urban
populations, thereby creating additional pressures on local
governments for the provision of key infrastructure andservices (Chapters 1 and 5). If guided by the appropriate
policy frameworks and the NUA, migration can be a key
mechanism for addressing poverty and enhancing the valueof sustainable urbanization, both in places of origin anddestination (Chapter 1).
The political will to change urban governance structures
is required to address the above crosscutting issues that
underpin the social value of urbanization (Chapters 2 and
5). This transformation is already taking place across diverse

contexts. In Africa, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa,
Eswatini, Tanzania, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe haveall introduced legal provisions for community and citizen
participation with a specific focus on gender equality.46
Commitment to addressing gender inequality at thecontinental level is underpinned by the African Charterfor Local Gender Equality. Yet, the rights of residents
identifying outside of binary gender definitions are notrecognized and protected in most African countries, andindeed are sometimes still criminalized.47
The Asia-Pacific region has also recently implemented
varied innovative gender-sensitive policies and services.
For example, following a spate of high profile attacks, eightcities in India have committed to the Home Ministry’s
Safe City project to combat sexual harassment, and in

Immigrant contract laborers work at a construction site, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. © Rob Crandall/Shutterstock

285

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Bhopal transport access and safety has been improved for
women.48 Furthermore, in 2015, Kerala introduced a policy
for transgender people; the first state in India to do so.49
Cities are also beginning to recognize the rights of migrants,from so-called “sanctuary cities” in the US where local law
enforcement does not inquire about individuals’ migratory
status to the Solidarity Cities network in Europe thatshares ideas between cities on the front line of the global
refugee crisis. However, many obstacles remain to migrant
protection and integration, from populist animosity innational politics to a lack of resources amidst other pressing
social needs. To achieve the SDGs through the effective
implementation of the NUA, the above tensions andinequalities need to be factored into all aspects of urban
policy, decision-making and interventions to support
meaningful and inclusive participation of all marginalizedgroups. Such efforts will enhance the social value of
urbanization by empowering the most vulnerable andreducing underlying social, cultural and political drivers ofrisk for marginalized groups in urbanization processes sothat no one is left behind and all can contribute to the bestof their abilities.50

Increasing numbers of IDPs and migrants also contributeto the prevalence of informal settlements and informal
economic activity in many regions (Chapter 1). Accessto affordable housing is a major challenge for many cities,
resulting in a proliferation of unplanned settlements,
particularly across Latin America, Africa and the AsiaPacific region. Urban landscapes are strongly shaped bythese largely underserviced and often vulnerable areas. In
many cases, informal economies also contribute significantly
to national economies. Effective and equitable governanceof informal sectors, spaces and actors with cooperation
between formal, traditional and informal actors andassociations representing those actors is important forachieving the SDGs, especially Goal 11, and advancing the
NUA to enhance the value of sustainable urbanization.
When adequately
planned and managed,
urbanization can play a
key role in ending poverty

When adequately planned and managed, urbanization canplay a key role in ending poverty. This prosperity can occur
through access to improved infrastructure and services
facilitated by large-scale public investment, effective
multilevel governance, higher levels of productivity,
provision of employment opportunities and improved
quality of life via better education and health. In East
Asia, planned urbanization helped millions escapepoverty.51 However, the reduction in poverty associatedwith urbanization will not happen by chance (Chapter
5). Rather, it depends on how urban growth and its
evolving challenges are managed, and the extent to which
the benefits accruing from urbanization are equitably
distributed. Instituting the necessary governance, planningand finance policies as outlined in the NUA and 2030
Agenda are vital preconditions for enhancing the social
value of urbanization, and by extension, ending poverty inall its forms.
Enabling citizen participation to co-create the city isessential to achieving the social value of urbanization. In
such an arrangement, civil society and governments engage
in joint action, for example to co-produce housing andinfrastructure in informal settlements. This methodology
has been pursued in Johannesburg to create green open
spaces, improve drainage and pave pedestrian areas and in
Kampala to build community sanitation blocks that reduce
disease outbreaks.52 Urban planning and development
initiatives where the relationship between the state andthe citizen have been reformed and strengthened support
implementation of the NUA.
Residents of urban informal settlements continue toface critical challenges without official recognition andgovernment support. Collaborative planning and service
co-production to reduce urban sprawl, support informal
economies, upgrade informal settlements and provide otherkey urban functions are critical for improving the value of
urbanization and governance of the urban commons. Oneof the more successful examples of an inclusive approach toslum upgrading is the Baan Mankong programme in Thailand
implemented by the national Community Organizations
Development Institute in partnership with civil society andsupported by local government. Over the past decade, theprogramme has secured land and housing for over 96,000
households in 1,800 communities, despite concerns about

286

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

financial sustainability.53 There is considerable potential tolearn from and build upon such initiatives in implementing
the NUA and enhancing the value of sustainableurbanization across diverse contexts worldwide. Informality
exists in various forms, and sometimes even thrives in OECD
countries, albeit with different political dynamics than inmore developing countries.54
The AFINUA emphasizes such state-civil society
collaboration and community-led initiatives in service
delivery. Alliances and networks such as those describedabove help to strengthen the voices and enhance thecapacities of vulnerable and marginal groups while
simultaneously addressing multiple urban sustainability
goals. Such efforts collectively enhance the valueof urbanization. As detailed in preceding chapters,
achieving urban justice for all and harnessing the valueof urbanization requires planning with urban dwellers
who have detailed, place-based knowledge for building
sustainability and significantly add to government’s
capacities at all scales to enhance the value of urbanization.
Such equity and social inclusion considerations arecrosscutting and underpin all efforts to enhance the valueof sustainable urbanization.

9.5. Governance, Institutional Frameworks
and Urban Legislation
The importance of multilevel governance in facilitating
progress towards sustainable urbanization has beenemphasized throughout this Report (Chapter 7). The
NUA calls for a paradigm shift committing to multistakeholder partnerships and cooperation among all levelsof government to support sustainable and integrated
urban development across all relevant administrative
boundaries. Cooperation across scales and meaningful,inclusive participation from urban citizens are essential
aspects of sustainable urban development and planning.
Yet, effective multilevel governance has proved challenging
under prevailing conditions.
There are several interrelated reasons. The powers,
responsibilities and available resources at particular levels
and categories of government are often mismatched.
Governments inadequately prioritize complex, diffuse,287

longer-term challenges like climate change andsustainability relative to more local and immediate callson resources. Political rivalries driven by election cycles
lead to short-termism both horizontally among leaders ofadjacent local governments and vertically among leaders ofdifferent levels of authority.55

Appropriate institutional frameworks andurban legislation need to be in place tosupport effective multilevel governanceand enhance the value of sustainableurbanization
Appropriate institutional frameworks and urban
legislation need to be in place to support effective
multilevel governance and enhance the value of sustainableurbanization. Local governments are central to multilevelgovernance; they are key agents in facilitating multistakeholder cross-scalar partnerships and planning in
implementing the SDGs and NUA (Chapter 7). In thiscontext, UN-Habitat has emphasized the importance ofnational urban policies as a framing for national action
and produced guidelines for tackling climate change in thecontext of such policies.56
Much emphasis has been placed on the “localization” of
global agendas and the centrality of cities in this process.57
In light of the NUA, this spatial disaggregation is also
now sometimes referred to as a territorial approach. The
approach is exemplified in a recent OECD report on SDG
implementation; as a prelude to a checklist of recommended
public actions, the report summarizes research showing
just how much OECD cities and regions still have to do toreach the targets on almost all goals, and hence how muchurban value remains to be realized.58
The recent emergence of Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs)
marks a notable initiative by a growing number of city
governments to enhance their efforts to implement theSDGs and meet the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. The
movement started with the declaration by New York
City in 2018 that it would undertake a local equivalent of
the Voluntary National Review (VNR), which Member
States present annually to indicate their progress toward
the SDGs. This initiative caught the imagination of other

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

The recent emergence of Voluntary
Local Reviews (VLRs) marks a notable
initiative by a growing number of city
governments to enhance their efforts
to implement the SDGs and meet theobjectives of the 2030 Agenda(Chapters 4, 5 and 7).63 Effective participatory multilevelgovernance fosters social cohesion and inclusivity, thereby
strengthening the intangible value of urbanization.

mayors and municipalities worldwide. By the time that theSecond High Level Local and Regional Government Forum
adopted the New York City Declaration on Voluntary
Local Reviews in September 2019, over 20 cities in 15
countries had committed to undertake such formal reviewsof how their local activities, plans and targets align with
the SDGs,59 while many more signed up during the World
Urban Forum in February 2020.

This section considers how the NUA can enhance the valueof sustainable urbanization when implemented througheffective frameworks of action at different institutionaland spatial scales. The AFINUA is the key roadmap
for all stakeholders to follow. It provides insights into
UN-Habitat’s approach, encapsulating 35 foundational
elements divided into five key interrelated elements ofurbanization: national urban policies; urban legislation,
rules and regulations; integrated urban design andterritorial planning; urban economy and municipal finance;and local implementation (Chapter 1).64 Informed by theunderlying values of inclusion, innovation and integration,
the framework is guided by the three crosscutting principles
of participation, governance and transparency.

VLRs should assess local urban sustainability issues thatmight require additional data; if robust and forwardlooking, they could also help to increase the level of ambition
in VNRs— another example of effective collaborative
multilevel governance. Resources are gradually being
provided to assist cities wishing to undertake a VLR, as
exemplified by a guide for British cities published in late2019 by Bristol, the first city in the UK to undertake one.60
The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies has also
developed an Online Voluntary Local Review Lab to assist
local governments as they undertake their reviews.61 These
processes are key to further embed the centrality of local
and regional governments in implementing the SDGs and
NUA, particularly since they were only included in the
preparation of VNRs in 11 out of 28 countries that reported
between 2016 and 2019.62
Convening multi-stakeholder workshops or forums canact as catalysts for change, bringing the public sector,
private sector and civil society together to explain neededchanges, gauge reactions and explore transdisciplinary andcollaborative pathways forward. This approach includes
understanding the benefits of integrated and targetedinterventions that can maximize co-benefits to unlock thesocial, environmental and economic value of sustainableurbanization. Deeper forms of multi-sectoral co-creationand co-production are demonstrating significant
improvements in appropriate public service provision as
well as in research and practice for improved sustainability

9.6. How Can We Harness the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization?

Complementing the AFINUA is Leading Change: Delivering
the New Urban Agenda through Urban and Territorial Planning,
an important and insightful overview of UN-Habitat’s
guidelines for how urban and territorial planning should
drive urban sustainability through implementation of the
NUA.65 For example, a recent analysis of sustainability andclimate exposure of Mexican cities concluded that urban
territorial planning, together with effective ecologicalrestoration strategies, should be prioritized, with clear
supporting policy, to avoid sprawl and maximize use ofgreen open spaces.66 These general guidelines are true fornational systems of cities all over the world. Nevertheless,as with all measures, territorial approaches and cityregion models need to be carefully considered in relation
to context-specific characteristics such as administrative

Territorial approaches and cityregion models need to be carefully
considered in relation to context-specificcharacteristics such as administrative
boundaries, governance capacities andnetworked urban economies

288

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

4

3
1

2

National Urban Policies are the basis of plan-led urban development. The urban structure of the city of Jeremie, Haiti, is an example of this bottom-up approachboundaries, governance capacities and networked urban
economies.67 A key objective of such assessments should
include guidance on how to utilize and adapt these
institutions and structures appropriately in order to achieve
the value of sustainable urbanization most effectively.
The following four subsections provide coverage ofinitiatives and recommendations in terms of how
implementation of the sustainable development agenda,
especially the NUA and SDGs, but also relevant elementsof the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, canenhance the overall value of urbanization at the regional,
national, subnational and local levels.
9.6.1. Regionally focused initiatives

In an effort to boost awareness, enthusiasm and uptake ofglobal sustainability agendas in more regional contexts,
several regional commitments and action frameworks

289

have been produced over the last decade, often resulting
from work between UN-Habitat, United Nations regional
commissions and other partners. Such action plans andframeworks can serve as key guidance for the creationand implementation of national and local frameworks
and support mainstreaming of the SDGs and NUA into
decision-making so as to maximize the value of sustainableurbanization in regionally appropriate ways.68
Important examples include the Regional Action Plan for the
Implementation of the New Urban Agenda in Latin America andthe Caribbean (2016–2036), which was prepared by several
regional and international bodies, including UN-Habitat.69
Furthermore, European nations signed the Pact ofAmsterdam in May 2016 to launch the Urban Agenda for
the EU , which promotes multilevel cooperation between
Member States, cities, the European Commission and otherstakeholders on urban issues.70 As a notable antecedent,

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities of2007 emphasized similar core issues such as city-region
development and cooperative governance.71 This lineage
reiterates the importance of building on progress achieved
through pre-existing programmes and frameworks, while
addressing the gaps and shortfalls thereof. Similarly, theHarmonized Regional Framework for the Implementationof the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in Africa, is aligned withthe goals of the African Agenda 2063, as well as otherregional and global commitments, including the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development.72
Additional key regional efforts include the ESCAP
Regional Partners Forum that began meeting in 2017as an immediate regional follow-up and review effort
following the adoption of the NUA, which eventually
led to the establishment in 2019 of the Penang Platform
for Sustainable Urbanization. That platform will serve asa regional reporting mechanism and feed into the global
reporting on the New Urban Agenda. Other framework
documents include the Arab Strategy for Housing andSustainable Urban Development and the Pacific Urban
Agenda. The latter illustrates the long and sometimes
difficult trajectory of impactful regional thinking aroundurbanization. The first Pacific Urban Agenda was preparedin 2003 and integrated into the Pacific Plan in 2005. In
2007, the outcomes of the second Pacific Urban Forum
were refined into a Regional Action Framework supported
by UN-Habitat, among others. Yet, as with other longstanding regional attempts to advance sustainableurbanization, the Pacific Urban Agenda has not been apriority. It lacks funding, resourcing and political support.73
A new Pacific Urban Agenda was developed in 2015 as aregional input to Habitat III, with the aim of generating
greater support from multiple agencies across scales andemphasises key issues linked to the NUA including social
equity, environmental resilience, urban governance and theurban economy. More recently, partners in the Asia-Pacificregion created the City Enabling Environment Rating as animportant method for measuring the presence of policies,law, institutions, systems of governance, fiscal autonomy
and levels of public engagement necessary for creating
enabling environments that contribute to implementationof the NUA.74

Finally, some regional initiatives are tied less to geography
and more to specific sectors, such as the Milan Urban Food
Policy Pact and Monitoring Framework. The purpose of
the Monitoring Framework is “to serve as an instrument
for cities and urban food stakeholders to identify foodrelated policy and programme priorities and to support
implementation of Agenda 2030.”75 Two-hundred andnine cities across most regions have signed up to the
Milan Pact since its formulation in 2015, with a notableabsence of Asian cities outside China.76 Prioritizing locallyappropriate food policies and programmes supports
urban economies through produce sales, improves healthoutcomes by increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables,
encourages cultural and ecological diversity by supporting
native plants and reduces food transport costs and carbon
emissions by growing food locally. Collectively, these
impacts of the food policy pact and monitoring frameworkenhance the value of urbanization.
9.6.2. National urban policies and otherdevelopment plans

Over the last decade, national urban policies (NUPs)
have returned to prominence as important guiding
instruments to promote coherent and consistenturbanization within a country’s boundaries. Earlier
generations of such policies fell into disrepute and werelargely abandoned by the 1980s as being too narrowly
technocratic, prescriptive and unrealistic. This stateof affairs left individual cities on their own. Some had
the capacity to market themselves on the global stage
while others languished. Large-scale uncoordinatedmovements of people to cities often exacerbatedinequalities and problems, which no official body had
a clear remit to address. The case for a new generation
of NUPs is widely accepted; national governments must
fill the void and provide more coherent and enabling
frameworks, particularly in view of the urgency oftackling poverty, inequality and climate change.77 By

Over the last decade, national urban
policies (NUPs) have returned toprominence as important guiding
instruments to promote coherent
and consistent urbanization within acountry’s boundaries

290

WORLD CITIES REPORT 20202018, 76 countries worldwide had adopted explicit
NUPs, while 74 had partial policies. Implementation hascommenced in 92 of these countries, while the other 58
were still in the development stage.78

 Adopting a framework to reduce urban and territorialdisparities; andNUPs feature prominently in the NUA: national
governments committed to their formulation andimplementation in order to promote collaborative andeffective multilevel governance for accelerating achievementof national development targets (paras 15, 21, 87, 89, 130
and 149) that enhance the value of urbanization. Moreover,
NUPs should be designed through a collaborative processincluding subnational and local governments, along withcivil society and the private sector. In poorer countries,
resource constraints hamper the development andimplementation of NUPs. In those instances, UN-Habitatand other agencies can provide technical support within
the remit of technical assistance programmes.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships across the sectors identified
above can greatly facilitate implementation of NUPs. Two
additional prerequisites for effective implementation arethat resources for each level of government should match
their respective roles designated in the NUPs, and thatsubnational and local governments should be able to fulfil
their respective roles and responsibilities without politicalinterference.

Well-formulated and targeted NUPs will provide enablingmechanisms to achieve these objectives via six key
components, as elaborated in the AFINUA, each addressing
one or more indicators within SDG 11 and linked to several
paragraphs of the NUA: Formulating medium- and long-term urban
demographic projections and trends, with geographic
disaggregation, taking into consideration the interplayof economic, social and environmental forces;
 Establishing national rules to determine land
suitability for urbanization and for environmental andcultural heritage protection, disaster risk reduction
and sustainable and resilient development whileconsidering its equitable distribution and accessibility;
 Defining the roles and jurisdictional responsibilities of
all levels of government and local governments regarding
urbanization, urban planning and management; Aligning NUPs with national and sectoral development
plans and policies at all territorial levels to harness thetransformative power of urbanization with urban plansfor energy, water, transport and other infrastructural
corridors;

291

 Promoting jurisdictional co-ordination and coherence.79

The principles of policy alignment (Chapter 2) and using
NUPs to frame collaborative multilevel governance are wellillustrated by an authoritative new report from the Coalition
for Urban Transitions on how national governments candeliver affordable housing and compact urban development
simultaneously through joint interventions even thoughhousing provision is not a national responsibility inmost countries.80 It has three complementary policy
recommendations and associated mechanisms.
1. Design fiscal incentives to foster compact and inclusive
cities: Redesign property taxes to incentivize more
efficient land use through higher-density housingdevelopment.
 Discourage low-density housing construction at the
periphery by adopting a development tax or impact
fees that internalize the real cost of sprawl for
property developers.
2. Unlock the potential of the rental market:
 Establish clear and balanced tenant-landlord
regulations to enhance transparency and ensurethat both parties have equal access to informationand legal recourse.
 Develop measures to support social rental housing
and ensure adequate tenure protection without
hampering residential mobility.

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

3. Strengthen institutional capacity and build coherent
policy frameworks:
 Craft national urban policies that align different
ministries and levels of government behind a sharedvision for cities, and design policy frameworks thatenable subnational governments to promote denser,
mixed-use development.
 Introduce mechanisms for better inter-municipal
collaboration for both demand-side and supply-side
housing policies.
 Increase local capacity to establish a diverse
portfolio of revenue streams, including property
taxes, by reviewing tax exemptions andstrengthening national systems to identify taxable
properties and assess property values.
Several countries around the world have already developedor revised their NUPs to facilitate streamlining of NUA
implementation across scales and support effective
multilevel governance. For example, South Africa initiateda national discussion on how to localize the New Urban
Agenda in 2018.81 This conversation is aligned with thecountry’s Integrated Urban Development Framework
and Action Plan that includes local implementation
structures. One notable such structure is eThekwini’s
Municipal Spatial Development Framework 2019-2020,
which aims to align with the NUA, SDGs and other key
international agreements to achieve progress towards
sustainable urbanization for the city.82 Critical here is that
locally developed solutions for implementing the NUA andenhancing the value of urbanization are facilitated throughnational policies that recognize the varying needs of local
governments shaped by locality, size, tax base and existingsustainability characteristics.
Sweden has been a European leader in this respect, andhas introduced an important national document aimed atpolicy development: “Local Implementation of the SDGs
and New Urban Agenda: Towards a Swedish National
Urban Policy.”83 The report reflects on the relevance of
the NUA and SDGs to the Swedish context, in whichlarge cities have great autonomy. The policy aims tofacilitate sustainability at local scales and provide aplatform for local and national actors to share goodpractices and lessons learned through global networks,
thereby strengthening the value of urbanization acrossurban Sweden.
The comprehensive OECD and UN-Habitat study of
NUPs reveals some significant regional differences ofpriorities (Figure 9.1).84 Case studies of Rwanda, Ecuador
and Jordan reveal important conclusions that are helpful
for other countries seeking to develop, extend or update
NUPs to maximize the value of urbanization and urban
development: Low levels of urbanization, like in Rwanda, can beadvantageous for strategic planning and managementof urban development
 Rwanda’s urban development strategies feature
centrally in national development strategies,
demonstrating the centrality of effective urban
management to its economic development Despite placing the highest priority on economic
development, Rwanda’s NUP integrates andcoordinates all sectors, including urban form andenvironmental protection, and strengthens subnational
and local governments to fulfil their respective roles
 Constitutional recognition of the right to the city andother human development principles provides a legal
basis for incorporation into Ecuador’s NUP and greatly
assists addressing the needs of the urban poor andother marginalized stakeholders
 Active citizen and civil society involvement in Ecuador
provides greater legitimacy for NUPs
 Political stability and security concerns substantiallyaffect the development of Jordan’s NUP
 Decentralization of responsibilities to local
governments in Jordan can help maximize local
appropriateness and must be accompanied by capacity
enhancement.

292

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Figure 9.1: High and low thematic priorities in NUPs, by region
Themes that receive extensive NUP attention per region
35

23

Africa4

Themes that receive low NUP attention per region

38

12

61

32
36

14

19

Africa39
Asia and the
Paciﬁc

35
35
50

32

18
14
14

Asia and the
Paciﬁc46

13
13

Arab States

Arab States

14

13

Europe andNorth America

28
31

16

34

44
Europe andNorth America

57
Latin America andthe Caribbean
0
Economic development
Environmental sustainability

21

Spatial structure50

64

Human development

Climate resilience

Latin America andthe Caribbean

50

13
13
13

50

9

16

38
22
22

41

0
0

Economic development
Environmental sustainability

62

21

Spatial structure

14
79
Human development

Climate resilience

Source, OECD and UN-Habitat, 2018, pp. 28-29.

Finally, several complementary global efforts have been
implemented and funded in recent years to monitor progress
on SDG 11 and the NUA regionally. For example, the Global
Land Indicators Initiative is centred around developing acommon framework for tracking progress on land issues
and encourages uptake of comparable data collection andrecording methods for monitoring. This effort is significant
as SDG 11 and the NUA highlight the centrality of landin urban development and the need for effective land
governance, which will enhance the value of urbanization.
9.6.3. The role of subnational governments

Although not highlighted by means of a separate section
within the AFINUA, subnational regional institutions
provide the middle link between national and local scales.

293

Their precise powers, responsibilities and resourcing
vary by country, but regional policies and instruments
provide the essential glue in effective and collaborative
multilevel governance for sustainable development andurbanization. This subsection provides some pertinent
examples and recommendations for appropriate
subnational government action.
Subnational governments play important roles in eachof the components of NUPs identified earlier. Alongwith local governments, they should lead the elementsof territorial urban design and planning processes
identified in the AFINUA. Similarly, they are one of
the lead actors in relation to the six elements of urban
economies and municipal finance to establish principles

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Subnational and local governments
are responsible for significant public
investments in critical infrastructure,human capacity, institutional
development and municipal services
for enhancing the roles of local governments andassist the latter to design and implement appropriate
financial frameworks, local economic development tools
and systems for ensuring equitable access to utilities andpublic services.85
Subnational and local governments are responsible forsignificant public investments in critical infrastructure,human capacity, institutional development and municipal
services; yet, the resources devolved from the national
level are often inadequate. Effective implementation of the
NUA thus requires a supportive enabling environment,
including appropriate autonomy and effective national

policies that facilitate adequate funding and thereby
strengthen subnational capacities.
As detailed in a recent OECD report, subnational
governments are increasingly prioritizing the tracking andmeasuring of city and regional progress against the SDGs.86
The study revealed that about 70 per cent of Europeanbased respondents currently implementing the SDGs
track progress, while about 58 per cent use indicators tomonitor progress.87 Important collaborations are being
formed to support subnational monitoring systems andaccountability. For example, the Brazilian state of Paraná,in partnership with a public company and UNDP, hascreated a platform that collates 67 environmental andsocial indicators at multiple scales. Those indicators arethen used in 114 municipalities across 14 states to monitor
progress of the SDGs at multiple scales.88 Such crossscalar monitoring systems facilitate implementation andaccountability for social and environmental indicators,
thereby enhancing the value of urbanization.

Public transport in Bugis, Singapore city. © By 2p2play/Shutterstock294

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

National statistical offices worldwide are focusing on
localizing data to support urban and regional monitoringof progress towards the SDGs. For example, theGovernment of Ireland—in partnership with Ordnance
Survey Ireland, the Central Statistics Office and theEnvironmental Systems Research Institute—has createdan online SDG platform that includes data and maps at
the regional scale for several of the indicators under theUnited Nations indicator framework.89 Similarly, theGovernment of Mexico in partnership with the Instituto
Nacional de Estadísticas y Geografía collates state-level data
in a national platform, Information System of Sustainable
Development Goals (SIODS in Spanish), to track andmonitor the evolution of Mexican states across various
indicators relating to the SDGs. The territorial focus
often adopted in these monitoring systems limits directinternational comparability. However, general goodpractices and information sharing across cities and regions
can still be very effective and support the achievement andenhancement of sustainable urbanization.90
9.6.4. Urban initiatives: Enhancing the value of
urbanization through local implementation

Cities are vital to national economies and are uniquelyplaced as key hubs for connecting local to global actors(Chapters 2 and 3). Within the required effective multilevelgovernance for appropriate and sustainable urban
development, urban local governments must play a pivotal
role (Chapter 7). In many countries, national, regional, stateor provincial policies and regulations provide parameters
within which local governments must operate; but in others,
individual local governments have greater autonomy. In
general, the higher the degree of local government relianceon subvention from regional and/or national government,
as is common in low- and middle-income countries, thegreater the prescriptiveness of such requirements. Capitals
and other large cities with a strong and diversified local
revenue base often have greater autonomy and hence ability
to become innovative leaders, perhaps even acting faster andgoing further than national policy.
The division of powers and responsibilities in the federal
system of the US provides a good example of the scope forpractical action by subnational governments to promotesustainable development. Following the announcementin June 2017 that the US would withdraw from the Paris

295

Agreement on climate change, various states and cities
declared that they would, nevertheless, adhere to the termsof the agreement and, in some cases, even make more
substantive emissions reductions.
By the end of October 2019, at least 25 states and territories
had joined the US Climate Alliance alongside the over 400
city leaders who comprise the Climate Mayors. Most of
those cities and states have signed the “We Are Still In”
pledge to affirm their support for the Paris Agreement,along with 2,200 businesses, 350 universities and 200 faithgroups. Collectively, these actors represent over half thecountry’s economy, half its population and 37 per cent of
its greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018, an authoritative study
concluded that existing commitments by those subnational
actors could achieve two-thirds of the emissions reductionsin the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution
targets of the Paris Agreement.91
This powerful subnational, private sector and civil society
coalition demonstrates how important these actors arein achieving decarbonization initiatives, albeit against
the modest Nationally Determined Contributions pledge
by the US, and thereby to reduce the direct and indirect
costs of current urbanization and to promote the value ofincreased sustainability. The example of the US shows that
if the necessary enabling institutional and administrativeenvironment are created for subnational and local
governments, these entities can play a leading role inadvancing the value of sustainable urbanization evenin the absence of national leadership. Notwithstanding
the potential for progress by subnational actors in theUS, urban energy transitions and decarbonization are
not a straightforward or easy win, requiring city-specificnegotiation and navigation of the complex interrelations
among carbon, capital and infrastructure, as recent researcharound the world has demonstrated.92 After all, energy
powers all dimensions of urbanism and urbanization, notleast economic efficiency and development.
Moreover, including additional spheres of local action
like reducing emissions from solid waste, updating ageing
urban infrastructure, shifting travel modes from private to
public transport and accelerating urban greening would
considerably increase the potential scale of emissions
reduction. Recent research indicates that there are major

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

infrastructure investment gaps for achieving the SDGs—
and by extension the NUA goals—estimated at US$38
trillion for the years 2020-2030 (Chapter 8).93 However,financial resources are increasingly becoming available
from new sources like public-private funds and previously
uninvolved development partners and finance institutions
as well as innovative financing mechanisms such as pooled
financing, blended finance, green municipal bonds and landbased finance instruments, among others.94 Harnessing thiscapacity to address the financing gap requires considerable
commitment and willingness from both state and nonstate actors (Chapter 8). The costs of inaction are high:exacerbated environmental and socio-economic pressures,compounded by increased mitigation and adaptation costs
for tackling more degraded environments and fractured
economies and societies.95
Ultimately, local governments are key agents of change forachieving the NUA’s objectives. However, the evidencebase for implementation and monitoring remains
somewhat limited and uneven, with many examples stillin their infancy. Indeed, Mistra Urban Futures conducteda longitudinal comparative study from 2017–2019 of how
seven local governments on four continents are engaging
with and attempting to implement the SDGs. It found that
only one city had addressed the NUA at all, and even then
only in rhetorical terms.96
Despite the emergence of VLRs and increasing efforts
by individual local governments, these responses reflect
generally low levels of awareness of the NUA andperceptions of its importance relative to the SDGs. In
some cases, officials also cited a lack of, or intention to
wait for, national guidance on engaging with the NUA.97
This reluctance highlights the need for ongoing inclusive
processes of engagement with city governments of all sizes
and between cities and national governments in order todeliver the NUA’s wide-ranging objectives and identifying
appropriate indicators to assess progress.

City networks are playing a leadingrole in sharing experience, knowledge
and good practices in relation toclimate action and sustainable urban
development

Despite the relatively low penetration of the New
Urban Agenda four years after its adoption, the growing
membership ranks of city networks are playing a leadingrole in sharing experience, knowledge and good practices
in relation to climate action and sustainable urban
development (Chapter 7). Many countries have long
had local government associations that lobby of central
government. There are also important local governmentorganizations with international membership, most notably
United Cities and Local Governments, ICLEI – Local
Governments for Sustainability and Metropolis.98 The
Commonwealth Local Government Forum deserves special
consideration for recently reorienting its strategic thrust toprioritize localization of SDG solutions by strengthening
local democracy and implementing urban sustainability.99
Transnational networks of individual cities are a recent
phenomenon, attesting to the recognition that city
leaders and managers in diverse parts of the world
share common problems and appreciate the value ofsharing knowledge and good practices. These networks
also represent a forum for innovation dissemination
and upscaling to accelerate urban implementation of
the global sustainable development agenda in locallyappropriate terms. The largest network is arguably the
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. Established in2005 and now boasting 96 members worldwide, it focuses
primarily on tackling climate change.100 The Rockefeller
Foundation-funded 100 Resilient Cities network,
established in 2013, created the city government positionof chief resilience officer and led many cities to produce
their first resilience strategies. It disbanded in mid-2019
due to shifting priorities at the foundation.101
Several innovative sharing and scaling mechanisms haverecently been developed to support streamlining andcollaboration. These tools range from online platforms
and portals to global-local alliances between diverse
actors in support of achieving the SDGs and the goalsof the NUA. For example, the Latin American and
Caribbean Urban and Cities Platform is being developed
to support implementation and monitoring of the NUA
in the region by facilitating peer-to-peer learning andexchange of best practices and capacity building.102 The
platform will have an urban observatory and virtual
platform to support this learning.

296

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Several innovative sharing and scalingmechanisms have recently beendeveloped to support streamlining andcollaboration

contexts that are reportedly implementing the NUA, todate most of these examples focus on specific programmes,
like the Safer Cities initiative in eThekwini (South Africa),and do not appear necessarily to be being implemented
through a dedicated action framework.

The UN-Habitat Country Activities Report for 2019 is also
general in thrust and—perhaps inevitably at this early stageof mobilizing support and action by Member States—
focuses largely at the national level.103 The subnational andlocal levels receive little attention. While UN-Habitat does
have a portal of examples that includes cities across diverse

UN-Habitat launched enhanced features on the Urban
Agenda Platform at the Tenth Session of the World Urban
Forum in February 2020. Designed for compatibility
with the New Urban Agenda Reporting Guidelines andimplementation reporting process, as well as the SDG
targets and indicators framework, the platform will

Box 9.2: Main features of the Urban Agenda Platform
1. Voluntary Reporting: A centralized, virtual reporting mechanism based on the New Urban Agenda Reporting Guidelines
accessible for the Member States will facilitate the preparation of country reports. The reports will provide qualitative andquantitative analysis. To the extent possible, the inputs of other key stakeholders and processes will be incorporated whereappropriate.
2. Knowledge Management: Build on existing and new knowledge platforms and resources to leverage the collective experienceand knowledge of partners to avoid duplication, facilitate knowledge generation and share in support of NUA and SDG
implementation.
• Data: Linkage to Global Urban Indicators Database; provide an interactive mechanism to visualize data from progress anddemonstrate impact of the implementation of the NUA and SDGs.
• Best Practice Database: Hosting and management of over 5,500 best practices with advanced search function to
encourage sharing and uptake. A uniform, decentralized storage of data and documentation will capture inspiring
breakthroughs, share success stories, demonstrate results, measure impact and identify practices that can be scaled-up.
3. Expanding the work of knowledge platforms to reinforce collaboration and coherence in thematic areas such as housing with
Habitat for Humanity-coordinated Urban Housing Practitioners and to strengthen regional-level platforms being developed
through United Nations regional commissions (such as the Penang Platform and the Latin America and Caribbean Urban andCities Platform).
4. Synergies with regional and thematic platforms are intended to improve stakeholder engagement and create a knowledge
legacy through a feature-rich suite of digital collaboration and communication tools.
5. Learning and Capacity Development: Support evidence-informed, country-level action for impact through capacity
development and curated, state of the art knowledge. Provide a complementary set of webinars, virtual learning, workshops,
technical support, expanding resources and publications.
Sources UN-Habitat, 2020g;UN-Habitat, 2020h.

297

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

facilitate monitoring, reporting and information sharing on
progress. Consequently, it should facilitate and accelerate
the implementation of the NUA and SDGs in order tomaximize the value of sustainable urbanization (Box 9.2).
Evaluation and enhancements will take place through theremainder of 2020, so that the system can play a central
role in the preparation process for national submissions to
the Second Report on Implementation of the NUA.
As part of the Global Future Cities Programme fundedby the UK, UN-Habitat has also developed and launched
its SDG Project Assessment Tool. This tool is designed
to enable local governments to enhance the quality,
implementability, long-term viability and alignment of
individual urban projects to the SDGs within the frameof the NUA. A city government will work with delivery
partners and UN-Habitat to optimize the outcome
through five successive phases, namely defining a set ofprinciples, reviewing the project, discussing the results,

providing recommendations and improving the project
within the broader context.104 This framing is important in“joining up” individual projects to increase coherence andhence leverage multipliers so that the whole becomes morethan the sum of its parts, which is another way to think of
the enhanced value of sustainable urbanization.

9.7. Concluding Reflections: Implementing
the New Urban Agenda in Times ofUncertainty and Unprecedented Global
Challenges
We are now firmly in the Decade of Action to deliver the
SDGs by 2030. That ten-year time window has initiated acall to action and cultivated a sense of urgency, not least
because the costs of inaction are already significant andescalating. The climate crisis continues unabated. Income
inequality continues to ravage the world’s poor. Global

A school affected by Cyclone Idai in Mozambique. © UN/Eskinder Debebe

298

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Ignoring the need for sustainable
solutions to humanity’s predominantly
urban challenges is no longer
plausible
migration and its consequences continue at record levels.
Nationalism and populism threaten the rules-based
international order, including the global economy thathas created today’s urban configurations. Amidst thesepressing challenges of the last four years, the coronavirus
pandemic has multiplied and exacerbated many of theseinterlocking issues. Ignoring the need for sustainable
solutions to humanity’s predominantly urban challenges is
no longer plausible.
UN-Habitat has provided the global urban community
with the normative tools and global platform necessary
both to take decisive action and contribute to theinternational movement for better cities. As shown
throughout this Report, governments at all levels
and civil society globally are already acting decisively
and impactfully to implement the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and the NUA. However,progress still needs to be made with respect toovercoming the barriers that impede the effective
implementation of the NUA in all contexts.
By drawing on how preceding chapters have explained
the value created by sustainable urbanization whilesummarizing global efforts to galvanize support forsustainable urban development, this chapter has
demonstrated how the effective implementation of
the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda can strengthen
the integrated economic, environmental, social andintangible value of urban areas. As an aid to sustainable
policymaking and implementation, Table 9.1 synthesizes
key messages and requirements discerned from therespective chapters for enhancing the value of sustainableurbanization through addressing the core integrated
elements of sustainability. The relevant aspects of theeffective implementation of the NUA to facilitateachievement of the value of sustainable urbanization arepresented alongside these key messages. Several of thesemessages are crosscutting and apply to all elements ofsustainable urbanization.

299

Enabling environments at all scales are key prerequisites
to ensure policy coherence and effectively implement the
NUA. Despite the progress highlighted throughout thisReport, key elements of enabling environments, including
adequate finance at all levels, capacity development anddata availability, remain major gaps to be addressed.
As shown in Table 9.1, this Report emphasizes several
crosscutting issues central to achieving the NUA. These
include concepts such as the need to mainstream andexpand gender equality, cultural diversity, legal protections
under the rubric of the “right to the city,” the rights ofmarginalized groups more broadly, multilevel governanceunderpinned by equitable and collaborative planning anddecision making processes, deployment of appropriatetechnology in urban planning and management, the criticalrole of local governments linked to international networks,
and the need for sustainable financing and innovative datacollection and application processes.

Despite the progress highlighted
throughout this Report, key elementsof enabling environments, including
adequate finance at all levels, capacity
development and data availability,
remain major gaps to be addressed
The urgency—and profound challenges—of making rapid
progress towards urban sustainability have been throwninto stark relief by the extraordinary speed with which
COVID-19 spread to become a deadly pandemic due to ourhighly integrated global economy and mobile lifestyles. While
the world scrambles to understand the disease’s virology
and epidemiology, deploy antigen and antibody tests, andultimately develop an effective vaccine, efforts to control
its spread required increasingly stringent restrictions onmobility and behavioural change. This pandemic spread along
major transport corridors, initially within China and thenworldwide. Urban areas became the epicentres of community
transmission, followed by diffusion to peri-urban and rural
areas. The challenges of imposing and maintaining lockdowns
have also been greatest in urban areas, from maintaining foodsupplies, operational public utilities and adequate personal
protective equipment for health and other key workers, tomaintaining observance of social distancing and staying at
home except for essential purposes.

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Proactive, high-calibre urban leadership in implementing acomprehensive suite of countermeasures have been crucial,
as demonstrated by Seoul, an early infection hotspot.105 The
pandemic has affected citizens across the socioeconomic
spectrum, but nowhere have the challenges been more
extreme than where poverty, inequality, exclusion andinsecurity affect large sectors of urban populations, namely
informal settlements and slums, as well as displaced
persons and refugee camps, on account of high levels ofovercrowding, the impossibility of adequate physicaldistancing, undernutrition and vulnerability to chronic
environmental hazards and disease.106
The global sustainable development agenda provides aunique framework and opportunity to invest for the futureand build up resilience against pandemics as the world
will have to adapt to and cope with COVID-19 and otherhighly contagious disease for the long term. COVID-19 is
not the first, nor will it be the last, pandemic that cities
will face. Cities have led the recovery and redesign after
previous pandemics, and they will be required to do so in
the aftermath of COVID-19. Given the ongoing pandemic’s
global nature, recovery will require a new kind ofleadership from city governments; one that is proactive by
developing policies and programmes to adequately build
up resilience against future public health threats. Acrossthe world, COVID-19 has clearly shown that it is in theinterest of all countries to have a robust health system tocope with pandemics. Cities can help galvanize resourcesfrom multiple sources to invest in health infrastructure
as part of city resilience development programmes andensure that public health is an integral aspect of urban
development, management and governance, especially indeveloping countries.
COVID-19 will most likely have long-lasting impacts on
the design of the built environment. The pandemic has
highlighted that the enormous amount of public space

The global sustainable development
agenda provides a unique frameworkand opportunity to invest for the
future and build up resilience against
pandemics as the world will have toadapt to and cope with COVID-19

COVID-19 will most likely have longlasting impacts on the design of thebuilt environment
dedicated to private vehicles needs to be reconsideredand prioritized for safe public transportation systems
and other uses like pedestrian walkways, outdoor seating
for restaurants and display areas for businesses. Althoughsome of these shifts may be challenging initially, theygive cities an opportunity to plan and manage theirurban environment based on the tenets of the NUA. For
instance, COVID-19 provides a valuable lesson on having
ample public space to enable physical distancing. Moving
forward, an important lesson from COVID-19 is that safeand green transportation systems should be at the heart ofcities’ recovery plans.

COVID-19 provides cities a unique
opportunity to build back better, by
focusing on greener, more sustainablebusiness and consumption patterns,
digital economies and quality urban
spacesAs cities reopen, authorities should devise creative ways
to reduce congestion on roads and ensure that pollution
is minimized. COVID-19 provides cities a unique
opportunity to build back better, by focusing on greener,
more sustainable business and consumption patterns,
digital economies and quality urban spaces that are
adequately designed to cope with future pandemics andlooming climate-related crises. Globally, cities are alreadyrethinking and reimagining the overall vision and designof their urban environments. Amsterdam has embraced
the “doughnut economics” model to ensure that the postCOVID-19 city is sustainable, inclusive and circular.107
Similarly, in Bristol, UK, the mayor has proposed a unified
city plan with the Sustainable Development Goals as thebasis for city planning. In Melbourne, Australia, urban
planners are exploring ways to expand the greening of
public spaces to better prepare for future pandemics.108
The devastating effects COVID-19 have been inequitable(Chapter 1). In developed countries, millions of workers

300

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

in low-wage service jobs were rendered jobless and forced
to make difficult decisions about putting themselves atrisk by returning to the labour market. In developing
countries, millions of informal workers fell into poverty
with no social protection. Worldwide, it is difficult toaccurately measure the economic, social and health impacts
on the most vulnerable populations because many are
undocumented, informally employed and lack safety nets
or social protection. Moving forward, this social imbalanceneeds to be corrected.
Cities can play a leading role in developing the capacity
and institutional framework to understand the lived
realities of their most vulnerable residents and address
the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 and future
pandemics at the local level. This role, for instance,
can be in the form of developing new systems of social
protection for vulnerable and marginalized groups.
Such new systems can, for example, take the form of acitizen’s basic income that is sufficient to meet essential
needs in a given locality. This idea has emerging support
which has already been piloted at different scales, withcities creating models that could scale up to the national
level.109 Along with safety net measures, cities shouldurgently address the economic, environmental and social
infrastructure needs of slums and informal settlements
to avoid the unbearable conditions faced by these areas
during future pandemics.

COVID-19 has starkly reminded theworld of the need for an effective
coordination of multilevel governanceand policy coherence at all levels ofgovernment as called for in the New
Urban Agenda
COVID-19 has starkly reminded the world of the need for
an effective coordination of multilevel governance andpolicy coherence at all levels of government as called forin the New Urban Agenda. Addressing the present andfuture pandemics has a strong territorial dimension. Citylevel governments, given their proximity to residents, arethe best placed to address many pandemic-related issues incontextually appropriate ways. Cities have a critical role toplay in creating pathways to how these challenges are met.
The lessons from COVID-19 can be used in reimagining
urban sustainability and human security as the basis
for making the required systematic changes to public
expenditure and investment. Indeed, how cities respond tothese challenges will determine our urban futures and theperceived value of increasing urbanization for many years
to come.110 Humans have always responded to pandemics
by rebuilding their cities. The New Urban Agenda is theroadmap for the world’s post-pandemic recovery. With
locally appropriate pathways, we can build back better byimplementing the New Urban Agenda across all contexts.

Table 9.1: Enhancing the value of urbanization: Key messages and implementation mechanism
Core Integrated Elements of
Sustainable Urbanization

Key requirements and messages

NUA Means of Implementation

Unpacking the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization(Chapter 2)

 National prosperity and development are largely dependent on theeconomic performance of urban areas
 Harmonious and balanced development, actively preserving naturalfeatures, protecting biodiversity and reinforcing environmental assets
 Spatially just resource distribution that provides individual and grouppolitical agency, and social, economic and cultural diversity.
 A sense of individual and collective civic pride in the culture of a city,which provide a superstructure for the value of urbanization to be fully
realized Coherent policy, proper planning, effective management and soundurban governance People-centred, inclusive and rooted in equity
 Priority focus to address the unique needs of underrepresented
populations

 Urban areas must be planned and managed toenhance the value of sustainable urbanization
 Sustainable urbanization requires a coordinatedeffort across all scales Policy coherence is needed to enhance thevalue of sustainable urbanization

301

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Core Integrated Elements of
Sustainable Urbanization

Key requirements and messages

NUA Means of Implementation

The Economic Value of
Sustainable Urbanization(Chapter 3)

 High levels of efficiency and productivity and accelerators of
economic growth Effective city financing is integral to equitable planning and development
 Inclusive prosperity and equal opportunities for all Clearly defined property rights and land use regulations
 Equitable access to well-functioning infrastructure and transportation
systems
 Sustainability and productivity are closely interlinked
 Urban and territorial planning is crucial for the delivery of inclusive
urban prosperity
 Effective multilevel governance systems generate increased economic
activity Support the creation of robust legal andregulatory frameworks for sustainable nationaland municipal borrowing based on sustainabledebt management, as well as sustainablemunicipal debt markets where appropriate
 Consider establishing urban and territorialtransport infrastructure and service funds at
the national level

The Environmental Value of
Sustainable Urbanization(Chapter 4)

 Equitable, collaborative and context-specific urban planning Recognition of urban commons and integration of ecological andsocial needs for feedback loops in long-term processes of urban
development planning Urban optimism coupled with pragmatism whereby urban actors
demonstrate the effectiveness of existing actions
 Addressing securitization and fragmentation to deliver benefits for all Mobilization of environmental data and delivering effective strategic
action within current data constraints
 Addressing the structural drivers of environmental degradation andhow they shape people’s lives

 Develop vertical and horizontal models of
distribution of financial resources to decrease
inequalities across subnational territories,
within urban centres and between urban andrural areas, as well as to promote integrated
and balanced territorial development
 Implement integrated and balanced territorial
development polices
 Implement sustainable multimodal public
transport systems including non-motorized
options

The Social and Intangible
Value of Sustainable
Urbanization(Chapter 5)

 Urban economies of scale can foster social inclusion and integration
 The “right to the city” is a key policy instrument for supporting equal
rights, opportunities and fundamental freedoms
 Good governance, regulations and appropriate institutions help
support well-planned and managed urbanization through democratic
and participatory processes Address inequalities within and between urban centres to foster
inclusivity
 Equitable and appropriately implemented social policy promotessocial integration
 Effective participatory multilevel governance fosters social cohesion
and inclusivity
 Rights-based approach to housing supports access to adequate andaffordable housing
 Prioritization of the needs of vulnerable and marginalized groups
means leaving no one behind with a key focus on gender and cultural
diversity

 Support the development of appropriate andaffordable housing finance products andencourage participation by diverse kinds ofexternal financial institutions to invest in all
forms of affordable and incremental housing
 Support subnational and local governmentsin their efforts to implement transparent andaccountable expenditure control instruments
for assessing the necessity and impact of local
investment and projects, based on legislative
control and public participation
 Implement participatory, age- and genderresponsive approaches to urban policy andplanning
 Achieve women’s full participation in all fields
and all levels of decision-making

Innovation, Technology andthe Value of Innovation(Chapter 6)

 Multidimensional role of innovation and technology in urban areas in(re)shaping social relations, labour markets and governance Innovation and technology help to enhance productive innovation
systems
 Capacity building for strengthening government’s ability to effectively
manage, deploy and regulate the use of technology
 Smart city technologically-based initiatives need to be people-centred
and people-driven
 Digital divides and exclusion need to be addressed Businesses should apply their creativity
and innovation to solving urban sustainable
development challenges
 Implement digital tools, including geospatial
information systems to improve urban andterritorial planning, land administration andaccess to urban services
 Implement digital tools, including geospatial
information systems, to improve urban andterritorial planning, land administration andaccess to urban services302

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Core Integrated Elements of
Sustainable Urbanization

Key requirements and messages

NUA Means of Implementation

Local Governments andthe Value of Sustainable
Urbanization (Chapter 7)

 Local and regional governments play a key role in localization andimplementing global development agendas
 Enabling institutional environments are critical for urban governance Committed city leaders are key to the advancement of sustainableurbanization
 Fiscal decentralization and adequate financing flows are needed tosupport urban investments
 Strong multilevel governance frameworks are needed to foster verticaland horizontal cooperation
 Strengthened and locally appropriate monitoring and evaluation is key
 Mainstreaming localization and streamlining goals of various global
strategies from national to local levels
 Effective decentralization policies are key to fostering an enabling
institutional environment for enhancing the value of sustainableurbanization
 Proactively address the disconnect between available funds and lackof financing for sustainable urbanization
 Integrated planning is crucial to create inclusive cities and strengthen
linkages between urban and rural areas
 Establish a new culture of participation by acknowledge every citizen’s
rights, especially their right to the city

 With appropriate support, subnational and local
governments should register and expand theirpotential revenue base in a socially just andequitable manner, e.g. through multi-purpose
cadastres, local taxes, fees and service charges
 Promote sound and transparent systems formaking financial transfers with performancebased incentives from national to subnational
and local governments based on the latter’s
needs, priorities and functions
 Build capacity of local governments toeffectively monitor the implementation of urban
development policies
 Build the capacity of local government to workwith vulnerable groups to participate effectively
in decision-making about urban and territorial
development

Investing in the Value of
Sustainable Urbanization(Chapter 8)

 Greater and more sustainable funding is required to achieve the
NUA, the SDGs and other development goals relevant to sustainableurbanization
 There is a shortfall in funding required to achieve the SDGs, the NUA
and other development goals relevant to sustainable urbanization
 Accelerated action on closing finance gaps and investment in thevalue of urbanization is urgently required Urban areas have divergent investment needs and varying abilities tomobilize financial resource Local governments face interlinked challenges of inadequate andunpredictable transfers from central government, poor tax collection
and weak fiscal management
 High social, economic and environmental cost of inadequate
infrastructure Investment in various aspects of human development/capital is vitalfor inclusive and sustainable urbanization in rapidly growing urban
areas Multiple and diverse actors and collaborative ventures are required foradequate funding of urban infrastructure Realignment of financial frameworks with local public goals andpriorities is key

 All levels of government should deploy contextsensitive approaches to financing urbanizationand enhancing financial management
capacities through the adoption of specificinstruments and mechanisms to achievesustainable urbanization
 Mobilize endogenous resources and revenues
generated through the capture of the benefitsof urbanization, along with the catalysing
effects and maximized impact of both public
and private investments
 Promote best practices to capture and share
increases in land and property value generated
through urban development processes,
infrastructure projects and public investments
 Sustainable financing requires an impactfocused ecosystem of actors including theprivate sector, public sector, development
partners, civil society, residents andcommunities
 Ensure policy coherence: inter-jurisdictional
across cities, intergovernmental across levelsof government and globally with internationallysupported investments

303

The New Urban Agenda and the Valueof Sustainable Urbanization

Endnotes
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

Simon et al, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2013, p11.
Barnett and Parnell, 2016; Rudd et al,
2018; Simon et al, 2018; UN-Habitat,
2018d.
UN-Habitat, 2020g, p2.
https://cpi.unhabitat.org/platformmeasure-urban-sdgs; https://cpi.
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/
resources/CPI%20METADATA.2016.
pdf.
UN-Habitat, 2020g, p3.
Coalition for Urban Transitions, 2019.
WCED, 1987.
IPCC, 2014; NUA para 79.
UNFCCC, 2019.
UN-Habitat, 2016h.
UN-Habitat, 2017a.
UN-Habitat, 2018d.
UN-Habitat, 2019h.
Farole et al, 2017.
World Bank, 2015c.
World Bank, 2013c.
World Bank, 2013c.
UNCTAD, 2010.
UNCTAD, 2010.
OECD. 2006.
ILO, 2020g.
Farole et al, 2017.
OECD, 2006.
Iacurci, 2020.
UN-Habitat and EcoPlan, 2005.
UN-Habitat, 2016a.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
UN-Habitat, 2013.
United Nations, 2017a, paragraph
132.

31.
32.
33.
34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

55.

UN-Habitat, 2016j.
NUA para 71.
Turok, 2014.
Simon et al, 2011; UN-Habitat, 2013;
Simon, 2016b; Simon, 2016a; Swilling
et al, 2016.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019.
Rosenzweig et al, 2018a.
UN-Habitat 2012, 2018; Simon
2016a, 2016b
Wang et al, 2019
Pelling et al, 2018; Few et al, 2017.
Rosenzweig et al, 2018a.
Adelekan et al, 2015; Dodman et al,
2018; Fraser et al, 2018; RomeroLankao et al, 2018.
Kiddle et al, 2017; World Bank andKounkuey Design Initiative, 2020.
Chant, 2013; Dodman et al, 2017.
Chant, 2013.
IIED, 2019.
UCLG, 2019a.
UCLG, 2019a.
UCLG, 2019a.
UCLG, 2019a.
Dodman et al, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2016i.
Coletto, 2010; Adegun, 2015; Dobson
et al, 2015; Dodman et al, 2017.
Bhatkal and Lucci, 2015.
Angélil and Hehl, 2012; McFarlane,
2012; Mukhija and Loukaitou-Sideris,
2014; Iveson et al, 2019.
Leck and Simon, 2013; Simon andLeck, 2014; Castán Broto, 2017b;
Leck and Simon, 2018, Bulkeley,
2019.

56.
57.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.

78.
79.
80.

UN-Habitat, 2016a.
Localisation can be defined as “theprocess of defining, implementing
and monitoring strategies at the
local level for achieving global,
national, and subnational sustainable
development goals and targets” (UNDevelopment Group, 2014: 6).
OECD, 2020.
City of New York, 2019; Croese, 2019.
Macleod and Fox, 2019.
Institute of Global Environmental
Strategies, 2020.
UCLG, 2019a.
Durose and Richardson, 2016;
Nature, 2018; Simon et al, 2020;
Hemström et al, 2020.
UN-Habitat, 2017.
UN-Habitat, 2018d.
Estrada et al, 2020.
Watson, 2019; OECD 2020.
United Nations, 2018a.
ECLAC, 2018.
European Commission, 2017.
European Commission, 2007.
UNECA, 2018.
Kiddle et al, 2017.
United Nations, 2018a.
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, 2015a.
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, 2015b.
Parnell and Simon, 2014; Pieterse,
2014; UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance,
2014.
OECD and UN-Habitat, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2017, section 1; see also
UN-Habitat, 2015d.
Moreno-Monroy et al, 2020.

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

South African Cities Network, 2018b.
eThekwini Municipality, 2019.
Fabre, 2017.
OECD and UN-Habitat, 2018.
UN-Habitat, 2017.
OECD, 2020.
OECD, 2020.
UCLG, 2019a.
irelandsdg.geohive.ie.
OECD, 2020.
Rosen, 2019.
Luque-Ayala et al, 2018; Stripple andBulkeley, 2019, Bulkeley, 2019.
UN-Habitat 2020c.
UN-Habitat 2020c.
UN-Habitat 2020c.
Valencia et al, 2019.
Valencia et al, 2019.
Rosenzweig et al, 2018a.
https://www.clgf.org.uk/.
C40 and Ramboll, 2018.
Rosen, 2019.
UCLG, 2019a.
UN-Habitat, 2019h.
UN-Habitat, 2019i; UN-Habitat 2019j.
UN-Habitat, 2020i; Cities Today, 2020.
Visagie and Turok, 2020; Simon,
2020.
World Economic Forum, 2020d.
World Economic Forum, 2020d.
Hughes, 2018.
Washbourne, 2020.

304

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Statistical Annex
General Disclaimer: The designations employed and presentation of the data in the Statistical Annex do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsover on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal statusof any country, city or area of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Table A.1: Urban Population Size and Rate of Change
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Region, subregion, country or area

2015

2020

2025

2030

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)20152020

20202025

20252030

2015

2020

2025

2030

20152020

20202025

20252030

WORLD

3,981,498

4,378,994

4,774,646

5,167,258

1.90

1.73

1.58

53.9

56.2

58.3

60.4

0.82

0.75

0.71

More developed regions

979,089

1,003,640

1,027,097

1,049,699

0.50

0.46

0.44

78.1

79.1

80.2

81.4

0.24

0.27

0.30

Less developed regions

3,002,409

3,375,354

3,747,549

4,117,558

2.34

2.09

1.88

49.0

51.7

54.3

56.7

1.09

0.97

0.88

Least developed countries

305,951

372,038

449,498

538,529

3.91

3.78

3.61

32.0

34.6

37.4

40.4

1.60

1.56

1.50

Less developed regions, excluding least
developed countries

2,696,458

3,003,315

3,298,051

3,579,029

2.16

1.87

1.64

52.1

55.1

57.8

60.4

1.10

0.97

0.87

Less developed regions, excluding China

2,201,145

2,473,276

2,763,104

3,071,076

2.33

2.22

2.11

46.8

48.8

50.9

53.1

0.82

0.83

0.85

High-income countries

955,213988,586

1,019,399

1,048,879

0.69

0.61

0.57

80.9

81.9

82.8

83.9

0.22

0.24

0.26

Middle-income countries

2,825,252

3,144,887

3,456,425

3,756,587

2.14

1.89

1.67

50.8

53.7

56.5

59.0

1.11

0.99

0.90

Upper-middle-income countries

1,659,611

1,821,036

1,957,223

2,068,825

1.86

1.44

1.11

64.1

68.2

71.7

74.8

1.23

1.01

0.82

Lower-middle-income countries

1,165,641

1,323,851

1,499,202

1,687,762

2.55

2.49

2.37

39.2

41.6

44.2

47.0

1.16

1.20

1.22

Low-income countries

198,536

242,877

296,030

358,848

4.03

3.96

3.85

30.9

33.2

35.7

38.3

1.40

1.44

1.45

Sub-Saharan Africa

375,827458,670

555,123

666,165

3.98

3.82

3.65

38.8

41.4

44.2

47.0

1.33

1.28

1.22

AFRICA

491,531587,738

698,149

824,014

3.58

3.44

3.32

41.2

43.5

45.9

48.4

1.09

1.08

1.06

Eastern Africa

1.74

106,096

132,520

164,482

202,579

4.45

4.32

4.17

26.6

29.0

31.6

34.5

1.74

1.75

Burundi

1,232

1,637

2,147

2,780

5.68

5.43

5.17

12.1

13.7

15.5

17.6

2.53

2.51

2.48

Comoros

221

255

296

345

2.87

2.97

3.06

28.5

29.4

30.7

32.5

0.63

0.89

1.14

Djibouti

718

781

844

906

1.67

1.56

1.42

77.4

78.1

78.9

80.0

0.17

0.22

0.26

Eritrea

1,852

2,246

2,699

3,210

3.86

3.67

3.47

38.2

41.3

44.6

47.8

1.58

1.50

1.40

Ethiopia

19,40324,46330,48737,496

4.63

4.40

4.14

19.4

21.7

24.2

26.9

2.21

2.16

2.11

Kenya

12,12014,975

18,372

22,383

4.23

4.09

3.95

25.7

28.0

30.6

33.4

1.74

1.77

1.78

Madagascar

8,529

10,67013,200

16,102

4.48

4.26

3.97

35.2

38.5

41.9

45.2

1.81

1.68

1.53

Malawi

2,867

3,535

4,407

5,551

4.19

4.41

4.62

16.3

17.4

18.9

20.9

1.32

1.66

1.96

Mauritius

516

519

527

539

0.11

0.28

0.45

41.0

40.8

41.0

41.9

- 0.120.14

0.39

Mayotte

113

125

139

157

2.05

2.19

2.41

47.0

45.8

45.3

45.7

- 0.53- 0.180.18

Mozambique

9,636

11,97814,811

18,195

4.35

4.24

4.12

34.4

37.1

39.9

42.9

1.50

1.47

1.44

Réunion

858

893

927

956

0.82

0.73

0.62

99.3

99.7

99.8

99.9

0.06

0.03

0.01

Rwanda

1,977

2,281

2,660

3,144

2.86

3.07

3.34

17.0

17.4

18.3

19.6

0.50

0.96

1.40

Seychelles

52

55

58

61

1.26

0.99

0.81

55.4

57.5

59.7

61.7

0.76

0.72

0.69

Somalia

6,015

7,431

9,169

11,229

4.23

4.20

4.05

43.2

46.1

49.1

52.1

1.30

1.25

1.20

South Sudan

2,240

2,749

3,378

4,164

4.10

4.12

4.18

18.9

20.2

21.9

24.1

1.38

1.66

1.90

Uganda8,856

11,775

15,431

19,914

5.70

5.41

5.10

22.1

25.0

28.0

31.2

2.47

2.31

2.15

United Republic of Tanzania

17,035

22,11328,24535,529

5.22

4.89

4.59

31.6

35.2

38.9

42.4

2.16

1.96

1.76

Zambia

6,747

8,336

10,257

12,549

4.23

4.15

4.03

41.9

44.6

47.5

50.5

1.26

1.25

1.22

Zimbabwe

5,109

5,700

6,430

7,370

2.19

2.41

2.73

32.4

32.2

32.9

34.2

- 0.090.38

0.83

Middle Africa

73,632

90,619110,579

133,728

4.15

3.98

3.80

47.9

50.6

53.4

56.2

1.11

1.07

1.03

Angola17,676

21,937

26,84832,437

4.32

4.04

3.78

63.4

66.8

69.9

72.5

1.04

0.89

0.75

Cameroon

12,463

14,942

17,74020,857

3.63

3.43

3.24

54.6

57.6

60.5

63.2

1.06

0.98

0.90

305

Statistical Annex

Table A.1: Continued
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Region, subregion, country or area

2015

2020

2025

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)20152020

2030

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

20202025

20252030

2015

2020

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)

2025

2030

20152020

20202025

20252030

Central African Republic

1,831

2,077

2,452

2,918

2.52

3.32

3.48

40.3

42.2

44.7

47.6

0.93

1.14

1.29

Chad

3,154

3,830

4,701

5,819

3.88

4.10

4.27

22.5

23.5

25.0

27.1

0.87

1.25

1.60

Congo

3,274

3,857

4,524

5,290

3.28

3.19

3.13

65.5

67.8

70.1

72.3

0.69

0.65

0.62

Democratic Republic of the Congo

32,567

40,84850,72362,343

4.53

4.33

4.13

42.7

45.6

48.7

51.8

1.31

1.29

1.23

Equatorial Guinea

830

1,028

1,232

1,445

4.28

3.62

3.18

70.6

73.1

75.3

77.2

0.69

0.59

0.50

Gabon

1,701

1,938

2,171

2,403

2.61

2.27

2.03

88.1

90.1

91.6

92.7

0.44

0.33

0.24

Sao Tome and Principe

137

162

188

215

3.33

2.96

2.67

70.2

74.4

77.6

80.0

1.16

0.85

0.62

Northern Africa

115,705

129,068

143,026

157,849

2.19

2.05

1.97

51.4

52.5

53.8

55.3

0.41

0.49

0.58

Algeria

28,24831,95135,292

38,232

2.46

1.99

1.60

70.8

73.7

76.2

78.3

0.80

0.66

0.54

Egypt

40,12344,041

48,42753,613

1.86

1.90

2.03

42.8

42.8

43.4

44.8

- 0.00

0.31

0.60

Libya

4,942

5,376

5,780

6,140

1.68

1.45

1.21

79.3

80.7

82.2

83.6

0.36

0.37

0.34

Morocco21,16423,552

25,86928,069

2.14

1.88

1.63

60.8

63.5

66.2

68.7

0.88

0.81

0.75

Sudan

13,09915,34918,22021,775

3.17

3.43

3.56

33.9

35.3

37.2

39.7

0.79

1.07

1.31

Tunisia

7,672

8,281

8,854

9,372

1.53

1.34

1.14

68.1

69.6

71.2

73.0

0.44

0.47

0.49

Western Sahara

455

519

583

647

2.61

2.34

2.08

86.5

86.8

87.3

87.8

0.07

0.10

0.13

Southern Africa

39,35843,68847,90051,909

2.09

1.84

1.61

62.1

64.6

67.1

69.4

0.81

0.75

0.68

Botswana

1,484

1,712

1,937

2,151

2.87

2.47

2.10

67.2

70.9

74.1

76.8

1.08

0.89

0.72

Lesotho

585

674

774

887

2.83

2.77

2.71

26.9

29.0

31.4

34.0

1.52

1.56

1.60

Namibia

1,138

1,403

1,684

1,972

4.20

3.64

3.16

46.9

52.0

56.7

60.8

2.08

1.71

1.39

South Africa

35,84439,551

43,11346,457

1.97

1.72

1.49

64.8

67.4

69.8

72.1

0.76

0.71

0.65

Swaziland

307

348

393

442

2.48

2.42

2.38

23.3

24.2

25.2

26.5

0.73

0.87

1.00

156,740

191,842

232,162

277,949

4.04

3.82

3.60

44.5

47.7

50.7

53.6

1.39

1.25

1.11

Benin

4,833

5,869

7,076

8,461

3.89

3.74

3.57

45.7

48.4

51.2

54.1

1.16

1.13

1.10

Burkina Faso

4,986

6,398

8,113

10,163

4.99

4.75

4.51

27.5

30.6

33.8

37.1

2.12

1.99

1.86

Cabo Verde

343

378

414

450

1.97

1.83

1.65

64.3

66.7

68.8

70.9

0.72

0.64

0.58

Côte d’Ivoire

11,426

13,532

16,022

18,912

3.38

3.38

3.32

49.4

51.7

54.1

56.7

0.89

0.92

0.93

Gambia

1,171

1,435

1,731

2,055

4.07

3.75

3.43

59.2

62.6

65.7

68.5

1.10

0.97

0.84

Ghana

14,918

17,626

20,53923,641

3.34

3.06

2.81

54.1

57.3

60.5

63.4

1.17

1.06

0.95

Guinea

4,249

5,071

6,083

7,300

3.54

3.64

3.65

35.1

36.9

39.0

41.4

0.96

1.10

1.22

Guinea-Bissau

746

884

1,038

1,209

3.41

3.22

3.03

42.1

44.2

46.3

48.5

0.96

0.94

0.91

Liberia

2,242

2,659

3,150

3,722

3.41

3.39

3.33

49.8

52.1

54.6

57.3

0.89

0.94

0.97

Mali

6,986

8,907

11,191

13,850

4.86

4.57

4.26

40.0

43.9

47.7

51.2

1.87

1.64

1.42

Mauritania

2,137

2,647

3,207

3,808

4.28

3.84

3.44

51.1

55.3

59.2

62.7

1.59

1.35

1.14

Niger

3,233

4,003

5,068

6,542

4.27

4.72

5.11

16.2

16.6

17.4

18.7

0.46

0.94

1.40

Nigeria

86,673

107,113130,312156,300

4.23

3.92

3.64

47.8

52.0

55.8

59.2

1.65

1.41

1.19

2

2

2

2

0.73

0.98

1.12

39.5

40.1

41.1

42.7

0.27

0.52

0.75

Senegal

6,869

8,277

9,904

11,778

3.73

3.59

3.47

45.9

48.1

50.6

53.2

0.96

1.00

1.02

Sierra Leone

2,955

3,454

4,017

4,651

3.12

3.02

2.93

40.8

42.9

45.3

47.8

1.00

1.06

1.11

Togo

2,974

3,588

4,296

5,106

3.76

3.60

3.46

40.1

42.8

45.6

48.6

1.30

1.29

1.26

ASIA

2,119,873

2,361,464

2,589,655

2,802,262

2.16

1.84

1.58

48.0

51.1

54.0

56.7

1.26

1.10

0.98

Eastern Asia

977,010

1,078,435

1,160,857

1,222,479

1.98

1.47

1.03

59.8

64.8

69.2

72.8

1.63

1.31

1.02

China

775,353875,076

956,554

1,017,847

2.42

1.78

1.24

55.5

61.4

66.5

70.6

2.03

1.58

1.21

China, Hong Kong SAR

7,246

7,548

7,769

7,987

0.82

0.58

0.56

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

China, Macao SAR

601

652

701

746

1.63

1.46

1.23

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18,06418,802

19,421

19,902

0.80

0.65

0.49

76.9

78.9

80.8

82.4

0.52

0.46

0.40

Western AfricaSaint Helena

China, Taiwan Province of China
Dem. People’s Republic of Korea

15,46916,12016,816

17,531

0.82

0.85

0.83

61.3

62.4

63.8

65.6

0.36

0.45

0.54

Japan

116,944

116,100

114,646

112,710- 0.14- 0.25- 0.34

91.4

91.8

92.2

92.7

0.09

0.10

0.10

306

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table A.1: Continued
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Region, subregion, country or area

2015

2020

2025

2030

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)20152020

20202025

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

20252030

2015

2020

2025

2030

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)20152020

20202025

20252030
0.33

Mongolia

2,031

2,203

2,363

2,514

1.63

1.40

1.24

68.2

68.7

69.5

70.6

0.12

0.23

Republic of Korea

41,302

41,934

42,58743,241

0.30

0.31

0.30

81.6

81.4

81.6

82.0

- 0.050.03

0.12South-Central Asia

661,808

745,069

835,323

931,437

2.37

2.29

2.18

35.0

37.1

39.4

42.0

1.17

1.23

1.28

Central Asia

33,05735,681

38,432

41,414

1.53

1.49

1.49

48.1

48.3

49.1

50.5

0.09

0.33

0.56

Kazakhstan

10,151

10,82911,494

12,186

1.29

1.19

1.17

57.2

57.7

58.6

60.0

0.17

0.32

0.48

Kyrgyzstan

2,098

2,323

2,574

2,862

2.03

2.05

2.12

35.8

36.9

38.6

40.9

0.59

0.90

1.18

Tajikistan

2,286

2,606

2,988

3,444

2.62

2.73

2.85

26.7

27.5

28.8

30.8

0.56

0.94

1.30
1.00

Turkmenistan

2,800

3,167

3,541

3,917

2.46

2.23

2.02

50.3

52.5

55.1

57.9

0.86

0.95

Uzbekistan

15,72016,756

17,83619,005

1.28

1.25

1.27

50.8

50.4

50.7

51.8

- 0.130.13

0.40

Southern Asia

628,751

709,388796,892

890,024

2.41

2.33

2.21

34.5

36.6

39.1

41.7

1.22

1.27

1.31

Afghanistan

8,368

9,904

11,705

13,818

3.37

3.34

3.32

24.8

26.0

27.6

29.6

0.96

1.18

1.38

Bangladesh

55,30564,81574,83884,689

3.17

2.88

2.47

34.3

38.2

42.0

45.6

2.14

1.90

1.67

305

353

401

444

2.98

2.51

2.05

38.7

42.3

45.6

48.6

1.80

1.51

1.25

India

429,069

483,099542,743

607,342

2.37

2.33

2.25

32.8

34.9

37.4

40.1

1.27

1.36

1.42

Iran (Islamic Republic of)58,21763,421

67,76071,205

1.71

1.32

0.99

73.4

75.9

78.1

80.1

0.67

0.59

0.51

161

187

210

231

2.93

2.34

1.88

38.5

40.7

42.8

45.0

1.08

1.04

1.00

BhutanMaldives
Nepal

5,318

6,226

7,266

8,408

3.15

3.09

2.92

18.6

20.6

22.8

25.4

2.07

2.09

2.09

Pakistan

68,227

77,43887,77799,360

2.53

2.51

2.48

36.0

37.2

38.7

40.7

0.62

0.81

0.99

Sri Lanka

3,781

3,945

4,193

4,528

0.85

1.22

1.54

18.3

18.7

19.6

21.1

0.49

0.97

1.42

299,412334,419369,699

404,497

2.21

2.01

1.80

47.2

50.0

52.8

55.6

1.16

1.09

1.03

South-Eastern Asia
Brunei Darussalam

320

348

374

397

1.66

1.44

1.21

76.7

78.3

79.7

81.1

0.41

0.37

0.34

Cambodia

3,443

4,050

4,721

5,458

3.25

3.06

2.90

22.2

24.2

26.5

29.0

1.76

1.80

1.82

Indonesia

137,635

154,189

170,361

185,755

2.27

1.99

1.73

53.3

56.6

59.8

62.8

1.21

1.09

0.98

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

2,206

2,600

3,019

3,452

3.28

2.99

2.68

33.1

36.3

39.6

42.9

1.84

1.73

1.61

Malaysia

22,801

25,362

27,84530,109

2.13

1.87

1.56

74.2

77.2

79.7

81.8

0.78

0.64

0.52

Myanmar15,647

17,06818,722

20,615

1.74

1.85

1.93

29.9

31.1

32.8

35.0

0.84

1.07

1.26

Philippines

47,07852,00957,606

63,844

1.99

2.04

2.06

46.3

47.4

49.0

50.9

0.48

0.64

0.79

Singapore

5,535

5,935

6,157

6,342

1.39

0.74

0.59

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Thailand

32,74635,69838,34440,676

1.73

1.43

1.18

47.7

51.4

55.0

58.4

1.51

1.35

1.20
1.16

Timor-Leste

366

433

511

600

3.35

3.31

3.23

29.5

31.3

33.2

35.2

1.20

1.18

Viet Nam

31,63536,72742,03947,248

2.98

2.70

2.34

33.8

37.3

40.9

44.5

1.99

1.83

1.66

Western Asia

181,644

203,541

223,776

243,848

2.28

1.90

1.72

70.4

72.3

73.8

75.4

0.55

0.41

0.42

Armenia

1,840

1,861

1,882

1,906

0.22

0.23

0.25

63.1

63.3

64.1

65.5

0.07

0.26

0.43

Azerbaijan

5,262

5,696

6,101

6,491

1.58

1.38

1.24

54.7

56.4

58.4

60.8

0.61

0.71

0.79

Bahrain

1,221

1,520

1,679

1,828

4.38

1.99

1.71

89.0

89.5

90.1

90.8

0.11

0.14

0.15

Cyprus

777

807

838

873

0.75

0.76

0.81

66.9

66.8

67.2

68.1

- 0.040.11

0.26

Georgia

2,270

2,318

2,359

2,394

0.42

0.35

0.30

57.4

59.5

61.6

63.9

0.69

0.71

0.72

Iraq

25,252

29,42334,03939,208

3.06

2.91

2.83

69.9

70.9

72.1

73.6

0.28

0.34

0.40

Israel

7,434

8,068

8,698

9,337

1.64

1.51

1.42

92.2

92.6

93.0

93.5

0.09

0.10

0.10

Jordan

8,267

9,333

9,802

10,364

2.43

0.98

1.12

90.3

91.4

92.4

93.2

0.26

0.21

0.17

Kuwait

3,936

4,303

4,603

4,874

1.78

1.35

1.14

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Lebanon

5,155

5,353

5,033

4,864

0.75

- 1.23- 0.68

88.1

88.9

89.8

90.6

0.19

0.19

0.18

Oman

3,417

4,443

4,990

5,407

5.25

2.32

1.61

81.4

86.3

89.5

91.7

1.18

0.74

0.47

Qatar

2,455

2,770

3,011

3,217

2.41

1.66

1.32

98.9

99.2

99.4

99.5

0.06

0.04

0.02

Saudi Arabia

26,24929,256

31,84334,143

2.17

1.69

1.40

83.2

84.3

85.4

86.5

0.26

0.26

0.25

State of Palestine

3,514

4,083

4,708

5,371

3.00

2.85

2.64

75.4

76.7

78.2

79.7

0.36

0.38

0.39

Syrian Arab Republic

9,774

10,49813,736

16,423

1.43

5.38

3.57

52.2

55.5

58.7

61.7

1.23

1.12

1.01

Turkey57,61763,80367,44670,951

2.04

1.11

1.01

73.6

76.1

78.3

80.2

0.67

0.57

0.49

307

Statistical Annex

Table A.1: Continued
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Region, subregion, country or area

2015

2020

2025

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)2030

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)20152020

20202025

20252030

2015

2020

2025

2030

20152020

20202025

20252030
0.23

United Arab Emirates

7,843

8,542

9,207

9,865

1.71

1.50

1.38

85.7

87.0

88.2

89.2

0.32

0.27

Yemen

9,361

11,46513,802

16,330

4.06

3.71

3.36

34.8

37.9

41.1

44.4

1.72

1.63

1.51

EUROPE

547,147

556,684

565,026

572,890

0.35

0.30

0.28

73.9

74.9

76.1

77.5

0.28

0.32

0.36

Eastern Europe

203,146

203,296203,360

203,271

0.01

0.01

- 0.01

69.3

69.9

70.9

72.2

0.18

0.28

0.37

Belarus

7,321

7,484

7,590

7,631

0.44

0.28

0.11

77.2

79.5

81.5

83.3

0.59

0.50

0.43

Bulgaria

5,311

5,253

5,179

5,082

- 0.22- 0.28- 0.38

74.0

75.7

77.4

79.0

0.45

0.44

0.42

Czechia

7,791

7,875

7,953

8,009

0.21

0.20

0.14

73.5

74.1

74.9

76.1

0.16

0.23

0.30

Hungary

6,898

6,922

6,938

6,940

0.07

0.05

0.01

70.5

71.9

73.5

75.1

0.40

0.43

0.44

Poland23,06522,782

22,59822,533- 0.25- 0.16- 0.06

60.3

60.0

60.5

61.5

- 0.080.14

0.35

Republic of Moldova

1,728

1,722

1,729

1,749

- 0.07

0.09

0.23

42.5

42.8

43.9

45.5

0.17

0.46

0.74

Romania

10,711

10,507

10,431

10,456- 0.38- 0.15

0.05

53.9

54.2

55.1

56.6

0.11

0.34

0.54

Russian Federation

106,549

107,486

108,062

108,337

0.18

0.11

0.05

74.1

74.8

75.8

77.1

0.19

0.27

0.34

Slovakia

2,931

2,931

2,955

2,998

- 0.00

0.17

0.28

53.9

53.8

54.3

55.6

- 0.050.22

0.47

Ukraine30,84130,33529,92429,537- 0.33- 0.27- 0.26

69.1

69.6

70.5

71.7

0.16

0.25

0.34

Northern Europe

83,94387,48890,892

94,053

0.83

0.76

0.68

81.4

82.6

83.8

85.0

0.30

0.29

0.28

51

52

54

56

0.46

0.68

0.88

31.0

31.0

31.4

32.2

0.00

0.26

0.52

Denmark

Channel Islands

4,979

5,108

5,248

5,389

0.51

0.54

0.53

87.5

88.1

88.8

89.4

0.13

0.15

0.15

Estonia

900

900

899

895

0.01

- 0.03- 0.08

68.4

69.2

70.2

71.4

0.24

0.29

0.33

Faeroe Islands

20

21

22

23

0.74

0.89

1.05

41.6

42.4

43.4

44.8

0.36

0.48

0.60

Finland

4,672

4,772

4,874

4,970

0.42

0.42

0.39

85.2

85.5

86.0

86.6

0.07

0.11

0.14

Iceland

309

322

334

345

0.81

0.74

0.64

93.7

93.9

94.1

94.4

0.04

0.05

0.06

Ireland

2,939

3,111

3,295

3,484

1.14

1.15

1.12

62.5

63.7

65.1

66.8

0.35

0.44

0.51

43

45

48

50

0.89

0.97

1.04

52.2

52.9

54.0

55.4

0.25

0.39

0.53

Latvia

1,355

1,293

1,250

1,222

- 0.93- 0.68- 0.46

68.0

68.3

69.0

69.9

0.10

0.19

0.28

Lithuania

1,971

1,941

1,929

1,920

- 0.31- 0.12- 0.10

67.2

68.0

69.2

70.6

0.24

0.33

0.41

Norway

4,217

4,522

4,830

5,130

1.40

1.32

1.20

81.1

83.0

84.6

86.1

0.46

0.40

0.34

Sweden

8,451

8,905

9,309

9,669

1.05

0.89

0.76

86.6

88.0

89.2

90.3

0.33

0.28

0.24

United Kingdom

54,03556,49558,79960,899

0.89

0.80

0.70

82.6

83.9

85.1

86.3

0.31

0.29

0.27

Southern Europe

107,618

109,342

110,832

112,280

0.32

0.27

0.26

70.6

72.1

73.8

75.4

0.43

0.44

0.45

Albania

1,679

1,827

1,949

2,038

1.69

1.29

0.90

57.4

62.1

66.1

69.5

1.57

1.25

0.99

Andorra

69

68

68

69

- 0.31

0.11

0.12

88.3

87.9

87.7

87.8

- 0.10- 0.04

0.02

Bosnia and Herzegovina

1,668

1,715

1,768

1,824

0.55

0.61

0.62

47.2

49.0

51.2

53.6

0.77

0.85

0.92

Croatia

2,379

2,369

2,375

2,394

- 0.08

0.05

0.16

56.2

57.6

59.3

61.5

0.49

0.61

0.70

Gibraltar

34

35

36

36

0.45

0.28

0.22

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Greece

8,755

8,850

8,897

8,926

0.22

0.11

0.06

78.0

79.7

81.3

82.8

0.42

0.39

0.36

Isle of Man

Holy See

1

1

1

1

- 0.050.0- 0.10

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Italy

41,39442,00742,56943,161

0.29

0.27

0.28

69.6

71.0

72.6

74.3

0.42

0.44

0.45

Malta

404

412

417

420

0.38

0.28

0.11

94.4

94.7

95.1

95.4

0.07

0.07

0.07

Montenegro

413

425

435

443

0.54

0.45

0.37

65.8

67.5

69.2

70.9

0.50

0.49

0.48

Portugal

6,617

6,776

6,926

7,049

0.47

0.44

0.35

63.5

66.3

68.9

71.4

0.86

0.78

0.69

San Marino

32

33

34

34

0.67

0.41

0.28

96.7

97.5

98.0

98.4

0.16

0.11

0.07

Serbia

4,930

4,913

4,924

4,953

- 0.07

0.04

0.12

55.7

56.4

57.6

59.3

0.27

0.42

0.56

Slovenia

1,116

1,148

1,179

1,211

0.56

0.54

0.53

53.8

55.1

56.8

58.8

0.49

0.60

0.70

Spain

36,93337,54437,99638,420

0.33

0.24

0.22

79.6

80.8

82.1

83.3

0.30

0.31

0.30

TFYR Macedonia

1,194

1,221

1,259

1,303

0.45

0.61

0.69

57.4

58.5

60.3

62.7

0.37

0.61

0.80

Western Europe

152,441

156,558

159,942

163,286

0.53

0.43

0.41

79.4

80.2

81.2

82.2

0.21

0.24

0.26

Austria

5,009

5,159

5,338

5,531

0.59

0.68

0.71

57.7

58.7

60.1

61.8

0.35

0.46

0.56

Belgium

11,048

11,397

11,614

11,811

0.62

0.38

0.34

97.9

98.1

98.3

98.4

0.04

0.04

0.03

308

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table A.1: Continued
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Region, subregion, country or area

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)20202025

20252030

2015

2020

2025

2030

20152020

20202025

20252030

56,789

0.72

0.67

0.63

79.7

81.0

82.3

83.6

0.33

0.33

0.32

64,871

0.27

0.13

0.16

77.2

77.5

78.0

78.9

0.07

0.15

0.23

6

6

0.81

1.15

1.44

14.3

14.4

14.8

15.5

0.16

0.54

0.91

552

593

629

1.55

1.43

1.17

90.2

91.5

92.4

93.2

0.28

0.22

0.17

38

39

40

41

0.51

0.50

0.52

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

15,274

15,847

16,31916,671

0.74

0.59

0.43

90.2

92.2

93.7

94.8

0.45

0.32

0.22

2020

2025

2030

France51,34353,21855,019Germany

63,07863,93064,346

Liechtenstein

56

Luxembourg

511

MonacoSwitzerland

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

20152020

2015

Netherlands

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)

6,133

6,409

6,668

6,937

0.88

0.79

0.79

73.7

73.9

74.5

75.4

0.05

0.15

0.24

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

505,392

539,427

571,254

600,480

1.30

1.15

1.00

79.9

81.2

82.4

83.6

0.31

0.30

0.28

Caribbean

0.52

30,31932,251

34,06935,729

1.24

1.10

0.95

70.0

72.2

74.3

76.2

0.61

0.57

Anguilla

15

15

16

16

0.90

0.47

0.28

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Antigua and Barbuda

25

26

27

28

0.55

0.87

1.15

25.0

24.4

24.4

24.8

- 0.46- 0.06

0.35

Aruba

45

47

48

50

0.67

0.77

0.87

43.1

43.7

44.7

46.2

0.27

0.46

0.63

Bahamas

320

339

356

373

1.13

1.02

0.89

82.7

83.2

83.9

84.7

0.12

0.16

0.19

Barbados

89

90

92

95

0.20

0.46

0.70

31.2

31.2

31.7

32.8

- 0.040.32

0.67

British Virgin Islands

14

16

17

19

2.42

1.73

1.52

46.6

48.5

50.6

52.8

0.81

0.84

0.85

Caribbean Netherlands

18

20

21

21

1.37

0.88

0.81

74.8

75.0

75.6

76.5

0.08

0.16

0.23

Cayman Islands

60

64

68

71

1.27

1.13

1.00

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Cuba

8,813

8,874

8,957

9,048

0.14

0.19

0.20

76.9

77.2

77.8

78.7

0.08

0.16

0.23

Curaçao

141

146

150

154

0.62

0.57

0.52

89.4

89.1

89.1

89.3

- 0.07- 0.000.06

Dominica

51

53

56

58

0.94

0.84

0.67

69.6

71.1

72.6

74.2

0.43

0.43

0.42

8,272

9,169

9,950

10,618

2.06

1.64

1.30

78.6

82.5

85.5

87.8

0.99

0.71

0.51

Grenada

38

40

42

44

0.76

0.86

0.87

36.0

36.5

37.5

38.9

0.30

0.52

0.72

Guadeloupe

443

442

441

442

- 0.08- 0.04

0.04

98.4

98.5

98.6

98.7

0.01

0.02

0.02

Haiti

5,616

6,492

7,343

8,144

2.90

2.47

2.07

52.4

57.1

61.3

64.9

1.70

1.41

1.16

Jamaica

1,575

1,640

1,707

1,770

0.82

0.79

0.73

54.8

56.3

58.2

60.3

0.53

0.65

0.74

Martinique

343

344

344

344

0.02

0.03

0.00

89.0

89.1

89.5

90.1

0.04

0.08

0.13

Montserrat

0

0

1

1

0.64

0.94

1.20

9.0

9.1

9.4

9.9

0.16

0.58

0.98

Puerto Rico

3,439

3,416

3,395

3,376

- 0.14- 0.12- 0.11

93.6

93.6

93.7

94.0

- 0.01

0.03

0.06

Saint Kitts and Nevis

17

18

18

20

0.92

1.06

1.22

30.8

30.8

31.4

32.4

0.01

0.34

0.66

Saint Lucia

33

34

36

38

0.80

0.98

1.14

18.5

18.8

19.5

20.4

0.35

0.64

0.92

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

56

59

62

64

1.03

0.94

0.84

51.0

53.0

55.2

57.3

0.80

0.78

0.76

Sint Maarten (Dutch part)

39

41

44

46

1.31

1.16

0.98

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Trinidad and Tobago

725

733

742

753

0.22

0.23

0.30

53.3

53.2

53.7

54.8

- 0.04

0.19

0.40
0.15

Dominican Republic

Turks and Caicos Islands

32

35

37

40

1.77

1.46

1.24

92.2

93.6

94.6

95.3

0.30

0.21

United States Virgin Islands

100

101

100

99

0.10

- 0.11- 0.29

95.4

95.9

96.4

96.8

0.12

0.10

0.07

127,304

138,768

149,898

160,493

1.72

1.54

1.37

73.7

75.4

76.9

78.5

0.44

0.41

0.40

Central America
Belize

163

183

205

230

2.32

2.30

2.23

45.4

46.0

47.1

48.6

0.27

0.46

0.63

Costa Rica

3,695

4,074

4,391

4,647

1.95

1.50

1.14

76.9

80.8

83.7

85.8

0.99

0.71

0.50

El Salvador

4,400

4,759

5,085

5,371

1.57

1.33

1.09

69.7

73.4

76.6

79.2

1.05

0.84

0.66

Guatemala

8,121

9,284

10,568

11,963

2.68

2.59

2.48

50.0

51.8

54.0

56.4

0.73

0.82

0.88

Honduras

4,943

5,672

6,421

7,169

2.75

2.48

2.20

55.2

58.4

61.4

64.3

1.13

1.02

0.92

Mexico99,813108,074

115,926

123,198

1.59

1.40

1.22

79.3

80.7

82.1

83.5

0.36

0.35

0.33

Nicaragua

3,521

3,787

4,071

4,387

1.45

1.45

1.49

57.9

59.0

60.5

62.3

0.38

0.49

0.58

Panama

2,647

2,935

3,230

3,528

2.06

1.92

1.77

66.7

68.4

70.3

72.2

0.51

0.53

0.55

South America

347,768

368,409387,288404,258

1.15

1.00

0.86

83.5

84.6

85.6

86.5

0.25

0.24

0.23

Argentina

39,72841,92044,01045,994

1.07

0.97

0.88

91.5

92.1

92.7

93.2

0.13

0.13

0.12

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

7,335

8,095

8,887

9,700

1.97

1.87

1.75

68.4

70.1

71.9

73.7

0.50

0.50

0.50

309

Statistical Annex

Table A.1: Continued
Urban Population at Mid-Year by Country,
2015-2030 (thousands)

Average Annual Rateof Change of the Urban
Population by Country,
2015-2030 (per cent)

Percentage of Population at Mid-Year
Residing in Urban Country and Area,
2015-2030

Average Annual Rate of
Change of the Percentage
Urban by Country, 20152030 (per cent)20152020

20202025

20252030

2015

2020

2025

2030

20152020

20202025

20252030

201,296

1.05

0.87

0.69

85.8

87.1

88.2

89.3

0.30

0.27

0.23

17,446

0.87

0.78

0.69

87.4

87.7

88.2

88.8

0.08

0.11

0.14

43,01144,804

1.22

1.01

0.82

79.8

81.4

82.9

84.3

0.41

0.37

0.33

11,124

12,063

13,049

1.66

1.62

1.57

63.4

64.2

65.3

66.7

0.24

0.34

0.44

2

2

2

2

0.76

0.53

0.34

76.3

78.5

80.4

82.0

0.58

0.48

0.40

French Guiana

227

261

296

334

2.78

2.55

2.38

84.5

85.8

87.0

87.9

0.31

0.26

0.22

Guyana

203

212

223

236

0.83

1.01

1.12

26.4

26.8

27.5

28.6

0.26

0.51

0.76

Region, subregion, country or area

2015

2020

2025

2030

Brazil

176,654

186,217

194,452

Chile

15,517

16,206

16,850Colombia

38,46940,892

Ecuador

10,235

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Paraguay

4,033

4,394

4,771

5,154

1.71

1.64

1.55

60.8

62.2

63.8

65.7

0.47

0.53

0.58

Peru

24,272

26,082

27,88029,643

1.44

1.33

1.23

77.4

78.3

79.4

80.5

0.24

0.27

0.29

Suriname

365

382

399

417

0.90

0.88

0.86

66.1

66.1

66.7

67.6

0.03

0.16

0.28

Uruguay

3,262

3,338

3,405

3,461

0.46

0.40

0.33

95.0

95.5

95.9

96.3

0.10

0.09

0.08

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)27,46529,28431,03832,722

1.28

1.16

1.06

88.2

88.3

88.6

89.0

0.03

0.07

0.10

NORTHERN AMERICA

290,616

304,761

319,702334,780

0.95

0.96

0.92

81.6

82.6

83.6

84.7

0.22

0.24

0.26

Bermuda

62

61

60

59

- 0.44- 0.20- 0.26

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Canada29,21230,67032,16433,663

0.97

0.95

0.91

81.3

81.6

82.1

82.9

0.07

0.13

0.19

Greenland

49

50

51

51

0.42

0.41

0.21

86.1

87.3

88.4

89.3

0.28

0.24

0.21

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

6

6

6

6

0.36

0.75

0.75

89.9

90.0

90.2

90.5

0.02

0.05

0.08

United States of America

261,288273,975

287,421301,001

0.95

0.96

0.92

81.7

82.7

83.7

84.9

0.24

0.26

0.27

OCEANIA

26,93828,91930,86032,831

1.42

1.30

1.24

68.1

68.2

68.5

68.9

0.03

0.07

0.11

Australia/New Zealand

24,381

26,09527,72429,319

1.36

1.21

1.12

85.8

86.3

86.9

87.7

0.12

0.14

0.16

Australia

20,397

21,90423,33524,740

1.43

1.27

1.17

85.7

86.2

86.9

87.6

0.13

0.15

0.17

New Zealand

3,984

4,191

4,388

4,579

1.01

0.92

0.85

86.3

86.7

87.2

87.8

0.08

0.12

0.14

Melanesia

1,903

2,138

2,418

2,757

2.33

2.46

2.63

19.2

19.6

20.3

21.4

0.46

0.72

1.01

Fiji

488

529

567

601

1.62

1.37

1.17

54.7

57.2

59.7

62.0

0.90

0.83

0.76

New Caledonia

187

205

224

242

1.89

1.72

1.56

69.4

71.5

73.5

75.3

0.61

0.54

0.48

Papua New Guinea

1,031

1,168

1,351

1,592

2.51

2.91

3.28

13.0

13.3

14.1

15.2

0.51

1.04

1.55

Solomon Islands

131

160

191

225

3.91

3.57

3.28

22.4

24.7

26.9

29.1

1.97

1.76

1.56

Vanuatu

66

75

85

97

2.55

2.55

2.58

25.0

25.5

26.3

27.4

0.45

0.62

0.80

Micronesia

353

375

397

421

1.21

1.18

1.14

67.9

69.2

70.4

71.5

0.37

0.33

0.31

Guam

153

160

167

173

0.92

0.84

0.72

94.5

94.9

95.3

95.7

0.09

0.08

0.07

Kiribati

58

68

78

88

3.19

2.77

2.36

51.6

55.6

59.1

62.2

1.48

1.23

1.01

Marshall Islands

40

41

43

45

0.61

0.61

1.09

75.8

77.8

79.5

81.1

0.52

0.44

0.38

Micronesia (Fed. States of)

23

25

27

29

1.05

1.52

1.86

22.5

22.9

23.7

24.9

0.42

0.70

0.96

Nauru

11

11

11

11

- 0.06

0.18

0.22

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Northern Mariana Islands

50

51

52

53

0.29

0.36

0.35

91.4

91.8

92.3

92.8

0.10

0.10

0.11

Palau

17

18

20

21

1.77

1.59

1.36

78.2

81.0

83.3

85.0

0.71

0.55

0.43

Polynesia

301

312

321

334

0.67

0.57

0.83

44.5

44.4

44.5

45.0

- 0.040.05

0.22

American Samoa

48

49

49

50

0.07

0.26

0.37

87.2

87.2

87.3

87.8

- 0.020.04

0.10

Cook Islands

13

13

14

14

0.37

0.52

0.48

74.4

75.5

76.6

77.8

0.29

0.30

0.31

French Polynesia

171

180

186

195

1.01

0.65

0.91

61.7

62.0

62.6

63.5

0.09

0.19

0.29

Niue

1

1

1

1

1.69

1.43

1.61

42.6

46.2

49.5

52.5

1.64

1.38

1.15

Samoa

37

36

36

37

- 0.47- 0.03

0.51

18.9

17.9

17.4

17.3

- 1.11- 0.61- 0.07Tokelau

-

-

-

-

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Tonga

25

26

27

29

0.71

0.99

1.36

23.3

23.1

23.3

23.8

- 0.150.15

0.47

Tuvalu

7

7

8

9

2.27

2.08

1.83

59.7

64.0

67.6

70.5

1.39

1.09

0.84

Wallis and Futuna Islands

-

-

-

-

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision.

310

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.1: Population (%) living in households with Improved Water, Improved Sanitation and Other Urban Basic Services in Urban Areas,
Selected Countries

...

...

100.0

82.6

45.9

66.6

86.3

88.3

85.7

97.8

61.8

...

92.8

82.9

88.5

Angola

2015

52.0

86.6

58.6

11.7

87.3

60.9

76.9

72.2

98.0

64.5

4.1

86.3

66.4

80.3

Benin

2001

66.8

78.0

71.6

6.1

35.9

14.4

80.8

62.6

88.7

...

10.4

...

51.2

1.8

Benin

2006

61.7

79.4

74.1

0.1

27.2

10.0

78.1

64.4

90.3

69.1

6.8

45.1

54.7

7.3

Benin

2011

62.1

84.1

79.7

...

22.4

...

80.8

74.4

87.0

59.5

...

...

66.7

10.7

Clean cooking
fuel

87.8

...

Connection toelectricity

...

88.7

MobiletelephoneFixed telephone

84.0

19.3

Durable wallmaterial

1.4...

Durable floor
material

14.7

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

94.9
95.9

Improved
sanitation

43.0
62.0

Connection to
sewerage

2006
2011

Connection to
piped water

AngolaAngolaCountryYear

Sufficient living
area

Other basic services
Durable roofmaterial

Durable housing

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Sanitation

Improved water

Water

Botswana

2015/16

96.8

98.2

...

36.3

74.3

...

96.1

92.2

97.7

77.2

...

...

79.2

71.4

Burkina Faso

2003

86.4

94.2

82.4

8.2

77.8

44.3

93.4

...

...

...

19.8

...

53.9

10.1

Burkina Faso

2006

87.6

98.4

...

...

9.5

8.7

96.7

54.6

96.6

79.3

17.9

58.7

61.9

14.3

Burkina Faso

2010

78.1

94.7

85.4

1.9

81.9

49.3

86.2

75.8

92.1

76.8

12.4

87.3

50.2

14.1

Burkina Faso

2014

79.3

94.0

70.0

1.7

92.3

51.9

83.2

74.7

96.0

76.4

7.2

96.9

59.4

25.3

Cameroon

2004

67.7

85.5

73.9

15.7

57.2

36.6

75.9

...

...

80.4

4.6

...

76.9

22.6

Cameroon

2005

68.3

86.5

...

22.3

97.4

...

80.2

84.6

95.1

75.2

...

...

79.5

29.2

Cameroon

2006

67.6

89.4

...

1.7

51.1

37..7

72.9

0.0

94.8

80.8

3.9

59.3

82.3

24.0

Cameroon

2011

65.2

90.3

75.9

1.5

83.3

55.4

82.1

83.6

94.8

79.6

5.8

89.9

87.4

28.2

Central African Republic

2000

52.1

88.1

64.4

1.9

23.8

...

37.1

93.4

71.8

99.9

...

...

19.9

...

Central African Republic

2006

56.6

88.8

65.6

0.7

65.8

42.0

33.5

97.9

74.1

99.8

3.5

25.7

25.4

1.1

Central African Republic

2010

50.2

85.3

45.9

0.1

73.4

42.1

35.3

64.5

73.8

97.8

1.6

73.6

27.2

0.4

Chad

2000

...

55.5

59.8

0.9

35.4

...

79.1

...

...

56.6

...

...

...

...

Chad

2004

44.9

59.6

39.0

7.0

19.5

...

21.3

95.4

82.2

61.9

4.3

...

20.2

...

Chad

2010

23.2

52.4

21.4

0.8

15.3

10.5

7.0

53.5

21.8

95.8

1.1

46.6

6.4

1.7

Chad

2014

48.7

87.5

67.9

0.0

52.5

27.7

30.3

70.7

79.5

56.8

2.0

87.9

36.6

13.2

Congo

2009

84.1

96.6

...

6.7

76.3

17.9

92.5

71.9

98.4

75.1

1.6

91.1

53.3

19.9

Congo

2011

78.8

95.8

78.9

2.5

59.4

17.9

91.0

76.4

99.4

67.7

1.8

93.7

58.9

25.5

Congo

2014

68.7

98.6

88.6

23.7

76.0

31.5

94.1

88.6

99.4

100.0

2.9

96.9

80.2

39.2

Cote divoire

2000

68.5

95.8

79.9

28.1

65.7

...

76.8

...

...

56.2

...

...

...

...

Cote d’ivore

2005

76.7

82.4

...

33.9

42.9

...

96.8

...

...

...

48.0

...

87.5

...

Cote divoire

2006

69.3

96.1

16.2

6.2

84.8

40.2

97.3

92.8

97.1

99.2

10.9

62.6

88.5

22.1

Cote d’ivore

2012

73.3

96.5

92.5

15.0

77.6

...

97.5

...

...

...

5.9

...

89.7

...

Cote divoire

2016

74.5

95.0

91.2

11.0

77.1

48.4

98.4

95.3

95.7

100.0

3.4

97.4

93.1

53.5

Democratic Republic of the Congo

2000

43.5

66.1

64.4

4.1

57.4

...

99.9

75.4

95.8

35.3

...

...

...

...

Democratic Republic of the Congo

2007

60.8

80.6

57.9

14.9

53.6

21.4

49.4

...

74.0

...

1.4

51.1

38.9

10.8

Democratic Republic of the Congo

2010

61.8

83.1

17.4

0.9

35.9

13.9

55.5

71.4

81.6

61.6

2.5

69.9

44.7

8.7

Democratic Republic of the Congo

2014

36.3

84.9

58.9

0.8

56.5

24.4

51.5

67.3

79.5

60.2

2.2

82.4

43.2

5.3

Equatorial Guinea

2000

18.8

60.4

45.8

30.6

92.28

...

82.94

...

...

68.61

...

...

...

...

Ethiopia

2000

80.3

85.3

57.2

2.4

4.2

2.2

33.6

...

86.8

...

11.0

...

77.4

1.7

Ethiopia

2005

89.5

93.5

75.8

1.4

52.3

22.6

54.6

18.1

93.8

49.9

35.5

14.5

86.1

2.5

Ethiopia

2011

85.6

94.6

69.8

2.8

45.4

18.4

49.8

19.1

94.1

58.5

24.7

67.2

83.7

4.2

Ethiopia

2016

86.8

97.6

59.1

2.8

51.5

20.3

66.5

24.9

93.3

64.4

18.2

90.1

92.4

25.9

Gabon

2000

92.4

93.4

77.4

31.8

58.7

38.0

89.9

96.7

99.1

76.1

20.2

...

90.8

80.0

311

Statistical Annex

Table B.1: Continued

Improved
sanitation

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

Durable floor
material

Sufficient living
area

Fixed telephone

Mobiletelephone

Connection toelectricity

Clean cooking
fuel

2012

94.8

97.3

62.5

38.0

64.6

40.9

92.5

99.3

99.7

76.6

2.4

97.4

97.8

90.6

Gambia

2000

90.7

94.6

46.1

19.1

47.58

...

81.5

69.91

96.26

75.36

...

...

50.97

...

Gambia

2006

87.5

91.2

60.0

7.7

93.34

50.68

93.87

75.04

97.56

72.38

33.1

74.46

55.24

3.03

Durable roofmaterial

Connection to
sewerage

Gabon

Country

Durable wallmaterial

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Other basic services

Improved water

Durable housing

Connection to
piped water

Sanitation

Year

Water

Ghana

2003

72.2

88.8

78.6

22.7

61.8

15.4

96.1

...

...

...

17.1

...

77.1

15.9

Ghana

2008

67.1

96.4

88.7

3.8

86.7

17.9

95.5

90.5

97.0

65.8

7.2

80.4

83.8

23.0

Ghana

2008

59.4

99.0

91.7

10.2

93.9

28.6

96.0

96.8

99.4

71.8

12.4

91.2

90.5

44.2

Ghana

2011

50.0

69.6

...

2.9

72.6

18.0

94.1

95.3

82.3

70.3

3.7

91.0

81.8

24.2

Ghana

2014

41.5

96.5

86.7

12.9

85.6

20.4

98.1

89.4

98.6

68.8

2.8

93.7

90.3

35.2

Ghana

2016

42.6

96.0

89.3

0.9

88.5

22.7

87.7

83.7

98.5

68.4

1.0

96.1

89.9

34.0

Guinea

2005

66.3

77.9

68.9

7.6

59.9

25.8

90.5

...

...

...

23.7

...

63.1

0.6

Guinea

2012

70.2

95.2

74.2

7.5

86.1

39.5

94.1

92.4

96.8

68.9

1.8

95.6

75.4

0.6

Guinea

2016

64.3

98.4

46.1

2.7

87.42

43.26

97.29

97.44

97.25

58.8

...

96.67

83.37

1.65

Guinea Bissau

2000

36.4

71.5

48.0

2.8

11.61

2.31

99.79

92.56

77.53

43.77

...

...

...

...

Guinea Bissau

2006

45.7

82.3

56.1

13.0

28.81

21.69

75.91

44.63

87.81

55.63

11.62

56.68

36.57

2.46

Guinea Bissau

2014

58.7

91.7

71.6

1.7

49.3

25.93

75.9

19.91

96.65

67.28

1.51

98.13

35.9

1.43

Kenya

2003

70.2

77.9

51.5

39.1

50.4

25.7

77.5

...

89.6

66.5

37.4

...

51.5

13.3

Kenya

2008

76.8

93.0

75.4

33.9

82.8

35.0

88.2

79.6

96.4

69.9

8.1

85.1

64.9

22.8

Kenya

2014

65.9

88.7

70.0

18.2

75.3

30.9

80.2

69.2

97.0

65.7

0.8

94.7

65.1

22.6

Kenya

2015

60.4

91.6

65.9

21.1

76.8

38.2

83.0

67.8

95.7

72.7

1.9

96.6

72.6

...

Lesotho

2000

81.9

88.9

70.7

4.9

65.8

...

84.4

...

...

77.3

...

...

13.5

...

Lesotho

2004

88.6

94.9

79.9

8.4

47.3

24.9

93.1

...

...

...

46.8

...

28.7

65.9

Lesotho

2009

82.4

90.7

68.9

3.3

59.6

31.2

95.3

89.6

97.7

73.9

17.7

89.1

48.6

73.1

Lesotho

2014

92.8

96.3

81.1

3.7

94.1

49.3

94.0

93.2

97.5

80.4

7.8

96.5

65.1

78.5

Liberia

2007

19.3

88.8

83.9

7.5

47.0

23.2

82.7

65.0

90.9

56.1

...

65.9

7.0

0.1

Liberia

2009

17.7

93.6

...

5.0

63.7

0.0

77.5

68.8

90.6

52.2

0.0

74.6

3.4

0.0

Liberia

2011

14.5

84.6

76.0

1.2

53.2

19.4

84.0

78.1

95.1

52.2

...

81.7

7.9

0.4

Liberia

2013

5.0

90.2

78.0

1.7

58.2

26.3

76.7

71.7

95.5

60.6

...

83.8

17.0

0.2

Liberia

2016

14.9

95.1

85.6

2.0

67.7

30.1

81.3

78.1

97.0

60.8

...

81.4

32.0

0.4

Madagascar

2000

72.5

77.5

48.9

10.1

22.5

18.6

58.5

...

...

41.5

...

...

...

...

Madagascar

2003

63.9

72.7

62.6

6.9

73.7

25.5

59.0

...

...

...

11.9

...

52.2

3.2

Madagascar

2008

74.2

87.6

81.9

0.5

19.2

10.6

70.0

66.4

86.0

55.0

9.6

75.4

69.4

2.6

Madagascar

2011

69.2

87.4

...

0.2

21.2

9.2

64.7

68.5

76.9

57.7

6.6

73.7

63.7

1.6
1.8

Madagascar

2013

54.9

80.9

...

1.3

35.2

14.8

62.3

48.7

74.1

58.4

5.4

70.0

60.5

Madagascar

2016

71.3

87.3

73.6

0.9

32.2

13.0

67.1

69.1

81.8

57.8

3.2

73.4

68.2

1.4

Malawi

2000

84.4

95.0

73.6

18.8

19.8

17.4

69.8

...

...

...

...

...

32.5

15.6

Malawi

2004

75.0

91.4

77.1

17.9

20.3

17.4

66.2

...

...

75.6

26.7

...

34.0

11.0

Malawi

2006

78.3

96.0

48.6

1.0

38.4

22.0

64.9

82.5

73.9

99.9

5.8

35.6

30.2

7.3

Malawi

2010

76.0

92.1

70.1

10.7

36.3

22.0

68.7

83.5

80.0

78.0

8.6

76.0

37.0

9.0

Malawi

2012

69.3

91.9

83.0

14.2

45.1

32.8

69.3

95.0

82.1

73.9

7.1

76.7

37.1

10.3

77.2

5.5

81.3

47.4

9.9

Malawi

2014

84.4

95.9

87.7

14.1

52.2

29.1

78.3

94.0

89.0

Malawi

2014

88.7

95.9

77.1

2.4

84.8

49.0

76.9

82.9

88.3

98.3

6.4

85.6

48.0

10.4

Malawi

2017

89.7

65.3

65.4

2.8

55.4

31.2

81.0

87.8

91.2

81.1

5.3

86.5

57.6

9.5

312

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.1: Continued

Fixed telephone

Sufficient living
area

Other basic services

...

...

13.1

...

41.5

0.8

...

...

67.3

13.7

46.5

49.0

0.7

Mali

2012

74.4

94.0

91.2

6.8

86.5

45.3

64.3

70.2

88.0

75.8

7.8

95.2

77.3

1.5

Mali

2015

77.7

91.3

85.7

3.5

81.9

52.8

74.6

84.6

86.9

100.0

6.4

97.8

79.0

2.2

Mali

2015

81.3

96.1

92.6

2.4

89.0

57.4

74.2

84.7

93.4

71.4

8.3

98.6

85.1

0.8

Mauritania

2001

76.8

91.0

63.9

4.1

12.7

9.6

57.8

...

...

34.8

8.0

...

50.6

...

Mozambique

2003

62.6

71.8

60.2

8.2

8.2

8.0

62.1

...

...

72.7

6.1

...

29.8

6.7

Mozambique

2009

63.2

79.8

...

4.2

54.0

42.4

58.4

68.1

63.8

82.7

2.9

60.0

47.7

6.0

Mozambique

2011

71.7

84.8

67.9

0.0

47.4

39.3

57.9

49.0

69.9

78.7

2.4

71.8

59.3

2.1

Mozambique

2015

76.5

92.2

63.6

26.0

47.3

40.3

68.9

59.4

79.1

76.0

2.5

84.3

73.2

2.8

Clean cooking
fuel

...

57.9

Connection toelectricity

61.5

22.9

Mobiletelephone

18.3

47.9

Durable roofmaterial

35.6

6.4

Durable wallmaterial

14.5

Durable floor
material

70.7
78.3

Improved
sanitation

71.9
79.3

Improved water

61.1
69.4

Connection to
piped water

2001
2006

Year

Mali
Mali

Country

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

Durable housing

Connection to
sewerage

Sanitation
Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Water

Namibia

2000

97.9

98.1

88.3

78.7

80.6

57.1

86.2

...

...

73.2

43.7

...

74.6

...

Namibia

2007

96.5

97.4

84.2

73.1

80.2

61.9

83.3

81.8

81.1

77.8

34.4

79.5

78.4

76.3

Namibia

2013

96.6

97.9

85.7

63.6

73.8

53.5

78.5

91.1

92.6

80.4

15.8

95.9

74.1

72.0

Niger

2006

90.8

93.4

84.2

6.9

40.9

24.7

60.1

...

...

51.8

5.0

40.5

50.5

3.1

Niger

2012

94.1

97.0

72.1

2.8

77.9

40.2

72.2

40.8

56.7

54.8

4.4

84.8

62.7

3.9

Nigeria

2003

32.4

74.9

60.6

27.9

33.2

18.2

86.7

...

...

65.9

11.7

...

83.9

46.7

Nigeria

2008

20.1

83.8

75.2

10.2

76.6

37.5

88.2

85.8

92.9

63.6

4.1

77.5

84.2

3.3

Nigeria

2010

20.2

81.6

...

17.1

61.5

...

81.0

75.9

89.2

69.2

1.6

81.2

78.0

2.2

Nigeria

2013

15.7

89.8

74.9

8.6

76.9

42.7

85.0

86.0

96.5

66.5

4.1

89.1

83.0

4.6

Nigeria

2015

17.1

92.6

84.3

14.3

75.8

48.1

87.4

88.8

93.0

66.7

3.5

91.2

82.0

9.1

Nigeria

2016

16.9

82.9

...

11.5

77.6

49.4

84.1

89.8

96.3

65.0

4.0

91.0

86.3

16.9
1.6

Rwanda

2000

77.1

81.5

55.9

8.1

41.3

28.9

64.4

...

...

...

10.2

...

42.6

Rwanda

2005

56.7

62.0

47.2

6.3

54.9

40.5

51.1

...

...

...

6.1

...

27.4

0.4

Rwanda

2008

60.3

64.4

52.2

4.3

44.5

35.0

50.2

...

...

...

5.8

47.2

30.0

0.0

Rwanda

2010

65.0

89.2

63.7

3.8

88.1

56.3

58.5

69.1

98.7

83.0

1.9

76.1

47.3

0.2

Rwanda

2013

73.4

97.6

72.4

0.0

85.8

53.6

62.4

77.2

99.7

86.8

0.7

84.6

61.9

0.9

Rwanda

2015

81.4

90.4

69.4

7.4

86.6

49.7

70.4

69.5

99.8

87.4

1.2

88.4

73.9

1.3

Senegal

2005

88.3

90.7

60.5

64.3

25.1

18.5

89.4

...

...

1.0

...

56.9

81.9

74.9

Senegal

2006

77.9

99.9

...

9.6

96.4

73.6

93.7

...

...

62.4

35.2

81.9

84.8

74.7

Senegal

2008

85.4

93.5

...

15.4

90.2

...

87.3

90.4

96.0

68.2

22.9

91.5

85.7

68.3

Senegal

2011

89.1

94.1

69.7

19.0

80.3

61.7

87.2

93.0

96.1

65.1

23.0

97.2

89.5

57.1

Senegal

2012

86.7

92.2

64.1

12.7

87.1

63.6

92.3

92.0

95.6

64.3

12.3

97.9

87.7

40.9

Senegal

2014

86.8

91.9

63.3

11.7

85.5

65.3

90.1

92.8

94.9

63.1

9.3

97.5

87.5

40.4

Senegal

2015

81.0

89.5

63.4

13.6

86.6

60.7

93.7

92.3

97.7

68.2

8.6

98.1

88.7

39.8

Senegal

2016

85.0

93.7

45.2

11.3

89.7

65.7

92.9

92.3

98.4

75.9

7.5

98.2

89.8

49.0

Sierra Leone

2008

43.6

81.9

60.5

0.3

75.1

26.1

75.2

61.3

89.4

68.4

2.1

67.4

31.0

0.1

Sierra Leone

2013

44.6

88.9

71.2

0.7

76.7

21.9

81.8

78.9

95.5

60.7

0.9

86.0

41.7

0.2

Sierra Leone

2016

37.9

91.4

81.1

1.2

76.8

28.1

78.5

86.7

93.6

62.5

0.5

90.4

43.9

0.7

Sierra Leone

2017

27.4

86.6

...

2.0

72.9

70.2

85.1

0.0

99.0

75.3

1.0

89.4

39.1

0.9

83.4

10.0

97.3

93.7

90.7

South Africa

2016

97.4

99.6

98.4

81.5

88.6

71.9

98.7

94.1

97.8

Eswatini

2006

86.6

93.3

71.1

49.2

60.4

42.6

97.4

87.8

99.0

78.2

27.7

78.1

65.2

69.5

Eswatini

2014

93.7

95.5

...

30.3

91.8

50.8

99.4

94.1

99.7

83.4

19.2

98.8

81.0

78.3

313

Statistical Annex

Table B.1: Continued

Connection to
sewerage

Improved
sanitation

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

Durable floor
material

Durable roofmaterial

Sufficient living
area

Fixed telephone

Mobiletelephone

Connection toelectricity

Clean cooking
fuel

Tanzania

2004

67.5

85.0

80.4

10.1

22.8

14.5

70.7

51.5

86.7

0.8

31.7

...

39.0

0.9

Tanzania

2007

67.9

86.7

76.2

0.0

28.1

14.8

72.5

70.1

91.3

0.8

3.3

65.5

42.2

1.6

Tanzania

2010

58.5

82.3

60.0

1.4

48.6

29.5

76.7

48.6

93.0

0.8

5.5

80.9

46.9

4.7
2.4

Durable wallmaterial

Country

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Other basic services

Improved water

Durable housing

Connection to
piped water

Sanitation

Year

Water

Tanzania

2011

70.0

91.1

85.5

2.0

71.6

40.9

78.5

91.0

94.5

81.9

2.0

89.4

47.1

Tanzania

2015

61.3

92.3

82.5

1.8

91.0

54.8

81.0

91.8

94.7

80.2

1.2

94.0

55.6

7.6

Togo

2010

55.1

87.3

...

0.4

73.1

28.0

95.2

93.2

97.0

71.1

12.4

86.1

76.0

5.6

Togo

2013

49.5

91.4

89.1

0.1

78.5

28.0

96.6

91.2

98.8

68.0

6.2

92.6

84.1

12.4

Uganda

2001

62.1

89.1

77.4

10.9

19.7

12.1

74.9

64.8

93.9

...

18.6

...

47.6

6.2

Uganda

2006

56.8

90.3

62.6

8.3

64.0

21.0

72.2

58.9

82.4

56.9

3.7

54.5

41.0

1.0

Uganda

2009

50.2

93.9

...

9.5

72.5

...

79.9

78.8

93.4

63.3

6.7

80.6

46.4

2.5

Uganda

2011

67.6

94.0

79.6

9.1

78.2

25.9

79.4

73.6

91.4

62.1

4.8

86.9

54.8

3.8

Uganda

2014

62.4

90.6

84.1

2.8

70.0

31.6

67.4

67.7

91.9

63.8

2.3

89.3

50.9

1.5

Uganda

2016

67.6

91.5

78.1

2.6

70.0

31.8

72.1

73.9

90.3

67.8

3.0

91.2

57.7

2.1

Zambia

2002

82.7

90.4

84.4

46.9

49.0

37.3

80.1

...

...

...

11.3

...

50.2

...

Zambia

2007

76.3

82.2

79.7

28.4

72.0

44.2

84.4

91.0

92.3

63.7

6.4

68.1

52.4

41.5

Zambia

2013

73.3

89.3

83.2

24.9

73.3

39.3

85.7

92.4

92.7

69.5

3.1

91.4

62.9

25.1

Zimbabwe

2005

97.5

99.6

99.0

85.7

98.2

65.1

99.1

99.2

99.6

79.3

24.9

38.8

92.1

88.4

Zimbabwe

2010

76.7

95.6

93.1

76.4

93.8

49.9

97.0

97.8

98.8

76.8

12.1

92.1

84.7

74.3

Zimbabwe

2015

65.0

97.4

93.6

75.5

95.6

52.3

97.2

97.5

99.1

81.5

9.3

97.4

81.3

73.0

Algeria

2012

76.0

94.6

...

91.7

97.7

91.5

22.6

91.7

97.1

74.6

32.8

97.5

99.3

99.8

Egypt

2000

98.8

99.7

81.0

55.1

58.8

57.5

95.1

...

...

93.0

43.6

...

99.4

95.0

Egypt

2003

99.6

99.9

92.1

63.9

64.9

64.8

96.2

...

...

95.8

64.1

...

99.8

98.0

Egypt

2005

98.4

99.9

86.3

67.9

69.5

68.8

97.6

...

...

95.5

73.7

40.1

99.7

98.9

Egypt

2008

98.7

100.0

74.0

74.5

75.8

75.3

98.1

...

...

96.4

63.6

56.4

99.9

...

Egypt

2014

96.8

99.8

88.3

91.7

99.8

98.9

98.7

...

...

92.2

29.4

94.9

99.9

...

Morocco

2004

96.1

98.0

...

98.0

98.6

91.3

92.6

...

...

78.5

67.9

...

94.8

99.1

Sudan

2014

73.0

94.8

68.6

2.1

69.3

57.0

26.8

50.2

52.9

55.9

3.7

88.1

73.0

48.5

Afghanistan

2015

30.4

92.1

74.0

9.9

69.2

55.6

89.6

61.3

29.4

0.5

5.8

94.2

93.0

81.8
33.1

Bangladesh

2004

30.2

97.1

...

...

50.1

...

48.1

70.5

25.2

0.6

18.2

...

77.8

Bangladesh

2007

28.8

99.6

...

8.6

61.2

41.1

56.8

80.0

97.5

68.2

8.0

57.8

82.9

2.9

Bangladesh

2011

43.4

99.5

95.2

10.9

73.8

46.9

67.0

88.3

98.7

75.1

8.5

91.0

90.3

3.8

Bangladesh

2014

29.8

99.6

92.2

10.8

84.4

53.8

66.3

89.8

99.5

75.5

4.5

94.5

90.8

5.2

India

2006

69.5

96.1

85.0

28.1

77.1

54.7

80.0

89.3

92.3

53.0

28.0

38.0

93.1

59.3

India

2016

67.9

97.7

88.7

22.4

85.3

71.2

84.9

92.7

92.7

63.7

7.4

97.2

97.6

79.5

Iran

2006

84.0

92.1

...

98.4

98.4

...

32.5

...

...

90.6

71.6

...

97.7

91.0

Maldives

2009

56.9

99.3

34.1

99.2

99.9

97.5

98.8

98.4

99.6

61.3

48.2

99.6

99.9

99.3

Nepal

2001

52.9

87.0

86.7

57.5

65.4

38.2

58.0

...

...

...

20.7

...

86.4

25.5

Nepal

2006

47.7

90.4

92.3

20.4

77.0

42.5

68.1

79.1

93.9

67.9

31.2

23.6

89.8

43.4

Nepal

2012

53.0

94.9

94.7

26.5

87.8

58.0

76.6

82.6

96.6

81.2

28.6

92.8

96.9

64.1

83.1

11.0

95.8

94.6

44.1

Nepal

2016

50.3

95.9

94.6

11.2

86.3

64.9

50.2

58.5

53.4

Pakistan

2012

58.9

98.7

85.6

68.6

95.1

87.3

91.9

95.8

92.4

42.2

18.8

95.6

99.8

85.2

Kazakhstan

2015

87.4

90.7

...

65.3

99.9

97.6

99.7

93.0

99.5

92.9

79.9

98.4

100.0

99.8

314

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.1: Continued

Country

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Connection to
sewerage

Improved
sanitation

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

Durable floor
material

Durable wallmaterial

Durable roofmaterial

Sufficient living
area

Fixed telephone

Mobiletelephone

Connection toelectricity

Clean cooking
fuel

Other basic services

Improved water

Durable housing

Connection to
piped water

Sanitation

Year

Water

Krygystan

2012

92.1

96.0

94.5

35.5

98.7

91.7

81.2

72.9

76.6

88.2

47.0

97.6

99.8

93.7

Kyrgyztan

2014

96.3

97.7

...

35.3

99.6

94.6

98.8

71.3

99.2

83.6

44.8

99.1

99.9

89.6

Nepal

2014

56.1

93.3

...

19.6

91.3

66.2

68.9

72.6

95.8

83.8

24.1

97.0

96.1

61.8

Pakistan

2014

27.3

87.8

...

40.3

81.6

72.7

82.1

88.3

81.3

54.0

10.9

87.2

90.0

69.5

Palestine

2014

57.0

98.4

...

62.0

99.7

98.5

61.3

99.3

99.9

73.7

36.9

48.7

99.9

1.1

Tajikistan

2005

89.8

93.1

...

55.3

97.5

89.4

86.8

74.4

91.1

82.5

54.7

26.3

94.0

89.3

Turkmenstein

2015

97.7

85.7

...

55.4

100.0

98.2

99.4

99.9

99.8

92.4

87.0

99.2

99.9

100.0

Uzbekistan

2006

98.4

99.8

...

45.9

99.9

97.7

99.0

99.0

98.8

89.5

62.3

22.0

99.7

99.1

Mongolia

2013

43.7

91.7

...

32.6

92.7

64.1

40.1

55.0

67.2

86.2

13.0

93.6

92.4

58.1

Cambodia

2000

35.0

67.0

24.3

35.8

35.8

30.5

35.5

84.4

...

...

18.7

...

62.0

16.0

48.2

3.7

75.8

83.7

36.1

86.0

77.3

96.9

...

26.4

...

98.0

19.8

Cambodia

2004

55.1

64.6

...

75.5

77.9

...

Indonesia

2002

29.3

82.8

72.8

...

83.4

...

Indonesia

2007

28.4

82.1

40.6

...

88.6

77.4

88.7

99.1

98.8

...

63.6

...

98.2

21.5

Indonesia

2012

18.4

63.0

39.5

...

90.7

...

91.2

97.6

98.3

84.7

12.4

93.6

99.3

73.6

Myanmar

2016

11.3

93.3

82.0

0.9

78.9

67.6

54.5

52.3

93.6

67.2

12.9

94.2

92.8

57.7

Philippines

2003

66.7

98.4

92.1

92.2

93.8

...

73.9

...

...

...

54.8

52.2

92.2

...

Philippines

2008

42.9

98.2

89.3

3.5

93.8

75.3

82.3

79.9

95.0

61.9

21.5

83.1

93.8

52.2

Philippines

2013

35.5

98.4

92.6

6.9

94.1

73.8

84.3

80.6

95.7

63.2

13.7

92.4

94.2

56.0

Thailand

2015

39.2

97.5

...

11.2

99.6

97.6

71.8

96.3

99.2

84.8

18.9

70.5

99.3

3.7

Timor Leste

2009

63.2

88.6

85.7

19.9

82.9

65.9

70.3

62.9

93.0

71.0

1.8

75.6

84.4

8.3

Timor Leste

2016

55.8

97.0

94.6

0.0

88.9

76.8

85.0

69.1

95.1

79.1

14.6

97.5

98.4

21.9

Vietnam

2002

76.4

96.9

25.8

82.8

86.5

...

94.8

...

97.5

71.8

58.5

...

99.4

...

Vietnam

2005

63.7

98.3

...

80.8

86.9

83.3

96.2

94.4

98.6

80.5

68.4

...

99.6

67.4

Vietnam

2013

53.4

98.2

98.1

2.1

92.0

89.4

99.1

95.4

99.4

84.5

37.7

97.1

99.9

78.3

Iraq

2018

53.8

76.6

...

0.0

99.6

96.4

98.1

63.5

98.7

99.9

61.0

...

...

...

Jordan

2002

87.8

99.8

...

0.9

91.8

...

100.0

...

...

0.7

59.2

35.9

1.0

99.8

Jordan

2007

71.6

99.7

...

64.6

99.8

96.8

99.9

99.4

...

0.7

38.7

93.5

99.0

99.9

Jordan

2009

61.2

99.8

...

67.4

100.0

98.6

100.0

99.8

...

0.7

25.0

98.7

99.5

99.8

Jordan

2012

52.3

99.8

...

68.7

99.9

99.7

100.0

99.7

99.0

0.8

20.2

99.2

99.5

100.0

Syria

2006

87.6

94.1

...

91.5

94.4

91.3

93.9

92.6

94.5

78.7

75.1

61.5

94.5

94.6

Turkey

2004

68.9

94.6

12.9

91.3

96.9

95.4

87.7

...

...

83.1

81.7

76.4

...

...

Yemen

2006

53.9

74.8

...

39.7

97.2

90.4

82.3

...

...

50.7

54.2

61.6

95.5

95.4

Yemen

2013

42.0

96.7

95.0

64.5

90.6

86.3

94.2

92.4

37.6

56.0

39.1

95.0

98.6

93.9

Armenia

2000

98.1

98.4

40.9

89.7

90.1

84.3

61.8

...

...

...

75.4

...

99.4

90.4

Armenia

2001

96.9

98.0

...

90.7

90.7

...

0.9

26.8

...

...

52.8

Armenia

2005

99.1

99.5

74.4

93.9

99.0

97.6

75.9

...

...

0.9

0.9

0.5

1.0

99.2

Armenia

2010

97.9

99.9

95.1

95.8

98.1

97.0

83.7

98.6

99.2

0.9

91.0

93.4

99.8

99.8

Armenia

2011

95.5

96.9

...

93.8

93.8

...

0.9

78.4

...

...

...

Armenia

2016

98.7

100.0

98.5

95.3

96.7

96.2

88.5

93.7

99.8

0.9

79.3

98.2

100.0

99.7

Azerbaijan

2006

77.6

97.4

76.4

71.0

92.2

82.0

21.2

93.3

98.8

75.6

75.7

67.1

99.7

98.9

Austria

2001

100

100

...

100

100

100

...

...

...

99.72

...

...

...

...

Italy

2001

93.9

99.2

...

...

99.0

...

...

...

...

...

85.8

...

...

...

315

0.1

0.1

Statistical Annex

Table B.1: Continued
Durable housing

Other basic services

...

...

...

...

1.0

89.3

23.3

99.5

99.0

Ukraine

2007

82.0

99.6

...

69.9

99.2

95.8

71.5

96.8

97.8

98.0

70.4

82.4

99.9

97.9
96.4

Clean cooking
fuel

99.68

99.1

Connection toelectricity

...

99.5

Mobiletelephone

...

88.1

Fixed telephone

...

84.7

Durable wallmaterial

...

91.6

Durable floor
material

...

67.1

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

...

...

Improved
sanitation

...

98.9

Connection to
sewerage

...

73.3

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

...

2005

Improved water

2000

Moldova

Connection to
piped water

Switzerland

CountryYear

Sufficient living
area

Sanitation

Durable roofmaterial

Water

Argentina

2001

96.6

99.1

...

46.8

99.1

...

95.8

93.5

95.5

85.3

58.3

27.6

...

Argentina

2011

86.3

98.3

...

...

...

...

97.55

...

...

91.46

55.49

88.64

88.64

...

Barbados

2012

99.1

99.9

30.2

7.0

98.51

95.1

85.14

90.93

98.23

97.83

...

94.85

99.09

99.81

Belize

2006

38.0

99.2

36.1

24.2

96.11

89.9

90.83

88.91

99.44

85.52

45.52

72.32

98.44

95.11

Belize

2011

26.3

99.5

99.8

22.7

98.34

92.9

70.71

90.12

98.48

89.19

29.83

94.35

96.94

96.51

Belize

2015

21.9

97.4

97.4

19.3

96.75

92.9

74.67

87.32

98.96

89.21

17.21

97.6

97.36

95.27

Bolivia

2000

91.7

95.9

26.5

68.8

78.37

...

99.16

...

...

62.97

...

...

...

...

Bolivia

2001

85.8

94.7

...

81.3

81.3

...

36.9

...

...

86.2

Bolivia

2004

89.6

93.2

43.7

56.9

56.9

17.0

85.3

61.9

40.1

62.2

29.5

35.8

93.8

90.1

Bolivia

2008

93.8

96.9

29.5

55.2

79.7

56.0

75.1

96.2

97.8

68.6

30.6

80.2

97.6

94.1

Colombia

2000

97.8

98.5

59.7

89.0

95.5

79.0

94.5

...

...

82.7

67.1

...

99.4

94.4

...

95.1

Colombia

2005

91.9

98.1

31.1

91.0

97.8

12.7

58.7

92.5

Colombia

2005

89.5

95.1

...

95.4

100.0

...

95.3

91.6

Colombia

2010

91.9

98.3

45.0

90.6

98.0

89.0

61.0

93.4

...

95.0

...

Colombia

2015

89.7

98.7

61.6

92.9

98.6

92.7

70.8

Costa Rica

2000

98.0

99.1

...

34.7

97.9

...

98.2

Costa Rica

2011

99.5

99.7

99.7

31.5

97.19

95.1

93.71

91.19

Costa Rica

2011

...

98.9

...

26.5

96.9

...

98.3

64.2

Cuba

2006

82.5

98.3

44.5

52.8

97.06

92.7

...

Cuba

2010

84.6

98.6

91.5

56.7

96.24

92.9

...

Cuba

2014

86.4

98.1

86.6

58.8

95.8

91.6

Dominican Republic

2000

34.6

98.0

98.0

74.6

81.0

Dominican Republic

2002

28.7

98.8

80.2

70.4

Dominican Republic

2007

18.5

99.4

98.0

78.3

Dominican Republic

2013

7.0

99.2

90.5

84.0

69.5

...

99.4

92.1

66.0

...

98.3

9.4

88.4

51.4

...

99.4

96.5

93.5

47.1

97.8

99.8

98.5

98.6

...

...

99.2

96.1

97.43

94.66

62.31

94.44

99.74

98.84

98.8

98.9

62.7

92.8

99.4

60.7

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

68.8

97.9

92.5

99.5

81.0

...

...

99.4

1.6

89.0

81.9

97.1

94.9

39.3

80.7

50.0

...

98.9

95.4

96.1

86.8

98.3

95.7

47.0

86.2

36.0

78.2

98.9

95.0

82.6

96.5

86.4

98.0

95.3

47.0

86.3

...

93.4

99.5

93.2
95.4

Dominican Republic

2014

6.4

98.4

44.8

27.8

94.7

84.1

98.5

92.5

99.5

88.9

32.9

95.0

99.0

El Salvador

2007

91.7

98.1

...

56.1

62.7

...

86.8

92.5

65.9

80.9

49.8

69.1

94.9

2.7

El Salvador

2014

68.1

99.2

85.5

53.8

99.02

89.8

91.51

91.26

99.59

82.52

37.73

96.82

98.22

91.28

Guatemala

2002

89.0

96.6

...

69.2

94.4

...

84.6

85.5

98.8

70.8

...

...

94.5

3.6

Guatemala

2014

49.5

99.4

80.4

73.4

89.9

78.9

86.3

84.8

99.6

0.7

20.2

93.6

96.5

62.2

Guyana

2000

72.8

84.6

9.4

71.4

72.34

...

...

...

...

76.77

...

...

...

54.88

Guyana

2005

45.8

99.4

99.2

8.7

94.8

82.6

76.2

83.0

98.9

79.5

59.1

71.2

81.4

68.1

Guyana

2006

55.1

98.0

90.7

8.7

99.4

89.4

88.21

94.19

99.52

79.71

57.02

71.48

81.76

98.12

Guyana

2009

30.4

98.6

71.6

11.7

96.1

90.7

73.2

95.7

96.0

85.4

78.2

90.8

90.2

75.9

Guyana

2014

34.0

99.0

48.9

7.4

97.84

91.0

87.71

53.95

99.7

86.45

72.58

95.95

93.75

80.73

Haiti

2000

82.3

90.4

82.9

8.8

76.0

33.4

87.6

...

...

...

11.6

...

82.3

4.6

Haiti

2003

27.5

88.8

...

10.6

84.4

...

86.8

90.9

98.4

69.1

15.6

...

57.9

0.1

Haiti

2006

51.9

93.1

81.8

3.0

51.0

27.8

89.6

92.4

99.1

61.0

10.3

37.5

69.2

5.7

Haiti

2012

36.3

94.2

85.7

2.0

82.3

38.8

86.5

85.6

93.6

59.3

3.7

92.8

72.7

6.1

316

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.1: Continued

Country

Access to basic
drinking water
servicesa

Connection to
sewerage

Improved
sanitation

Access to basic
sanitation
servicesb

Durable floor
material

Durable wallmaterial

Durable roofmaterial

Sufficient living
area

Fixed telephone

Mobiletelephone

Connection toelectricity

Clean cooking
fuel

Other basic services

Improved water

Durable housing

Connection to
piped water

Sanitation

Year

Water

Haiti

2017

25.3

98.4

90.8

0.6

79.5

47.0

90.2

91.5

96.6

66.2

1.2

92.3

76.4

8.7

Hondurus

2005

50.6

96.6

46.8

57.0

87.7

77.1

47.0

74.7

99.2

69.5

44.5

54.4

...

65.0

Hondurus

2012

39.7

98.4

50.5

60.3

91.3

80.1

50.3

76.4

99.0

75.8

35.0

93.2

...

68.1

Jamaica

2000

82.5

82.5

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

88.87

...

...

...

...

Jamaica

2005

85.5

95.9

40.2

10.7

97.21

83.2

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Jamaica

2011

88.1

99.2

77.2

14.5

98.58

87.8

88.81

85.92

99.55

90.7

23.58

97.61

95.48

89.66

Nicaragua

2001

90.3

95.9

95.1

29.2

71.8

66.9

67.4

61.7

98.9

54.3

19.3

11.8

94.3

56.1

Panama

2013

98.1

99.9

88.6

45.4

95.98

88.3

95.76

99.86

99.98

86.14

39.12

95.81

98.5

...

Paraguay

2016

71.6

98.6

71.5

14.8

95.67

91.8

93.12

94.55

99.29

87.65

23.86

98.44

99.89

82.84

Peru

2000

88.0

94.3

93.3

75.8

83.7

76.5

72.3

66.4

55.1

74.0

37.7

...

93.1

59.7

Peru

2004

92.4

95.2

93.6

83.9

89.6

78.6

78.4

74.1

90.7

78.9

46.4

...

96.5

74.6

Peru

2007

81.6

90.6

...

...

89.5

...

49.2

84.9

...

0.9

39.2

54.3

89.4

73.5

Peru

2012

86.6

95.5

94.5

80.5

89.6

80.0

79.3

70.7

92.2

0.8

39.3

92.5

98.4

86.8

Saint Lucia

2012

75.6

99.8

86.2

11.0

93.15

89.09

86.04

68.09

99.41

95.96

46.45

94.31

96.39

96.85

Suriname

2000

91.2

98.2

2.5

84.3

99.08

79.7

99.28

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Suriname

2006

81.5

98.2

12.6

0.6

97.95

89.86

82.96

97.92

99.28

88.55

46.47

81.49

95.22

89.74
93.67

Suriname

2010

81.3

99.1

49.1

1.7

97.79

87.67

85.85

98.21

99.55

90.1

42.66

96.51

97.28

Trinidad and Tobago

2000

83.0

92.7

9.4

31.3

71.04

62.92

...

96.78

...

89.02

...

...

...

...

Trinidad and Tobago

2006

83.4

95.7

35.1

19.2

98.67

92.07

80.18

92.07

99.48

94.44

67.52

91.22

97.47

99.6

Uruguay

2013

94.3

99.9

93.8

59.5

98.37

94.38

95.85

94.78

98.12

93.87

66.22

94.83

98.96

99.81

Venezuela

2000

87.3

93.0

92.1

69.2

87.86

90.87

99.96

96.51

99.53

80.18

...

...

...

97.15

Canada

2001

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

99.97

...

...

...

...

USA

2000

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

95.32

...

97.64

...

...

USA

2005

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

98.38

...

95.55

...

...

USA

2010

100

100

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

98.37

...

97.89

...

...

Fiji

2007

97.2

98.7

...

0

99.6

...

0

73.4

0

87.6

52.5

81.9

93.3

0.0

Notes:a Access to basic drinking water services (Improved water source is available with collection time no more than 30 minutes for a round trip)b Access to basic sanitation services (improved facilities not shared with other households)

Source: United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2020

317

Statistical Annex

Table B.3: Regional Slum Estimates, 1990 - 2018

1995

2000

2005

2007

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

1990

1995

2000

2005

2007

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

World

Slum Population (thousands)a1990

Slum proportion

43.3

40.4

28.0

25.9

25.2

24.4

24.1

23

23.5

24.0

723,023

779,678

817,221853,740

945,943925,965

940,120928,063

1,003,083

1,033,545

Australia and New
ZealandEurope andNorthern America

0.03

0.01

0.01

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

7

8

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

-

-

764

787

815

820

824

833

842

1,022

Northern Africa andWestern Asia

28.4

25.0

23.0

19.8

19.6

19.4

19.0

22

22.6

25.6

44,19444,701

46,33545,21751,27552,061

52,35463,81471,72083,052Latin America andthe Caribbean

33.7

31.5

29.0

25.7

25.0

23.9

23.5

21

20.8

20.9

106,118

112,253

115,148111,311117,263

113,942

113,790

104,652

112,602114,207

Eastern and SouthEastern Asia

46.6

42.7

38.0

33.8

31.8

30.0

29.6

28

28.0

27.2

284,293

307,593

317,123

332,067

360,326

348,756

352,708

349,409364,684

369,967

Central andSouthern Asia

57.1

51.7

46.0

40.3

38.3

35.3

35.0

32

32.3

31.2

193,216

201,838

205,661

206,888

224,040

212,024

214,952

206,704

223,643

226,780

Oceania (excluding
Australia and New
Zealand)

24.1

24.1

24.0

24.1

24.2

24.1

24.1

24

23.6

23.7

386

430

468

514

565

572

583

602

648

670

Sub-Saharan Africa

70.0

67.6

65.0

63.2

62.7

62.1

61.7

56

55.6

56.2

94,816112,864

131,716

156,950

191,653

197,782

204,901

202,042

228,936

237,840

Note:a Slum population calculated based on World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision

Source: United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2020

318

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.4: Urban Population Living in Slums in Selected Countries, 1990-2018
Country

Proprotion of urban population living in slum area
1990

Urban Slum Population (thousands)a

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

2016

2018

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

2016

2018

Sub Saharan Africa
Angola

...

...

86.5

86.5

65.8

55.5

48.4

47.0

7,123

9,471

9,197

9,372

8,947

9,476

Benin

79.3

76.8

74.3

71.8

69.8

61.5

59.6

59.2

1,361

1,667

1,956

2,324

2,767

2,857

2,993

3,216

Burkina

78.8

72.4

65.9

59.5

...

65.8

58.5

56.6

960

1,105

1,366

1,720

3,117

3,071

3,283

Burundi

...

...

...

64.3

...

57.9

48.6

50.5

447

674

634

738

Cameroon

50.8

49.6

48.4

47.4

46.1

37.8

27.1

24.6

Central African Republic

87.5

89.7

91.9

94.1

95.9

93.3

97.5

Chad

98.9

96.4

93.9

91.3

89.3

88.2

87.0

Comoros

65.4

65.4

65.4

68.9

...

69.6

Congo

...

...

...

53.4

49.9

Cote d’Ivoire

2,362

2,843

3,364

4,008

4,751

4,533

3,499

3,422

98.5

947

1,119

1,299

1,479

1,660

1,683

1,819

1,930

86.6

1,227

1,449

1,695

2,005

2,334

2,678

2,851

3,065

69.6

69.6

75

88

100

118

150

159

168

46.9

48.0

47.3

53.4

54.3

55.3

56.2

57.0

56.0

59.2

61.1

Djibout

...

...

...

...

...

65.6

65.6

65.6

Democratic Republic of Congo

...

...

...

76.4

61.7

74.8

79.1

80.4

Equatorial Guinea

2,575

3,254

3,979

1,211

1,385

1,487

1,624

1,708

4,662

5,501

6,188

6,995

7,733

463

480

496

15,93023,26026,98830,018

524

575

626

11,597

13,67013,413

14,775674

15,678

...

...

...

66.3

...

66.2

66.1

66.1

Ethiopia

95.5

95.5

88.6

81.8

76.4

73.9

65.9

66.2

Gabon

...

...

...

38.7

...

37.0

36.6

36.5

448

608

641

Gambia

...

...

...

45.4

...

34.8

26.0

24.3

341

391

318

322

Ghana

65.5

58.8

52.1

45.4

40.1

37.9

30.4

29.2

3,490

3,955

4,335

4,630

5,457

4,696

4,826

Guinea

80.4

68.8

57.3

45.7

...

43.3

49.2

50.7

1,361

1,597

1,557

1,427

1,781

2,162

2,392

...

...

...

83.1

...

82.3

78.9

78.2

438

592

609

647

Kenya

54.9

54.8

54.8

54.8

54.7

56.0

46.5

46.1

6,500

5,887

6,354

Lesotho

...

...

...

35.1

53.7

50.8

59.7

61.9

Liberia

...

...

...

...

68.3

65.7

70.3

66.6

Madagascar

93.0

88.6

84.1

80.6

76.2

77.2

67.7

73.3

2,541

3,078

3,598

Malawi

66.4

66.4

66.4

66.4

68.9

66.7

67.0

66.9

724

873

1,104

Mali

94.2

84.8

75.4

65.9

65.9

56.3

47.0

46.0

1,860

2,078

Guinea Bissau

290
5,794

2,151

7,565

2,739

8,693

3,429

9,855

4,279
152

4,983

5,335
272

289

359

394

1,289

1,425

1,630

1,654

4,259

5,148

6,289

6,042

7,164

1,303

1,626

1,837

1,999

2,172

2,344

2,706

3,578

3,743

3,451

3,720

Mauritania

...

...

...

...

...

79.9

79.5

79.5

1,630

1,777

1,936

Mozambique

75.6

76.9

78.2

79.5

80.5

80.3

76.7

76.9

2,505

3,333

4,112

4,990

6,208

7,403

7,719

8,444

Namibia

34.4

34.1

33.9

33.9

33.5

39.4

42.3

42.8

134

169

209

252

303

428

503

554

Niger

83.6

83.1

82.6

82.1

81.7

70.1

61.8

61.1

1,030

1,242

1,518

1,816

2,176

2,176

2,081

2,238

Nigeria

77.3

73.5

69.6

65.8

62.7

50.2

53.9

53.3

21,85925,55429,67535,70643,227

41,61848,78852,605

Rwanda

96.0

87.9

79.7

71.6

65.1

53.2

45.5

44.1

376

513

955

1,089

1,129

1,024

925

949

...

...

...

...

...

86.6

86.6

86.6

115

123

132

70.6

59.8

48.9

43.3

38.8

39.4

29.5

28.4

2,604

2,102

2,185

...

...

...

1,936

Sao Tome & principe
SenegalSierra Leone
Somalia

2,075

2,071

1,950

2,033

2,195

97.0

...

75.6

59.8

59.6

2,026

2,164

1,824

73.5

73.6

73.6

73.6

73.6

2,778

3,488

4,245

4,618

5,025

8,342

7,382

8,067

9,639

10,0592,467South Africa

46.2

39.7

33.2

28.7

23.0

23.0

26.3

26.4

9,030

9,104

8,637

Sudan South

...

...

...

...

...

95.6

97.3

97.3

2,053

2,272

Swaziland

...

...

...

...

...

32.7

32.7

32.7

98

103

108

Tanzania

77.4

73.7

70.1

66.4

63.5

50.7

41.7

40.2

8,184

7,484

8,021

3,720

4,537

5,343

6,504

8,230

Togo

...

...

...

62.1

...

51.2

53.0

53.3

1,465

1,639

1,776

Uganda

75.0

75.0

75.0

66.7

60.1

53.6

47.5

46.0

1,449

1,980

2,666

1,242
3,230

3,949

4,476

4,460

4,838

Zambia

57.0

57.1

57.2

57.2

57.3

54.0

63.3

63.3

1,804

1,936

2,096

2,545

3,124

3,491

4,458

4,853

Zimbabwe

4.0

3.7

3.3

17.9

24.1

25.1

28.3

29.0

118

133

137

790

1,129

1,257

1,475

1,579

264

172

152

12,525

10,680

8,415

5,649

4,740

4,169

1,672

1,296

774

781

Western Asia & Northern Africa
Armenia

...

...

...

...

...

14.4

9.3

8.2

Egypt

50.2

39.2

28.1

17.1

13.1

10.6

4.1

3.1

34.1

34.1

Georgia319

Statistical Annex

Table B.4: Continued
Country
Iraq

Proprotion of urban population living in slum area

Urban Slum Population (thousands)a

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

2016

2018

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

2016

2018

16.9

16.9

16.9

52.8

52.8

47.2

46.4

46.4

2,059

2,350

2,730

9,806

11,224

11,526

12,10912,865

Jordan

...

...

...

15.8

19.6

12.9

21.1

20.7

718

1,212

1,023

1,807

1,862

Morocco

37.4

35.2

24.2

13.1

13.1

13.1

10.1

9.0

4,503

4,927

3,716

2,206

2,463

2,709

2,186

2,042

39.3

20.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,424

787

11,646

12,644

13,470

1,909

1,494

1,369

604

624

643

14,073

4,769

4,320

5,452

5,511

5,937

Palestine
Sudan

...

...

...

...

...

91.6

93.6

93.7

Syria

...

...

...

10.5

...

19.3

15.3

13.8

Tunisia

...

...

...

...

...

8.0

8.0

8.0

Turkey

...

...

...

26.0

27.0

25.0

8.1

7.0

11,977

Yemen

...

...

...

67.2

...

60.8

56.4

56.0

4,002

1,033

13,831

Eastern Asia and South-Eastern Asia
Cambodia

...

...

...

78.9

...

55.1

47.7

45.6

Indonesia

50.8

42.6

34.4

26.3

23.0

21.8

30.9

30.4

Lao PDR

...

...

...

79.3

...

31.4

20.8

18.5

Mongolia

68.5

66.7

64.9

57.9

...

42.7

38.3

37.1

Myanmar

...

...

...

45.6

...

41.0

56.6

57.1

Philippines

54.3

50.8

47.2

43.7

40.9

38.3

43.5

44.3

Thailand

...

...

...

26.0

27.0

25.0

24.6

24.5

34.0

30.1

Timor Leste
Viet Nam

60.5

54.6

48.8

41.3

35.2

27.2

14.4

13.5

2,008
28,18830,28130,597

853

871

889

15,812

16,513

16,998

1,833

1,697

1,733

29,27543,59344,859

1,240

671

473

451

914

850

792

792

6,178

6,312

9,012

9,404

27,347

27,822

17,23317,363

17,672

20,884

22,144

6,364

7,958

8,029

8,222

8,471

8,360

9,107

9,544

9,499

9,473

8,336

129

122

4,683

4,670

Central Asia and Southern Asia
Afghanstan

...

...

...

...

...

62.7

71.3

73.5

5,050

6,180

6,813

Bangladesh

87.3

84.7

77.8

70.8

61.6

55.1

49.4

47.6

18,366

21,811

24,13427,22528,55029,45428,25429,025

India

54.9

48.2

41.5

34.8

29.4

24.0

122,141

123,237

120,910116,324

111,937

100,560

35.4

34.8

155,434

160,330

Iran

23.9

23.9

14,175

14,681

Kazakhstan

16.1

10.5

1,658

1,112

Kyrgystan

9.7

8.5

208

189

Maldives

32.1

32.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

54

57

Nepal

70.6

67.3

64.0

60.7

58.1

54.3

51.0

49.3

1,172

1,567

2,035

2,358

2,631

2,796

2,799

2,882

Pakistan

51.0

49.8

48.7

47.5

46.6

45.5

16,792

19,487

22,23524,843

27,79630,24028,531

27,95440.8

38.0

Tajikistan

26.0

23.6

611

583

Uzbekistan

52.2

58.5

8,314

9,556

6,559

5,891

6,022

17

8

6

Latin America and The Carbbean
30.5

31.7

32.9

26.2

20.8

16.7

14.7

14.7

BelizeArgentina

...

...

...

...

...

10.8

5.1

3.5

Bolivia

62.2

58.2

54.3

50.4

47.3

43.5

49.5

49.9

2,369

2,607

2,799

2,951

3,114

3,126

3,708

3,882

Brazil

36.7

34.1

31.5

29.0

26.9

22.3

16.3

15.2

40,46842,94944,88944,87844,711

38,93329,082

27,826

Colombia

31.2

26.8

22.3

17.9

14.3

13.1

28.1

28.5

7,433

7,197

6,675

5,890

5,137

4,972

10,941

11,383

Costa Rica

...

...

...

10.9

...

5.5

3.9

3.6

199

148

141

6.6

6.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

583

584

1,106

1,111

1,110

1,093

1,081

Cuba
Dominican Republic

8,683

9,780

10,868

9,234

7,802

304

27.9

24.4

21.0

17.6

14.8

12.1

14.8

14.3

978

1,249

1,260

Ecuador

...

...

...

21.5

...

36.0

20.3

17.1

1,822

3,622

2,117

1,839

El Salvador

...

...

...

28.9

...

28.9

22.4

19.8

1,074

1,250

1,002

915

Guatemala

58.6

53.3

48.1

42.9

38.7

34.5

31.0

31.0

2,727

2,587

2,729

2,278

2,424

2,541

2,635

2,741

70

66

67

67

68

1,891

2,380

2,843

2,769

3,330

4,047

3,819

4,777
2,179

Guyana

...

...

...

33.7

33.2

33.1

32.6

32.5

Haiti

93.4

93.4

93.4

70.1

70.1

74.4

65.9

77.8

Honduras

...

...

...

34.9

...

27.5

40.4

40.5

1,250

1,321

2,054

Jamaica

...

...

...

60.5

...

60.5

59.8

59.6

877

945

950

962

Mexico

23.1

21.5

19.9

14.4

...

11.1

16.0

15.1

11,91910,892

16,28115,80314,082

14,835

15,125320

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table B.4: Continued
Country
Nicaragua

Proprotion of urban population living in slum area

Urban Slum Population (thousands)a

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

2016

2018

1990

1995

2000

2005

89.1

74.5

60.0

45.5

...

45.5

43.2

41.8

1,960

1,872

1,665

1,368

2010

2014

2016

2018

1,579

1,542

1,537

488

669

596

601

9,987

9,604

8,746

7,479

8,175

8,320

8,396

Panama

...

...

...

23.0

...

25.8

22.1

21.3

Peru

66.4

56.3

46.2

36.1

...

34.2

33.8

33.1

Saint Lucia

...

...

...

11.9

...

11.9

11.9

11.9

4

4

4

4

Suriname

...

...

...

3.9

...

7.3

5.9

5.5

13

26

22

21

Trinidad & Tobago

...

...

...

24.7

...

24.7

5.4

1.9

176

179

39

14

Venezuela

...

...

...

32.0

...

32.0

34.9

35.8

7,538

8,670

9,703

10,218

Albania

13.2

13.2

226

234

Austria

6.1

6.1

308

311

Belarus

45.2

45.2

3,328

3,358

Bosnia and herzegovina

7.6

8.3

128

140

Greece

3.0

3.0

263

264

Hungary

13.6

13.6

939

940

Ireland

1.1

1.1

33

33

Italy

7.2

7.2

2,989

3,007

Northern America and Europe

Macedonia

8.3

6.4

99

77

Moldova

63.5

70.4

1,095

1,213

Montenegro

27.1

27.1

113

114

Portugal

3.6

3.6

239

242

Romania

14.4

14.4

1,535

1,523
177

Serbia

3.6

3.6

177

Slovenia

3.7

3.7

42

42

Spain

7.8

7.8

2,886

2,907

Ukraine

19.0

18.0

5,839

5,497

10.8

10.8

5

55

Oceania
Fiji
Notes:a Slum population calculated based on World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision

Source: United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2020

321

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Spatial Urbanization Indicators in Selected Cities, 2000-2015
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Australia

HobartCity

0.43

1.50

0.287

574

489

6.69

Australia

Cessnock

0.55

1.52

0.363

736

637

8.61
10.40

Australia

Cairns

0.66

1.52

0.435

491

432

Australia

Sydney

1.19

1.61

0.737

276

260

18.11

Australia

Shepparton

1.28

1.57

0.817

691

662

21.19
20.51

Australia

Melbourne

1.24

1.51

0.821

441

424

Australia

Darwin

1.28

1.53

0.836

523

503

21.16

Australia

Laucenston

1.36

1.51

0.901

589

576

22.71

Australia

Gold Coast

1.48

1.52

0.974

471

468

24.87

Australia

Canberra

1.60

1.50

1.064

433

439

27.11

Australia

Bunbury

1.54

1.43

1.074

709

721

26.00

Australia

Wollogong

1.80

1.50

1.196

482

503

30.94

Australia

Muswellbrook

1.72

1.28

1.342

605

646

29.42

Australia

Adeliade

2.11

1.51

1.400

405

444

37.31

Australia

Geelong

2.25

1.52

1.482

453

506

40.16
46.90

Australia

Kingaroy

2.56

1.56

1.646

831

966

Australia

Brisbane

2.59

1.51

1.714

273

321

47.41

Australia

Alice Spring

2.68

1.47

1.825

433

519

49.45

Australia

Perth

3.06

1.52

2.017

357

450

58.27

New Zealand

Auckland

0.84

1.50

0.559

301

272

13.40

New Zealand

Wellington

0.75

1.21

0.619

228

213

11.94

New Zealand

Palmerston

0.59

0.78

0.751

396

384

9.20

New ZealandLowerHutt

0.50

0.42

1.214

352

356

7.86

New Zealand

Tauranga

2.35

1.77

1.328

308

336

42.23
21.07

New ZealandNapier

1.27

0.82

1.552

397

425

New ZealandHamilton

3.28

1.64

2.002

341

436

63.51

New ZealandDunedin

1.49

0.54

2.780

375

433

25.04

New Zealand

Christ Church

1.83

0.06

30.474

315

411

31.66

Afghanistan

Kabul

2.85

4.15

0.688

62

51

49.11

Afghanistan

Herat

5.40

4.82

1.120

52

56

124.73Afghanistan

Lashkar Bah

5.24

4.38

1.195

72

81

119.31Afghanistan

Charikar

2.83

2.34

1.208

28

30

52.80

Afghanistan

Jalalabad

5.58

3.76

1.486

69

91

131.08Afghanistan

Pol-e Khomri

2.94

1.64

1.799

46

57

55.50

Afghanistan

Kandahar

6.22

3.42

1.818

65

100

154.27Afghanistan

Farah

8.46

4.42

1.915

69

127

255.99Afghanistan

Mazar-e Sharif

5.12

2.15

2.381

95

148

115.67213.31Afghanistan

Khanabad

7.61

…

…

11

44

Bangladesh

Dhaka

3.47

3.28

1.060

19

19

68.37

Bangladesh

Rajshahi

3.78

1.42

2.668

53

67

45.90
107.65

Bangladesh

Saidpur

5.62

1.24

4.516

26

45

India

Parbhani

0.73

1.71

0.427

50

44

9.15

India

Sitapur

1.20

1.72

0.694

18

16

18.23

India

Ahmedabad

1.87

1.80

1.035

33

33

27.46

India

Jaipur

2.67

2.02

1.323

49

54

45.39
24.49

India

Mumbai

1.69

1.24

1.362

24

25

India

Vijayawada

0.57

0.40

1.430

37

38

8.37

India

Jalna

1.81

1.17

1.549

35

39

28.87

India

Hyderabad

2.82

1.48

1.901

47

58

52.69

322

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

India

Pune

6.86

3.52

1.948

37

52

98.49

India

Kanpur

1.26

0.55

2.289

36

40

20.76

India

Singrauli

5.46

2.13

2.568

37

52

72.60

India

Coimbatore

2.23

0.78

2.850

53

65

36.70

India

Malegaon

4.85

1.27

3.817

11

18

97.32

India

Kolkata

3.77

0.74

5.082

27

38

51.36
108.02

India

Belgaum

5.23

0.77

6.796

19

35

India

Hindupur

5.78

0.28

20.3821431124.56

India

Kozhikode

6.41

0.17

38.69332

72

130.10Iran

Eshfana

0.76

2.43

0.314

93

73

12.12

Iran

Gorgan

1.31

3.90

0.337

122

85

20.18

Iran

Bandar Abbas

1.28

3.14

0.408

108

82

21.16

Iran

Bojnurd

2.16

2.68

0.805

56

52

38.18

Iran

Shadegan

1.96

2.34

0.838

81

77

34.18

Iran

Qom

4.54

4.21

1.077

82

84

50.44

Iran

Ahvaz

1.91

1.62

1.180

99

103

30.64

Iran

Kashan

2.57

2.00

1.283

162

177

47.03

Iran

Piranshahr

3.82

2.30

1.661

69

87

77.24

Iran

Sanandaj

4.05

2.36

1.718

62

80

83.51

Iran

Kashmar

2.55

1.46

1.741

76

89

46.51

Iran

Babol

3.29

1.46

2.246

125

165

63.76

Iran

Salmas

2.24

0.95

2.353

70

85

39.97

Iran

Aradabil

2.70

1.07

2.512

55

70

49.88
30.28

Iran

Arak

1.76

0.20

8.692

59

75

Iran

Sari

1.74

0.11

16.270

109

139

29.88

Iran

Tehran

1.97

...

…

60

65

21.80

Iran

Dehdasht

4.02

...

…

22

73

82.81

Kazakhstan

Shymkent

3.33

4.22

0.791

227

202

54.26

Kazakhstan

Astana (Nur-Sultan)

4.46

5.08

0.878

122

112

95.35

Kazakhstan

Aktobe

3.18

3.29

0.967

151

149

61.11

Kazakhstan

Almaty

3.22

2.46

1.308

119

133

61.98

Kazakhstan

Oskemen

1.79

...

…

120

166

30.75

Kazakhstan

Pavlodar

1.90

...

…

113

140

33.05

Kazakhstan

Qaragandy

1.48

...

…

151

175

24.87

Kazakhstan

Semei

3.33

...

…

151

215

64.71

Kazakhstan

Taraz

3.38

...

…

142

209

65.92

Nepal

Pokhara

1.95

...

…

50

72

28.94

Pakistan

Sialkot

1.06

1.96

0.542

53

47

15.99

Pakistan

Mardan

1.30

2.08

0.625

57

51

21.52

Pakistan

Hyderabad

1.34

1.91

0.698

37

34

22.19
25.09

Pakistan

Karachi

1.72

2.23

0.772

31

29

Pakistan

Gujranwala

1.66

2.06

0.807

52

49

28.35

PakistanPeshawar

1.91

1.78

1.075

96

97

33.20

Pakistan

Daska

1.87

1.67

1.123

36

37

32.37

Pakistan

Shikarpur

1.26

0.84

1.507

34

36

20.79

Pakistan

Lahore

3.25

1.87

1.733

28

34

52.55

Pakistan

Islamadad

4.77

2.56

1.866

59

83

104.67323

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Pakistan

Multan

3.51

1.77

1.981

54

70

69.36

Pakistan

Faisalabad

3.98

1.81

2.196

35

49

81.74

Pakistan

Quetta

4.37

0.67

6.482

78

136

92.69

Pakistan

Khanpur

2.72

0.15

17.584

82

120

50.43

Pakistan

Sargodha

1.90

...

…

51

67

33.08

Pakistan

Jhang

2.27

...

…

70

100

40.47

Pakistan

Layyah

2.57

...

…

121

234

46.96

Pakistan

Turbat

2.26

...

…

30

40

40.46

Pakistan

Nawabshah

2.81

...

…

91

123

52.52

Sri-Lanka

Chilaw, Ferry Street

0.16

0.24

0.686

277

274

2.49

Sri-Lanka

Hambantota

1.28

1.61

0.794

304

290

21.14

Sri-Lanka

Anuradhapura

0.75

0.48

1.564

223

232

11.99

Sri-Lanka

Embilipitiya

2.57

0.95

2.718

210

268

47.07

Sri-Lanka

Jaffna

1.42

0.41

3.505

203

237

23.74

Sri-Lanka

Haputale

2.10

...

…

167

259

36.95

Sri-Lanka

Batticaloa

2.49

...

…

165

242

45.27

Uzbekistan

Nukus

2.43

3.32

0.732

133

116

43.98

Uzbekistan

Kokand

1.06

1.38

0.767

239

228

17.25

Uzbekistan

Qarshi

1.07

1.28

0.834

174

169

17.40

Uzbekistan

Tashkent

0.75

0.55

1.355

179

184

11.01

Uzbekistan

Denau

2.29

1.47

1.556

135

152

40.94

Uzbekistan

Andijan

2.22

1.40

1.586

206

233

39.41

Uzbekistan

Bukhara

2.35

1.31

1.791

313

359

35.74

Uzbekistan

Navoi_Karmana

4.35

0.85

5.117

205

346

92.11

Uzbekistan

Bekobod

2.57

...

…

279

376

47.03

China

Beijing, Beijing

3.11

4.01

0.776

130

117

45.23

China

Shanghai, Shanghai

2.63

3.22

0.817

136

124

48.28

China

Shenzhen, Guangdong

4.06

4.23

0.959

68

66

69.46

China

Zhuji, Zhejiang

1.62

1.29

1.257

361

377

23.39
91.73

China

Haikou, Hainan

5.42

3.41

1.592

51

64

China

Kaiping, Guangdong

1.36

0.85

1.597

78

84

20.93

China

Hong Kong, Hong Kong

0.79

0.49

1.617

21

21

10.81

China

Zhengzhou, Henan

4.18

2.35

1.781

152

199

87.10

China

Guangzhou,
Guangdong

4.32

2.30

1.881

95

126

83.15

China

Jinan, Shandong

2.80

1.33

2.101

106

128

43.93

China

Tianjin, Tianjin

6.46

2.89

2.236

90

143

131.68China

Wuhan, Hubei

4.19

1.65

2.539

85

119

72.46

China

Changzhou, Jingsu

4.83

1.86

2.601

110

167

96.56

China

Chengdu, Sichuan

9.13

3.43

2.663

67

112

127.35China

Hangzhou, Zhejiang

5.90

2.19

2.691

109

177

115.30

China

Yucheng, Zhejiang

2.60

0.94

2.769

148

187

43.89

China

Taipei, Taiwan

3.13

0.95

3.288

58

77

50.17

China

Pingxiang, Jiangxi

1.84

0.50

3.644

161

194

29.38

China

Qingdao, Shandong

7.44

1.49

5.005

81

176

163.15

China

Yanggu, Shandong

3.66

0.58

6.275

167

257

67.01

China

Yulin, Guangxi

5.50

0.67

8.168

105

162

64.02

China

Tangshan, Hebei

4.17

0.50

8.402

140

226

71.92

324

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

China

Changzhi, Hunan

1.77

0.08

20.948

129

164

28.15

China

Anqing, Anhui

7.16

0.19

37.85561

152

153.66

China

Xingping, Shaanxi

5.01

0.05

101.751

69

132

91.88

China

Yiyang, Hunan

4.13

...

…

87

166

78.23

China

Chengguan, Guizhou

5.19

...

…

30

70

96.37

China

Guixi, Chongqing

7.08

...

…

32

99

189.04

China

Xucheng, Jiangsu

10.20

...

…

69

266

276.56

China

Suining, Sichuan

5.73

...

…

24

56

110.56

China

Zunyi, Guizhou

6.85

...

…

32

84

127.39China

Bicheng, Chongqing

11.19

...

…

34

165

328.21China

Gaoyou, Jiangsu

5.54

...

…

90

228

142.47

China

Leshan, Sichuan

4.15

...

…

101

188

71.43

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Sinuiju

0.64

1.12

0.568

34

32

10.03

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Kanggye

1.76

1.36

1.294

28

30

30.15

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Chongjin

1.24

0.47

2.646

36

40

20.53

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Songnim

2.75

0.91

3.027

30

39

50.98

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Ranson

2.79

0.30

9.218

41

59

51.93

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Hamhung

2.57

0.15

16.852

26

38

47.07

Democratic
People’s Republicof Korea (North
Korea)

Pyongyang

0.08

...

…

47

50

1.07

Indonesia

Kendari

3.32

3.48

0.953

124

121

64.48

Indonesia

Jambi

2.95

2.53

1.166

111

118

55.58

Indonesia

Parepare

2.02

1.25

1.608

52

58

32.62

Indonesia

makassar

2.82

1.60

1.767

66

79

52.75

Indonesia

Bandung

3.80

1.50

2.533

48

68

76.69

Indonesia

Medan

3.57

1.16

3.069

76

101

53.57

Indonesia

Purwakarta

4.02

1.25

3.228

62

94

82.82

Indonesia

Garut Kota

2.97

0.75

3.941

26

36

56.20

Indonesia

Subang

5.06

1.20

4.207

49

87

113.75Indonesia

Surabaya

3.20

0.75

4.249

59

85

61.59

Indonesia

Semarang

3.19

0.71

4.493

67

97

61.28
115.05Indonesia

Bengkulu

5.10

0.66

7.764

66

129

Indonesia

BandaAceh

2.61

0.13

20.034

148

215

47.99

Indonesia

Cirebon

6.19

0.18

34.89426

60

138.03

Indonesia

Pekalongan

3.99

...

…

59

112

82.06

Indonesia

Palembang

1.96

...

…

85

113

26.54

Indonesia

Pati

2.78

...

…

69

124

51.75

Indonesia

Pematangtiantar

1.16

...

…

49

67

16.20

325

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)
53.19

Indonesia

Pemalang

2.84

...

…

50

89

Indonesia

Jombang

4.14

...

…

68

124

85.96

Japan

Tokyo

1.73

0.66

2.628

112

130

27.41

Japan

Osaka

0.54

0.09

5.890

108

114

7.28

Japan

Fukuoka

0.82

0.03

25.275

146

161

11.23

Japan

Okayama

0.57

...

…

328

366

8.28

Japan

Yamaguchi

0.32

...

…

406

473

4.97

Malaysia

Ipoh

1.81

1.61

1.126

315

323

24.29

Malaysia

Rawang

2.22

1.80

1.234

234

247

33.44
47.58

Mongolia

Ulaanbaatar

2.99

4.85

0.618

150

118

MyanmarLashio

0.44

3.26

0.134

153

100

6.76

MyanmarMandalay

0.21

1.03

0.203

76

67

3.20

Myanmar

Myitkyina

0.94

3.55

0.265

240

163

15.14

MyanmarTachiliek

0.66

2.15

0.306

179

143

10.34

Myanmar

Yangon

1.58

3.85

0.410

88

62

26.69

MyanmarLoikaw

0.74

1.48

0.501

172

154

11.80

Myanmar

Taunggyi

1.38

2.34

0.589

114

98

22.91

MyanmarPathein

0.67

1.00

0.666

95

91

10.56
51.66

Myanmar

Myeik

3.79

2.67

1.419

35

40

Myanmar

Mawlamyine

0.59

...

…

74

81

9.28

Myanmar

Myede

1.63

...

…

38

49

27.69
14.85

Philippines

Manila

0.99

1.77

0.559

42

38

Philippines

Bacolod

0.71

0.97

0.734

89

86

9.71

Philippines

Cebu City

3.16

3.77

0.839

61

56

55.71

Republic of Korea(South Korea)

Cheonan

2.90

3.07

0.946

185

180

50.14

Republic of Korea(South Korea)

Seoul

2.66

1.11

2.394

69

86

45.07

Republic of Korea(South Korea)

Gwangju

3.13

0.84

3.744

75

106

59.86

Republic of Korea(South Korea)

Jinju

4.75

...

…

172

363

94.41

Republic of Korea(South Korea)

Busan

1.83

...

…

67

88

26.78

Singapore

Singapore

1.18

3.24

0.363

62

50

13.82

Thailand

Bangkok

3.33

3.35

0.994

111

111

59.34

Thailand

ChiangMai

2.86

1.14

2.509

175

226

53.49

Thailand

Chaam

7.04

...

…

221

641

187.68ThailandKhon Kaen

3.31

...

…

145

261

64.21

Thailand

ChiangRai

3.30

...

…

132

225

64.05
138.07

ThailandChumpon

5.78

...

…

71

173

ThailandPhattalung

2.26

...

…

82

138

40.39

VietnamHo Chi Minh City

3.73

3.41

1.094

58

61

81.50

VietnamVinh Long

10.55

...

…

30

131

337.96Cuba

Las Tunas

2.89

0.84

3.431

53

72

54.16

Argentina

Buenos Aires

1.51

1.35

1.112

101

103

21.61

Argentina

Cordoba

1.25

0.48

2.595

151

167

17.67

Bolivia

Cochabamba

2.20

2.42

0.911

152

148

33.15

BrazilPalmas

1.87

5.72

0.327

396

240

27.50

BrazilRibeirao Preto

1.12

1.98

0.565

197

176

15.63

326

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Brazil

Sao Paulo

0.58

0.91

0.643

90

86

8.52

BrazilBelo Horizonte

0.91

1.33

0.684

119

114

9.50

BrazilFlorianopolis

2.13

2.23

0.955

154

152

34.79

BrazilCuritiba

1.99

1.27

1.574

143

159

32.19

BrazilJequie

0.69

0.28

2.522

173

183

9.45

BrazilIlheus

1.36

...

…

81

127

17.69
20.97

Chile

Santiago

1.36

1.10

1.231

90

93

Costa Rica

Liberia

2.65

2.79

0.950

186

182

48.77

Costa Rica

Puerto Limon

1.63

0.94

1.738

138

154

27.77

Costa Rica

Cartago

3.53

1.27

2.773

115

162

69.92

Costa Rica

San Hose

2.62

0.92

2.838

119

154

48.12

Costa Rica

Puntar Arenas_
Barranca

2.19

0.16

13.432

133

181

38.97

Cuba

Holguin

0.25

0.68

0.368

81

77

3.30

Cuba

Bayamo

2.01

0.77

2.615

40

48

35.23

Cuba

Cienfuego

1.28

0.43

2.973

55

63

21.25

Cuba

Guantanamo

1.28

0.43

2.973

55

63

21.25

Cuba

Santa Clara

1.91

0.12

15.287

63

82

33.09

Cuba

Camaguey

2.45

...

…

78

114

44.42

Cuba

LacHabana

1.12

...

…

70

92

18.21

Cuba

Santiago De Cuba

1.16

...

…

64

76

18.92

Ecuador

Quito

4.00

2.17

1.841

76

96

68.19

El Salvador

San Salvador

1.88

...

…

77

104

32.62

Guatemala

Guatemala City

2.27

1.32

1.720

85

96

31.28

MexicoReynosa

2.34

2.87

0.815

190

177

35.48

MexicoTijuana

2.17

1.89

1.146

154

160

35.42

MexicoGuadalajara

2.02

1.18

1.721

93

106

35.49

MexicoCuliacan

2.35

1.34

1.751

130

150

38.95
51.12

MexicoMexico City

2.95

0.54

5.462

57

80

Nicaragua

Leon

1.96

...

…

87

113

21.64

Uruguay

Maldonaldo

1.38

2.67

0.518

387

319

23.05

Uruguay

LasPiedras

0.58

0.32

1.782

196

203

9.03

Uruguay

Tacuarembo

1.51

0.67

2.249

196

222

25.34

Uruguay

Paysandu

2.86

0.62

4.609

181

253

53.54

Uruguay

Salto

2.59

0.55

4.707

144

196

47.53

UruguayMontevideo +CiudadDeLaCosta

0.76

0.13

5.738

154

169

12.06

Uruguay

Melo

2.31

0.25

9.271

131

178

41.38

Uruguay

Mercedes

1.39

...

…

133

167

23.10

Uruguay

Riviera

1.31

...

…

156

205

21.71

Venezuela

Cabimas

1.13

1.66

0.682

192

178

17.18

Venezuela

Caracas

0.58

0.40

1.443

54

55

7.84

Austria

Vienna

0.82

1.00

0.819

185

180

11.27

Belarus

Gomel

0.55

0.38

1.444

175

179

7.44

Belarus

Hrodna

1.73

0.46

3.733

139

169

29.69
106.05Belarus

Minsk

4.82

0.88

5.451

68

122

Belarus

Brest

4.43

0.59

7.499

159

283

94.28

Belarus

Viciebsk

3.51

0.15

23.749

129

213

69.37

327

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)
70.47

Belarus

Kobyrn

3.56

...

…

228

422

BelarusSalihorsk

1.92

...

…

277

413

33.47

Belarus

Polack

6.50

...

…

124

376

164.94230.32Belarus

Mazyr

7.97

...

…

84

291

Belarus

Babrujsk

0.90

...

…

197

239

14.51

Belgium

Antwerp

0.99

0.72

1.386

355

368

13.80

CanadaVictoria

0.82

0.89

0.928

414

411

11.31

CanadaMontreal

0.94

0.83

1.133

258

262

13.07

France

Paris

1.17

0.58

2.014

164

178

17.83

FranceToulousse

3.24

1.18

2.738

249

339

62.56

France

Lyon

1.90

0.53

3.584

179

220

33.04

France

Nimes

0.93

0.25

3.725

266

295

14.90

FranceGrenoble

0.57

0.15

3.760

269

287

8.89

FranceNantes

1.31

0.28

4.718

228

266

21.80

FranceMarseille

1.75

0.34

5.072

200

247

29.96

FranceStrasbourg

1.68

0.14

12.201

162

204

28.70

France

Nice

2.09

0.11

19.066

182

244

36.74

FranceLe Mans

0.37

...

…

305

343

5.28

France

Metz

0.48

...

…

287

316

7.46

FranceBesancon

0.59

...

…

239

266

9.28

France

Lille

0.85

...

…

192

218

13.55
30.37

Germany

Oldenburg

1.89

0.13

14.391

188

241

Germany

Berlin1.82

0.03

52.160

140

177

26.73

Germany

Halle

0.95

...

…

251

292

11.01

GreeceThessaloniki

2.60

0.16

16.396

94

124

33.11

Hungary

Budapest

2.52

0.99

2.556

187

221

31.97

Italy

Milan

3.30

0.76

4.350

213

275

39.08

Italy

Palermo

2.12

...

…

118

158

31.75

Lithuania

Kaunas

0.39

...

…

195

273

5.59

Netherlands

Zwolle

0.90

1.07

0.847

288

281

13.47

Poland

Lomza

1.44

0.40

3.572

439

513

24.17

PolandWarsaw

1.97

0.24

8.081

167

209

29.12
12.07

PolandPoznan0.76

0.03

26.812264

294

PolandMielec

3.06

...

…

168

269

58.31

Poland

Lodz

2.44

...

…

80

133

44.20

PolandLublin

3.95

...

…

75

141

80.95

PolandWroclaw

2.66

...

…

95

145

48.93

Romania

Bucharest

1.28

...

…

127

167

21.11

Romania

Targu Jiu

0.88

...

…

225

352

14.09

Romania

Craiova

0.59

...

…

158

224

9.27

Romania

Falticeni

0.46

...

…

200

274

7.17

Romania

ARad

0.50

...

…

230

313

7.77

Romania

Reghin

0.80

...

…

276

376

12.80

Romania

CampiaTurzii

2.12

...

…

227

368

37.38

Romania

Navodari

0.79

...

…

208

280

12.64

Romania

Mangalia

0.80

...

…

310

416

12.67

RussiaMoscow

1.25

1.34

0.938

142

140

17.72

328

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

RussiaSaint Petersburg

1.14

0.64

1.782

131

141

17.30

RussiaTyumen

1.55

0.55

2.845

197

223

20.46

RussiaAstrakhan

0.68

0.05

14.363

234

254

9.31

RussiaBerezniki

0.55

...

…

299

367

7.36

RussiaDzerzhinsk

0.98

...

…

225

286

10.32

SerbiaNovi Sad

0.71

0.81

0.884

219

216

11.30

SerbiaNovi Pazar

4.55

1.17

3.898

77

129

97.93

Serbia

Borca

3.26

0.80

4.085

92

132

63.14

SerbiaBelgrade

0.95

...

…

98

114

13.14

Serbia

Nis

4.64

...

…

81

165

100.60

SerbiaKragujevac

2.95

...

…

136

225

55.68

SerbiaKikinda

5.72

...

…

141

449

135.79SerbiaZrenjanin

1.92

...

…

186

307

33.39

Spain

Madrid

4.28

2.03

2.110

88

105

40.81

Switzerland

Wetzikon

0.17

1.84

0.092

317

247

2.58

Switzerland

Zurich

0.44

1.17

0.377

210

188

6.86
12.02

Switzerland

Winterhur

0.76

1.39

0.544

249

226

Switzerland

Lausanne

1.05

1.29

0.814

227

220

15.79

Switzerland

Emmen_Lucerne

0.76

0.74

1.032

222

223

12.14

Switzerland

Fribourg

1.70

1.57

1.078

226

231

28.98

Switzerland

Neuchatel

1.03

0.54

1.910

243

261

16.67

Switzerland

Bern

0.50

0.26

1.969

198

206

7.85

Switzerland

St Gallen

2.28

0.45

5.088

174

229

40.70

Switzerland

Basel

1.45

0.23

6.384

206

248

24.24

Ukraine

Rovno

1.50

...

…

163

206

23.41

UkraineNikolaev

0.05

...

…

149

161

0.67

United Kingdom

Manchester

0.32

1.32

0.246

205

189

2.63

United Kingdom

London

0.34

1.22

0.277

171

153

4.48

United Kingdom

Sheffield

0.36

0.67

0.533

240

232

4.03

United States

Gainesville, FL

0.79

1.26

0.625

469

441

10.80

United States

Houston

2.07

2.32

0.893

500

483

33.66

United States

Raleigh

3.12

3.37

0.927

606

587

50.07

United States

Portland, OR

1.38

1.42

0.973

450

448

21.29

United States

Los Angeles

0.61

0.60

1.021

304

304

8.98

United States

New York

0.28

0.27

1.033

407

407

3.11

United States

Killeen

2.54

2.29

1.109

700

723

39.19

United States

Modesto

1.62

1.41

1.152

470

484

25.52
11.66

United States

Minneapolis

0.79

0.65

1.213

532

542

United States

Chicago

0.72

0.31

2.298

557

587

9.86

United States

Philadelphia

1.49

0.35

4.284

441

517

23.17

United States

Springfield, MA

1.18

0.11

10.908

599

696

18.00

United States

Toledo

2.06

...

…

499

697

33.36

United States

Cleveland

2.23

...

…

449

653

33.56

Fiji

Suva

1.20

1.14

1.057

141

143

19.77
100.12

AngolaLuanda

4.96

18.68

0.265

411

60

Benin

Kandy

0.98

5.19

0.190

159

85

15.90

Benin

Parakou

1.22

4.26

0.286

341

216

20.04

329

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

BeninDjougou

0.76

2.32

0.328

187

148

12.11

Benin

Natitingou

1.33

2.09

0.637

151

135

22.06

Benin

Bohicon-Abomey

3.63

2.27

1.600

246

301

72.45

Congo Dem. Rep.

Lubumbashi

3.96

7.08

0.559

118

74

81.13

Congo Dem. Rep.

Kinshasa

3.51

1.00

3.502

43

60

57.77

Ethiopia

Adama Nazreth

2.59

3.20

0.810

97

89

47.51

Ethiopia

Gondar

4.55

2.65

1.721

45

60

98.03

Ethiopia

Addis Ababa

5.16

2.95

1.750

47

59

67.50

Ethiopia

Dire Dawa

4.17

2.28

1.830

39

52

86.85

Ethiopia

Harar

4.81

2.32

2.073

35

50

105.73

Ethiopia

Awassa

8.97

2.95

3.046

37

90

284.25

Ethiopia

BahirDar

6.06

1.86

3.260

26

49

148.19

Ghana

Accra

3.56

3.35

1.062

134

138

64.57

Kenya

Eldoret

1.25

3.43

0.365

137

99

20.70

Kenya

Malaba

1.79

2.09

0.858

91

87

30.83

Kenya

Nairobi

2.73

2.86

0.954

97

95

50.52

Kenya

Kisumu

2.38

1.63

1.454

100

112

42.81

Kenya

Nakuru

4.73

3.23

1.464

81

100

93.80

Kenya

Meru

6.20

1.40

4.424

96

197

153.33

Kenya

Nyeri

7.00

1.07

6.515

58

142

185.62

Madagascar

Mahajanga

0.86

4.95

0.174

222

120

13.79

Madagascar

Marovoay

0.76

2.32

0.329

100

79

12.11

Madagascar

Toliara

1.47

4.21

0.349

638

423

24.68

Madagascar

Antsiranana

3.55

4.35

0.817

360

319

70.44

Madagascar

Taolanaro

1.19

1.18

1.009

101

101

19.47

Madagascar

Antsirabe

2.72

1.71

1.585

295

343

50.27

Madagascar

Antananarivo

8.87

4.66

1.906

62

117

278.50Madagascar

Toamasina

8.42

4.12

2.047

356

679

253.79Madagascar

Amparafaravola

1.53

0.42

3.646

82

96

25.85

Madagascar

Fianarantsoa

3.27

...

…

870

1,439

63.35

Malawi

Mzuzu

2.04

4.28

0.476

266

190

35.76

MalawiBlantyre

4.58

2.52

1.817

79

108

98.72
76.45

Mali

Bamako

4.37

6.43

0.679

80

61

Mozambique

Nacala Porto

0.42

2.46

0.172

207

152

6.56

Mozambique

Alto Molocue

1.11

4.48

0.247

95

57

18.05

Mozambique

Nampula

1.19

4.19

0.285

154

99

19.63

Mozambique

Mocuba

0.80

2.78

0.287

95

71

12.69

Mozambique

Gurue

1.22

2.99

0.408

51

39

20.06

Mozambique

Manhica

1.99

2.79

0.713

240

213

34.80

Mozambique

Maputo

2.07

2.71

0.763

213

193

36.37

Mozambique

Maxixe

1.07

1.18

0.909

339

333

17.45
108.87

Mozambique

Pemba

4.91

4.79

1.025

78

79

Mozambique

Beira

1.49

0.81

1.838

97

107

23.23

Niger

Agadez

5.84

25.16

0.232

1,863

103

140.28

Niger

Maradi

3.36

4.33

0.776

55

47

65.55

Niger

Dosso

2.40

2.29

1.045

18

18

43.28

Niger

Zinder

4.26

3.79

1.124

27

29

89.41

330

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Niger

Niamey

3.71

3.00

1.238

70

78

74.47

Nigeria

Lagos

2.05

2.91

0.705

55

50

30.61

Nigeria

Ibadan

2.19

3.01

0.728

129

116

32.92

Nigeria

Oyo

3.84

2.09

1.836

62

79

71.12
134.03

Nigeria

Gombe

6.54

3.28

1.996

70

107

RwandaRuhengeri

1.66

3.87

0.427

88

67

21.97

RwandaGisenyi

5.17

5.48

0.943

77

74

85.98

RwandaGitarama

3.82

2.85

1.339

40

45

58.07

RwandaKigali

7.73

3.33

2.319

51

99

219.04

RwandaButare

4.42

1.74

2.542

43

64

94.10

RwandaKayonza

7.99

1.71

4.681

35

90

231.43

RwandaCyangugu

2.62

...

…

24

35

48.04

SenegalZiguinchor

0.81

2.59

0.314

120

92

12.96

SenegalDiorbel

1.21

2.54

0.476

64

52

19.86

Senegal

Dakar

1.61

2.81

0.571

63

52

27.25

SenegalSaintLouis

0.47

0.59

0.797

62

61

7.36

SenegalKaolack

2.87

2.75

1.044

62

63

53.74

Senegal

Louga

2.63

2.35

1.122

106

110

48.37

Senegal

MBour

4.21

2.62

1.608

66

84

88.13

Senegal

Touba

9.28

2.82

3.286

53

140

302.11

Senegal

Thies

6.26

1.66

3.776

45

90

155.68

Tanzania

Arusha

5.41

5.12

1.058

41

42

81.35

UgandaKampala

2.84

5.17

0.549

110

83

40.61
40.37

Uganda

Lira

2.26

3.78

0.598

148

118

UgandaMbarara

2.04

2.79

0.732

132

118

35.88

Uganda

Mbale

3.74

3.77

0.992

87

87

75.25

Uganda

Gulu

3.81

3.53

1.080

61

63

77.14

UgandaKasese

2.95

2.50

1.180

87

93

55.71

UgandaMasaka

4.35

3.50

1.242

118

133

92.15

Uganda

Jinja

3.44

1.80

1.906

91

116

67.52

Zambia

Ndola

2.16

3.10

0.695

122

109

29.52

Algeria

Tolga

1.15

2.53

0.454

108

88

18.80

Algeria

Djelfa

3.75

5.52

0.679

76

59

75.53

Algeria

Chlef

1.34

1.59

0.840

124

119

22.21

Algeria

Blida

2.09

2.31

0.904

105

101

36.81

Algeria

El Khroub

4.42

4.61

0.960

95

93

94.13

Algeria

Tebessa

2.18

2.02

1.077

115

118

32.68

Algeria

Algiers

2.85

2.22

1.283

75

81

44.76

Algeria

Oran

3.04

1.87

1.628

72

86

57.83

Algeria

Khemis Miliana

2.45

1.07

2.293

77

95

44.40

Algeria

Tamanrasset

3.90

1.50

2.595

185

265

79.39

Algeria

Tiaret

4.61

1.57

2.929

62

98

99.70
167.89Algeria

M’Sila

6.57

1.91

3.434

65

130

Algeria

Batna

3.96

0.96

4.126

60

94

81.03

Algeria

Mila

4.62

1.07

4.307

68

116

100.09Algeria

Annaba

0.92

0.21

4.307

89

99

14.79

Azerbaijan

Baku

2.03

1.73

1.174

97

101

30.19

331

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Bahrain

Al Manamahi

2.52

4.78

0.528

185

132

45.98

Egypt

Asyut

1.46

2.06

0.710

46

42

24.51

Egypt

Al_Manshah

1.68

1.91

0.880

55

53

28.64

Egypt

Alexandria

2.02

1.72

1.176

48

50

32.67

Egypt

Port Said

2.03

1.68

1.207

32

34

35.52

Egypt

Al_zaqaziq

2.46

1.87

1.314

32

35

44.67

Egypt

Diyarb Najm

3.00

1.95

1.538

56

66

56.95

Egypt

Cairo

4.29

2.57

1.666

42

50

53.53

Egypt

Al_Qhurdaqah

3.86

1.36

2.828

167

243

78.35

Iraq

Baghdad

1.57

1.65

0.950

109

108

24.56

IsraelTel Aviv

1.71

1.99

0.859

134

129

27.03

Jordan

Irbid

2.20

2.86

0.771

130

118

39.19

JordanAmmani

3.28

2.85

1.151

82

88

63.45

KuwaitKuwaitii

2.26

...

…

135

96

40.37

LebanonBeirut

1.74

4.88

0.357

119

74

29.83

LebanonTripoli

2.40

4.30

0.557

211

159

43.28

Lebanon

Zahle

1.98

3.13

0.631

323

272

34.54

LebanonBaalbek

3.39

3.03

1.118

164

173

66.37

Lebanon

Sidon

5.52

4.02

1.372

48

60

128.84

Lebanon

Tyre

5.34

2.02

2.637

37

61

122.73

MoroccoAitemelloul

1.39

2.35

0.593

68

59

23.24

MoroccoTemara

2.15

3.51

0.612

82

67

38.09

MoroccoSidi slimane

1.04

1.53

0.678

76

71

16.84

MoroccoTanger

2.42

2.94

0.823

70

64

43.71

MoroccoMidelt

0.91

1.10

0.826

60

58

14.65

Morocco

Fez

1.45

1.44

1.006

53

53

24.32
36.00

Morocco

Oujda

2.05

1.36

1.506

83

93

Morocco

Safi

0.96

0.59

1.635

59

63

15.45

MoroccoMarrakesh

4.04

2.43

1.663

83

101

62.33

MoroccoCasablancaiii

2.16

1.22

1.769

43

49

38.32

MoroccoMaknes

2.95

1.46

2.020

54

68

55.68

MoroccoSefrou

1.18

0.52

2.295

47

52

19.43

MoroccoFikh Ben Salah

2.70

0.77

3.501

50

67

49.96

Morocco

Azrou

3.35

0.57

5.898

39

59

65.17

MoroccoOulad teima

4.73

0.60

7.889

38

71

103.20
51.06

Oman

Sohar

2.75

5.33

0.516

93

63

Oman

Salalah

3.19

3.18

1.000

146

146

61.24

Oman

Muscativ

6.84

5.03

1.360

79

104

179.02Oman

Al Buryami

2.89

...

…

80

90

54.26

Palestinian
territories

Al-Quds

0.38

1.53

0.249

180

151

5.89

Palestinian
territories

Rafah

3.95

2.97

1.330

74

85

80.84

Palestinian
territories

Jenin

3.46

1.84

1.879

99

126

67.99

Palestinian
territories

Nabulus(Nablus)

5.84

2.56

2.283

60

98

140.27i Including surrounding neighborhoods

ii Includes: Az-zarqa, Ar-Rusayfah, Al-Quwaysimah,Tila al-Ali, Wadi as-sir, Al-Jubayhah, Khraibat as-suq and Sahabiii Includes all the major cities Hawallī, Al-Farwānīyah, Al-Fintās, Al-Jahrā’, Janūb al-Kuwayt, Al-Manqaf, Al-Firdaws and Mubarāk al-Kabīr
iv Includes Mohammedia town

v Includes: Bawashar, Matrah, Aseed (Assib)

332

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

Palestinian
territories

Khān Yūnis (includes
Dayr al Balah )

5.84

2.56

2.283

60

98

140.27

Palestinian
territories

Al-Khalīl

3.44

1.47

2.342

136

183

67.59

Palestinian
territories

An-Nuṣayrāt

8.64

2.95

2.933

36

85

265.52

Qatar

Doha

3.24

8.74

0.371

420

184

62.67

Qatar

Al Shahaniya

6.22

9.46

0.658

567

349

154.19

Qatar

Mesaieed

6.35

8.45

0.752

793

579

159.34

Qatar

AlKhor_AlThakhira

6.69

8.70

0.768

183

136

172.71

Saudi Arabia

Jiddah including Al
Khubar

1.20

2.44

0.492

167

139

19.73

Saudi Arabia

Al-Jubayl

1.34

2.56

0.522

462

385

22.19

Saudi Arabia

Makkah

1.31

2.11

0.623

125

111

21.76
26.01

Saudi Arabia

Al-Ḥawiyah

1.54

2.28

0.676

197

176

Saudi Arabia

Al-Madinah

1.94

2.13

0.909

164

159

33.77

Saudi Arabia

Al-Kharj

2.55

2.60

0.980

188

186

46.64

Saudi Arabia

Ar-Rass

2.68

2.35

1.139

520

546

49.43

Saudi Arabia

Riyadh

5.02

3.60

1.396

132

159

92.08

Saudi Arabia

Tabuk

2.68

1.77

1.514

103

118

49.43

Saudi Arabia

Al-Hufuf

5.30

2.86

1.851

127

183

121.30108.73

Saudi Arabia

Al-Khafji

4.91

2.57

1.911

315

447

Saudi Arabia

Ha’il

3.63

1.87

1.947

182

238

72.41

Saudi Arabia

Rafha’

3.67

1.73

2.127

101

135

73.42
157.57

Saudi Arabia

Ad-Dammam

6.31

2.76

2.287

123

209

Saudi Arabia‘Ar’ar

3.17

1.33

2.375

88

116

60.79

Saudi Arabia

At-Ta’if

6.38

2.24

2.854

60

113

160.48Sudan

Bur Sudan

2.52

4.57

0.551

136

100

45.87

Sudan

Alfashir

4.32

3.57

1.211

62

69

91.14

Sudan

Wad Madani

2.21

1.53

1.444

69

77

39.32

Sudan

Khartoum

3.71

2.46

1.503

77

91

68.01

Sudan

Dunqula

3.13

1.78

1.759

123

151

59.82

Sudan

Atbara

2.83

1.40

2.026

97

120

52.81

Sudan

Kassala

4.05

1.84

2.204

51

71

83.45

Sudan

Sannar

4.38

1.50

2.924

56

87

92.81
125.00Sudan

Sinjah

5.41

1.55

3.478

50

89

Sudan

Al Qadarif

2.77

0.76

3.632

90

122

51.54

Tunisia

Susah

1.15

2.42

0.475

125

104

18.87
20.26

Tunisia

Monastir

1.23

2.38

0.518

149

125

Tunisia

Banzart

0.90

1.38

0.654

144

134

14.51

Tunisia

Tozeur

1.19

1.81

0.657

399

363

19.49

Tunisia

Al_Qayrawan

1.43

1.17

1.228

133

138

24.01

Tunisia

Tunis (includes AtTadamun and Sukrah)

2.46

1.44

1.710

88

102

44.68

Tunisia

Qabis

2.59

1.39

1.859

82

98

47.47

Tunisia

Safaqia

2.31

0.98

2.363

115

140

41.40

TurkeyAnkara

1.47

2.96

0.495

96

77

24.61

Turkey

Agri

0.93

1.69

0.550

145

129

14.91

TurkeyGaziantep

2.87

4.20

0.682

80

65

53.70

TurkeyBalikesir

1.48

2.02

0.731

153

142

24.80

333

Statistical Annex

Table C.1: Continued
Country

CitiesLand Consumption
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Population Growth
Rate 2000 - 2015 (%)

Ratio of Land
consumption rate to
Population growth rate
2000 - 2015

Built-up area percapita 2000 (m2 percapita)Built-up area percapita 2015 (m2 percapita)Change in total
built-up area 2000 2015 (%)

TurkeyDenzili

2.82

3.64

0.775

145

128

52.61

TurkeyKayseri

3.94

4.72

0.834

134

121

66.85

TurkeyElbistan

1.07

1.20

0.896

171

167

17.45

Turkey

Corum

1.92

2.07

0.927

144

141

33.32

Turkey

Konya

3.70

3.96

0.935

257

247

74.21

TurkeySanliurfa

3.98

4.09

0.973

105

103

81.77

Turkey

Bursa

3.85

3.69

1.043

96

98

78.18

TurkeyAntalya

2.44

2.30

1.061

182

186

44.26

TurkeyAdapazari

3.02

2.69

1.124

205

216

57.23

Turkey

Sivas

3.38

2.48

1.362

86

99

65.92

TurkeyIstanbul

4.60

2.97

1.547

60

72

65.85

TurkeyMalatya

1.39

0.58

2.404

108

121

21.41

TurkeyCarasamba

3.80

1.20

3.175

65

96

76.81

TurkeyAdiyaman

7.44

1.42

5.244

49

122

205.19TurkeyUzunköprü

2.99

...

…

183

298

56.67

TurkeyTarsus

2.77

...

…

100

160

51.42

TurkeyViransehir

2.47

...

…

54

92

44.87

Turkey

Izmir

1.83

...

…

67

81

31.62

UAE

Dubaiv

5.01

8.15

0.614

159

99

111.90UAE

Al Ain

3.17

4.92

0.644

202

155

60.88

UAE

Al Fujayrah

6.23

6.52

0.956

189

181

154.57UAE

Ras Al Khaymah

5.16

5.06

1.019

245

248

116.84UAE

Abu Dhabi

10.63

5.25

2.025

96

216

392.57

Yemen

Adan

0.47

2.94

0.161

75

52

7.38

Yemen

Al Hudaydah

1.03

2.71

0.382

59

46

16.78
78.09

Yemen

Yarim

3.85

5.02

0.767

30

25

Yemen

Radaa

1.85

2.39

0.773

55

51

31.93

Yemen

Sana

2.65

2.95

0.900

91

87

44.96

Yemen

Dhamar

5.37

4.46

1.203

62

71

123.62

Yemen

Taizz

3.75

3.04

1.233

37

41

75.54

Yemen

Tarim

3.44

2.49

1.381

65

75

67.51

Yemen

Amran

7.32

1.86

3.943

18

42

200.04v Includes Ajman and Ash Shariqa

Notes:
Land consumption rates are estimated based on classification of Landsat imagery for the years 1990, 2000 and 2015
Population data used to compute the population growth rate is GHS-POP
City/urban area used in the analyis has been generated using a classification approach based on the Urban Extent or the Degree of Urbanization concepts to city definition

Source: United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2020

334

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.3: Open Space Indicators in Selected Cities, 2019
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

Australia

Sydney

2.28

11.22

13.50

33.38

Australia

Wollogong

3.45

9.71

13.16

46.40

Australia

HobartCity

6.92

9.54

16.46

65.09

Australia

Laucenston

7.69

8.62

16.31

71.74

Australia

Adeliade

6.25

12.56

18.80

72.15

Australia

Brisbane

8.02

12.04

20.06

80.55

Australia

Muswellbrook

7.70

7.87

15.57

80.78

Australia

Shepparton

6.49

9.15

15.64

84.08

Australia

Melbourne

8.50

11.87

20.36

84.43

Australia

Alice Spring

7.30

9.63

16.93

85.20

Australia

Perth

7.60

13.56

21.16

85.62

Australia

Bunbury

9.13

9.71

18.84

85.91

Australia

Darwin

7.06

10.12

17.18

86.74

Australia

Gold Coast

12.21

9.32

21.52

88.21

Australia

Geelong

8.86

11.15

20.01

88.86

Australia

Cairns

11.37

9.63

21.00

93.18

Australia

Canberra

14.48

15.19

29.67

97.52

New ZealandDunedin

5.23

15.07

20.30

76.83

New ZealandLowerHutt

4.79

16.18

20.98

78.14

New Zealand

Wellington

9.08

19.21

28.28

82.46

New Zealand

Christ Church

8.71

17.65

26.36

83.37

New Zealand

Tauranga

8.04

15.15

23.18

83.93

New ZealandHamilton

7.69

16.41

24.10

86.43

New Zealand

Palmerston

7.65

13.70

21.35

87.07

New Zealand

Auckland

9.23

16.19

25.43

88.44

New ZealandNapier

8.56

20.28

28.84

90.28

Afghanistan

Kandahar

1.06

11.22

12.28

11.22

Afghanistan

Kabul

0.50

12.95

13.45

13.04

Afghanistan

Herat

2.66

7.30

9.96

20.99

Afghanistan

Mazar-e Sharif

0.78

15.88

16.66

39.08

Afghanistan

Charikar

1.38

16.60

17.98

44.58

Afghanistan

Lashkar Bah

1.58

9.82

11.40

49.16

Afghanistan

Jalalabad

1.71

9.96

11.67

51.29

Afghanistan

Khanabad

2.60

11.04

13.63

59.61

Bangladesh

Saidpur

33.18

7.17

40.36

18.41

Bangladesh

Dhaka

1.26

12.24

13.50

31.38

India

Jaipur

4.37

16.78

21.15

18.51

India

Coimbatore

0.40

11.16

11.56

18.85

India

Singrauli

4.89

8.25

13.15

27.96

India

Ahmedabad

1.13

11.67

12.80

29.38

India

Pune

2.24

12.07

14.32

30.83

India

Mumbai

1.77

11.26

13.04

35.35

India

Belgaum

1.52

11.44

12.96

39.68

India

Hyderabad

1.51

19.42

20.93

40.18

India

Vijayawada

4.22

17.11

21.33

45.74

Iran

Sari

0.81

11.76

12.57

31.17

Iran

Bojnurd

2.36

15.92

18.28

45.19

Iran

Qom

2.28

15.27

17.55

47.50

335

Statistical Annex

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

IranGorgan

1.86

12.34

14.19

49.16

Iran

Eshfana

1.83

16.99

18.82

50.78

Iran

Kashan

2.89

13.26

16.15

51.42

Iran

Salmas

1.83

12.87

14.70

51.88

Iran

Ahvaz

3.11

11.96

15.07

52.33

Iran

Piranshahr

1.36

11.81

13.18

52.48

Iran

Shadegan

0.88

10.61

11.49

53.88

Iran

Sanandaj

3.91

13.55

17.46

54.82

Iran

Bandar Abbas

2.46

19.96

22.43

59.52

Iran

Tehran

4.57

15.50

20.07

61.14

Iran

Dehdasht

1.67

15.19

16.86

64.78

Iran

Arak

5.56

16.77

22.33

67.66

Iran

Kashmar

2.26

13.52

15.77

73.33

Iran

Aradabil

4.06

18.24

22.31

79.45

Kazakhstan

Shymkent

0.98

12.29

13.26

7.35

Kazakhstan

Taraz

1.24

13.60

14.85

10.96

Kazakhstan

Semei

1.47

10.69

12.17

19.84

Kazakhstan

Astana (Nur-Sultan)

4.42

15.13

19.54

26.21

Kazakhstan

Almaty

2.29

13.34

15.62

28.08

Kazakhstan

Oskemen

2.25

12.88

15.13

29.50

Kazakhstan

Qaragandy

3.79

14.44

18.23

35.40

Kazakhstan

Pavlodar

3.45

12.21

15.66

38.94

Kazakhstan

Aktobe

2.95

13.68

16.63

44.82

Nepal

Pokhara

4.65

9.09

13.74

74.46

Pakistan

Sialkot

0.41

10.45

10.86

14.77

Pakistan

Sargodha

1.72

8.31

10.02

28.46

Pakistan

Islamadad

3.55

9.88

13.43

31.27

Pakistan

Faisalabad

1.30

13.02

14.32

34.08

Pakistan

Layyah

1.34

8.82

10.16

37.12

Pakistan

Hyderabad

1.70

14.24

15.94

43.38

Pakistan

Karachi

3.14

15.46

18.60

45.39

Pakistan

Lahore

2.89

16.75

19.64

47.29

Sri-Lanka

Haputale

1.66

10.72

12.38

33.93

Sri-Lanka

Anuradhapura

2.32

9.49

11.81

51.37

Sri-Lanka

Batticaloa

1.69

10.84

12.53

55.75

Uzbekistan

Tashkent

0.56

12.94

13.51

4.20

Uzbekistan

Navoi_Karmana

1.46

8.96

10.42

12.18

Uzbekistan

Nukus

1.13

15.97

17.10

13.28

Uzbekistan

Qarshi

1.43

12.80

14.23

15.89

Uzbekistan

Bukhara

0.94

9.46

10.40

16.47

Uzbekistan

Andijan

0.96

11.31

12.27

17.22

Uzbekistan

Bekobod

4.99

9.94

14.92

54.02
21.94

China

Shenzhen, Guangdong

4.74

13.08

17.83

China

Zunyi, Guizhou

8.23

8.21

16.44

25.37

China

Jinan, Shandong

3.04

8.31

11.35

26.08

China

Beijing, Beijing

3.11

7.21

10.31

26.13

China

Qingdao, Shandong

3.64

8.51

12.15

28.49

China

Kaiping, Guangdong

0.66

9.91

10.57

34.66

336

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

China
China

Taipei, Taiwan

1.63

16.70

18.32

35.07

Hong Kong, Hong Kong

6.51

24.98

31.49

89.11

Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea (North Korea)

Ranson

4.02

5.91

9.94

47.97

Japan

Yamaguchi

4.64

13.40

18.04

35.88

Japan

Okayama

8.28

14.92

23.19

64.02

Japan

Fukuoka

6.10

20.65

26.75

70.07

Japan

Osaka

4.74

22.96

27.70

72.21

Japan

Tokyo

3.49

19.66

23.15

74.82

Malaysia

Rawang

1.71

10.64

12.35

22.36

Malaysia

Ipoh

3.01

7.85

10.85

43.79

Myanmar

Yangon

0.96

11.24

12.20

16.24

Myanmar

Mawlamyine

1.18

10.50

11.68

37.17

Philippines

Cebu City

0.69

14.37

15.06

17.71

Philippines

Manila

1.56

20.68

22.24

28.75

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Cheonan

2.28

10.61

12.89

31.16

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Jinju

3.35

7.65

11.00

38.39

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Busan

5.50

14.79

20.28

48.66

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Seoul

3.03

12.70

15.73

48.75

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

Gwangju

7.05

15.62

22.68

65.37

Singapore

Singapore

7.46

19.42

26.87

70.26

Thailand

Bangkok

0.73

14.20

14.94

11.77

ThailandChumpon

0.53

9.46

9.99

16.45

ThailandKhon Kaen

1.90

14.47

16.36

22.22

Thailand

ChiangRai

1.27

11.37

12.64

22.30

ThailandPhattalung

2.14

12.81

14.95

29.98

Thailand

ChiangMai

1.44

13.38

14.82

37.05

Thailand

Chaam

4.25

8.43

12.68

48.03

VietnamHo Chi Minh City

0.76

13.86

14.62

30.40

Cuba

Las Tunas

1.96

16.68

18.64

38.43

Argentina

Buenos Aires

1.83

21.61

23.45

49.55

Argentina

Cordoba

3.62

20.52

24.14

70.69

Bolivia

Cochabamba

1.80

15.99

17.78

63.62

BrazilBelo Horizonte

5.30

16.55

21.85

41.55

Brazil

Sao Paulo

1.68

17.12

18.80

53.76

BrazilIlheus

2.41

14.14

16.55

54.72

BrazilJequie

0.75

15.67

16.42

60.31

BrazilRibeirao Preto

1.84

17.87

19.71

62.29

BrazilFlorianopolis

4.87

15.36

20.24

76.18

BrazilCuritiba

5.46

14.66

20.12

83.75

BrazilPalmas

8.96

18.39

27.35

93.45

Chile

Santiago

2.22

15.10

17.32

43.47

Colombia

Valledupar

2.21

21.10

23.31

35.44

Colombia

Bogota

6.31

23.01

29.32

87.50

Costa Rica

Cartago

1.77

15.16

16.93

50.60

Costa Rica

Puerto Limon

3.75

16.50

20.25

55.71

Costa Rica

San Hose

1.91

14.90

16.81

59.13

Costa Rica

Liberia

2.37

17.90

20.27

70.86

337

Statistical Annex

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Costa Rica
Cuba

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

Puntar Arenas_Barranca

4.26

16.51

20.77

76.28

Cienfuego

3.45

11.63

15.08

40.07

Cuba

Holguin

1.88

13.62

15.50

43.45

Cuba

Guantanamo

2.37

14.35

16.72

48.21

Cuba

Santiago De Cuba

2.41

14.91

17.32

53.72

Cuba

Camaguey

2.65

14.55

17.20

55.37

Cuba

Santa Clara

1.74

15.20

16.94

58.38

Cuba

Bayamo

4.45

17.50

21.96

64.77

Cuba

LacHabana

4.42

17.15

21.57

68.84

Ecuador

Quito

2.25

12.07

14.32

45.08

El Salvador

San Salvador

1.92

9.97

11.88

16.75

Guatemala

Guatemala City

1.71

11.69

13.39

31.95

MexicoReynosa

1.28

10.44

11.71

27.84

MexicoTijuana

0.87

12.31

13.18

29.47

MexicoMexico City

3.71

12.70

16.40

46.26

MexicoGuadalajara

2.32

13.28

15.60

50.50

MexicoCuliacan

3.56

13.83

17.38

72.51

Nicaragua

Leon

2.49

11.39

13.88

52.24

Uruguay

LasPiedras

0.68

13.62

14.30

49.83

Uruguay

Riviera

0.38

14.10

14.48

58.92

Uruguay

Salto

1.23

15.68

16.91

67.97

Uruguay

Melo

0.93

15.51

16.45

69.19

Uruguay

Tacuarembo

0.97

12.74

13.71

69.79

Uruguay

Paysandu

2.23

13.81

16.04

70.39

Uruguay

Mercedes

0.95

15.63

16.59

71.22

Uruguay

Maldonaldo

1.48

17.14

18.62

81.20

UruguayMontevideo+CiudadDeLaCosta

3.82

14.46

18.28

82.66

Venezuela

Cabimas

0.41

11.79

12.21

19.43

Venezuela

Caracas

4.97

13.54

18.51

38.10

Austria

Vienna

3.19

11.66

14.85

72.42

Belarus

Gomel

3.54

12.03

15.58

39.89

Belarus

Kobyrn

4.39

10.94

15.32

43.96

Belarus

Babrujsk

5.23

12.91

18.14

48.66

Belarus

Viciebsk

2.73

16.03

18.76

51.27

Belarus

Brest

7.99

13.70

21.70

53.03

BelarusSalihorsk

4.57

14.61

19.18

55.38

Belarus

Polack

5.67

13.62

19.29

66.09

Belarus

Mazyr

8.66

13.04

21.70

72.11

Belarus

Hrodna

7.49

19.38

26.87

80.88

Belarus

Minsk

11.46

19.00

30.46

83.28

Belgium

Antwerp

3.04

11.96

15.00

39.76

CanadaVictoria

3.51

10.68

14.19

72.65

CanadaMontreal

8.64

13.84

22.49

89.17

France

Nice

0.24

11.39

11.63

8.04

France

Nimes

3.49

12.68

16.17

34.36

France

Metz

3.12

15.64

18.77

39.04

FranceMarseille

5.62

14.00

19.62

46.50

FranceToulousse

2.48

15.84

18.32

47.21

338

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

France

Paris

3.65

12.46

16.10

51.58

France

Lyon

4.59

14.26

18.85

66.51

France

Lille

3.96

18.06

22.02

67.01

FranceNantes

5.93

15.32

21.25

67.57

FranceStrasbourg

4.92

17.70

22.62

73.24

FranceGrenoble

4.48

14.85

19.33

75.52

FranceLe Mans

6.47

17.66

24.13

81.20

FranceBesancon

6.45

20.55

27.00

91.07

Germany

Berlin

8.06

22.20

30.26

68.19

Germany

Halle

8.03

22.42

30.45

76.43

Germany

Oldenburg

7.63

26.19

33.82

90.56

GreeceThessaloniki

1.62

14.47

16.09

65.70

Hungary

Budapest

2.96

17.59

20.55

58.84

Italy

Palermo

1.66

8.58

10.24

42.24

Italy

Milan

4.02

9.00

13.01

76.22

Lithuania

Kaunas

6.37

15.41

21.78

61.43

Netherlands

Zwolle

7.43

15.01

22.43

91.93

PolandLublin

2.89

19.12

22.00

49.11

Poland

Lodz

4.23

17.07

21.30

49.39

PolandKatowice

3.46

15.34

18.81

50.70

PolandMielec

2.46

10.42

12.89

52.34

PolandWroclaw

4.88

17.42

22.30

55.98

PolandPoznan

7.63

14.97

22.60

61.59

PolandWarsaw

5.95

14.58

20.54

64.84

Poland

Lomza

3.04

18.43

21.46

67.12

Romania

ARad

2.54

8.65

11.19

41.44

Romania

Reghin

4.60

6.14

10.74

48.76

Romania

Bucharest

3.46

9.54

13.00

54.10

Romania

Mangalia

2.84

7.34

10.17

54.51

Romania

Craiova

4.73

8.07

12.80

60.63

RussiaAstrakhan

1.23

9.64

10.87

37.10

RussiaSaint Petersburg

3.24

21.76

25.00

40.94

RussiaDzerzhinsk

4.41

11.96

16.37

60.83

RussiaTyumen

5.05

18.25

23.31

64.24

RussiaBerezniki

9.42

13.75

23.17

73.73

RussiaMoscow

8.34

16.22

24.56

83.31

Serbia

Borca

5.94

8.12

14.06

36.82

SerbiaPozarevac

3.79

8.86

12.65

37.56

SerbiaKragujevac

5.69

8.46

14.15

44.96

SerbiaNovi Sad

4.43

10.75

15.18

52.92

Serbia

Nis

3.70

10.23

13.93

57.20

SerbiaBelgrade

23.41

12.48

35.89

63.83

SerbiaNovi Pazar

3.04

9.43

12.48

73.16

Spain

Madrid

6.70

17.25

23.94

63.13

Switzerland

Zurich

3.64

18.32

21.96

67.59

Switzerland

Neuchatel

2.97

17.33

20.29

70.09

Switzerland

Lausanne

5.05

18.55

23.60

76.89

Switzerland

Bern

6.17

19.61

25.78

77.11

339

Statistical Annex

Table C.3: Continued
Country

Cities

Switzerland

Fribourg

Switzerland

Basel

Switzerland

Share of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

7.72

15.66

23.38

80.30

4.47

16.90

21.36

81.79

Winterhur

4.66

20.05

24.71

81.93

Switzerland

St Gallen

6.60

16.27

22.88

82.95

Switzerland

Wetzikon

3.05

16.36

19.41

85.43

Switzerland

Emmen_Lucerne

8.00

15.83

23.83

87.83

UkraineNikolaev

3.69

6.77

10.46

49.39

United Kingdom

Sheffield

5.30

11.82

17.11

58.18

United Kingdom

London

12.94

11.95

24.88

81.29

United Kingdom

Manchester

8.98

13.21

22.19

81.56

United States

Raleigh

2.41

9.63

12.04

25.45

United States

Houston

3.36

11.81

15.17

27.00

United States

Toledo

2.22

9.29

11.51

27.54

United States

Cleveland

4.21

9.56

13.77

29.81

United States

Springfield, MA

2.88

7.41

10.29

36.84

United States

Philadelphia

2.93

9.98

12.90

37.30

United States

Modesto

2.16

9.76

11.92

41.36

United States

Gainesville, FL

5.34

13.04

18.38

43.11

United States

Chicago

6.10

9.83

15.93

47.85

United States

Minneapolis

6.14

11.84

17.98

54.77

United States

Portland, OR

4.35

13.42

17.78

57.45

United States

New York

9.10

9.76

18.86

71.03

Fiji

Suva

3.66

7.38

11.04

28.31

AngolaLuanda

0.62

18.35

18.97

17.31

Benin

Parakou

0.78

13.15

13.93

32.37

Benin

Kandy

0.43

13.10

13.53

35.15

Benin

Djougou

1.49

11.97

13.46

40.69

Benin

Natitingou

1.50

8.91

10.42

53.78

Congo Dem. Rep.

Lubumbashi

0.38

14.22

14.60

6.78

Congo Dem. Rep.

Kinshasa

1.42

16.61

18.03

17.31

Ethiopia

Dire Dawa

0.88

17.37

18.25

38.69

Ethiopia

Harar

1.17

11.25

12.42

40.00

Ethiopia

Gondar

1.40

12.82

14.22

40.32

Ethiopia

Addis Ababa

2.53

21.77

24.30

41.77

Ethiopia

Awassa

2.84

14.81

17.66

62.38

Ethiopia

Adama Nazreth

1.42

18.58

20.00

64.08

Ethiopia

BahirDar

1.41

14.36

15.78

89.99

Ghana

Accra

0.41

13.63

14.05

12.01

Kenya

Eldoret

0.51

11.17

11.68

10.82

Kenya

Kisumu

0.35

10.00

10.36

11.15

Kenya

Nairobi

1.02

11.13

12.14

17.93

Madagascar

Antsiranana

1.12

14.93

16.05

30.21

Madagascar

Toamasina

1.94

8.50

10.43

31.91

Madagascar

Marovoay

3.83

7.65

11.48

46.11

Madagascar

Taolanaro

3.04

7.92

10.96

68.59

MalawiBlantyre

2.07

9.08

11.15

22.63

Malawi

Mzuzu

0.99

11.79

12.78

23.25

Malawi

Zomba

3.16

8.99

12.15

43.75

340

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

Mali
Mozambique

Bamako

1.36

19.59

20.95

29.94

Nampula

0.21

9.90

10.11

9.31

Mozambique

Manhica

0.26

12.94

13.19

10.12

Mozambique

Maputo

0.83

14.97

15.80

15.35

Mozambique

Maxixe

0.42

10.64

11.06

25.50

Mozambique

Pemba

2.08

13.98

16.06

49.89

Niger

Zinder

0.84

19.21

20.05

13.78

Niger

Niamey

0.63

19.43

20.06

26.09

Niger

Maradi

2.89

19.11

22.00

32.04

Niger

Dosso

1.17

15.12

16.29

32.96

Niger

Agadez

1.21

16.99

18.20

45.76

Nigeria

Lagos

0.50

13.76

14.26

6.95

Nigeria

Ibadan

0.38

13.46

13.85

8.89

Nigeria

Oyo

0.77

12.99

13.76

13.48

Nigeria

Gombe

0.57

16.40

16.97

20.65

RwandaCyangugu

0.05

10.02

10.07

4.81

RwandaButare

0.24

12.05

12.30

6.40

RwandaRuhengeri

0.13

10.06

10.19

9.47

RwandaGisenyi

1.09

15.82

16.91

12.22

RwandaKigali

0.74

11.19

11.93

18.11

RwandaKayonza

0.45

11.13

11.58

21.59

RwandaGitarama

1.00

10.16

11.16

21.76

Senegal

Touba

0.31

21.88

22.19

14.85

SenegalDiorbel

0.93

21.08

22.01

32.04

SenegalKaolack

1.33

21.29

22.62

44.06

SenegalZiguinchor

1.22

16.58

17.80

44.37

Senegal

Louga

3.05

18.54

21.59

45.85

Senegal

Dakar

1.76

25.39

27.15

48.19

Senegal

Thies

1.12

20.03

21.15

55.66

Senegal

MBour

1.86

22.09

23.95

66.93

SenegalSaintLouis

1.46

23.67

25.12

85.57

South Africa

Johannesburg

1.85

10.84

12.70

15.40

South Africa

Port Elizabeth

3.41

9.27

12.68

29.05

UgandaMasaka

1.01

9.01

10.02

17.84

UgandaKasese

0.76

14.64

15.40

20.83

Uganda

Lira

1.50

11.55

13.05

33.76

Uganda

Gulu

4.65

11.12

15.76

76.02

Zambia

Ndola

0.26

11.14

11.40

7.95

Algeria

Tolga

0.31

11.84

12.15

13.37

Algeria

Tiaret

1.49

18.09

19.57

32.05

Algeria

Tebessa

3.74

10.61

14.35

34.86

Algeria

Algiers

2.49

12.39

14.89

41.23

Algeria

Batna

1.92

17.61

19.53

42.04

Algeria

Annaba

3.09

11.71

14.80

49.59

Algeria

Blida

2.00

12.66

14.66

54.01

Algeria

Oran

2.42

16.61

19.02

56.54

Algeria

Chlef

3.66

10.85

14.52

62.75

Algeria

M’Sila

2.82

14.21

17.03

65.33

341

Statistical Annex

Table C.3: Continued
Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

Algeria
Algeria

El Khroub

3.07

Tamanrasset

4.02

11.91

14.98

67.46

12.78

16.80

Algeria

Djelfa

67.62

3.40

21.26

24.66

Algeria

70.55

Khemis Miliana

1.84

16.24

18.07

74.51

Algeria

Mila

3.99

16.13

20.12

81.60

Azerbaijan

Baku

4.02

19.30

23.32

57.02

Bahrain

AlManamah

1.45

22.08

23.53

45.19

Egypt

Cairo

0.79

10.15

10.94

11.23

Egypt

Asyut

0.98

16.53

17.51

34.93

Egypt

Al_zaqaziq

0.59

17.62

18.21

38.99

Egypt

Al_Qhurdaqah

2.06

18.96

21.01

72.27

Egypt

Port Said

1.96

14.06

16.02

95.08

Iraq

Baghdad

1.32

13.37

14.69

20.33

IsraelTel Aviv

4.30

12.61

16.91

75.85

JordanAmmani

1.31

17.96

19.27

33.88

Jordan

Irbid

0.63

21.97

22.60

55.04

KuwaitKuwaitii

1.53

22.52

24.05

49.42

LebanonBeirut

0.78

14.72

15.49

20.75

Lebanon

Zahle

0.68

12.06

12.75

36.62

LebanonBaalbek

1.02

12.79

13.81

45.14

Lebanon

Tyre

1.53

9.87

11.40

45.87

Lebanon

Sidon

0.88

12.76

13.64

61.16

LebanonTripoli

1.36

11.54

12.90

72.81

MoroccoAitemelloul

0.21

12.54

12.75

21.25

MoroccoTemara

2.56

13.84

16.39

25.65

MoroccoCasablancaiii

1.23

17.88

19.11

29.18

MoroccoMaknes

1.95

18.99

20.94

29.35

Morocco

Fez

1.37

17.91

19.28

32.55

MoroccoOulad teima

1.44

9.42

10.87

34.77

MoroccoSidi slimane

0.50

10.46

10.96

37.40

Morocco

Oujda

1.26

23.75

25.01

45.51

MoroccoTanger

2.00

16.59

18.58

46.88

MoroccoMidelt

1.25

14.04

15.29

54.38

Morocco

Safi

4.71

17.56

22.27

55.23

MoroccoFikh Ben Salah

1.63

16.93

18.56

55.85

MoroccoMarrakesh

1.64

13.24

14.88

61.32

MoroccoSefrou

3.38

15.28

18.66

63.58

Morocco

Azrou

6.94

16.42

23.36

69.87

Oman

Al Buryami

0.43

11.75

12.18

13.20

Oman

Muscativ

0.75

18.24

18.98

13.24

Oman

Sohar

1.01

13.92

14.93

18.19

Oman

Salalah

0.87

16.76

17.63

20.31

Palestinian territories

Jenin

1.11

13.41

14.52

4.91

Palestinian territories

Al-Khalīl

0.16

10.75

10.91

13.22

Palestinian territories

Nabulus(Nablus)

0.95

11.45

12.39

21.60

i Includes: Az-zarqa, Ar-Rusayfah, Al-Quwaysimah,Tila al-Ali, Wadi as-sir, Al-Jubayhah, Khraibat as-suq and Sahab

ii Includes all the major cities Hawallī, Al-Farwānīyah, Al-Fintās, Al-Jahrā’, Janūb al-Kuwayt, Al-Manqaf, Al-Firdaws and Mubarāk al-Kabīriii Includes Mohammedia town

iv Includes :Bawashar, Matrah, Aseed(Assib)

342

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Country

CitiesPalestinian territories

Ghazzahv

Palestinian territories

An-Nuṣayrāt

Palestinian territories

Share of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

0.25

13.16

13.41

21.85

0.58

12.80

13.38

23.64

Rafaḥ

0.36

13.75

14.10

30.53

Palestinian territories

Khān Yūnisvi

0.22

13.01

13.23

33.35

Palestinian territories

Al-Quds

4.97

12.29

17.26

39.96

Qatar

Doha

1.60

21.24

22.85

14.41

Qatar

Mesaieed

0.31

11.39

11.70

26.64

Qatar

AlKhor_AlThakhira

2.39

20.93

23.32

41.49

Saudi Arabia

Al-Kharj

0.47

15.86

16.33

9.88

Saudi Arabia

Riyadh

2.38

13.91

16.29

10.35

Saudi Arabia

Tabuk

0.68

17.06

17.73

13.40

Saudi Arabia

Al-Khafji

0.90

11.36

12.27

14.26

Saudi Arabia

Al-Madinah

1.46

15.18

16.64

17.62

Saudi Arabia‘Ar’ar

2.25

12.30

14.55

20.74

Saudi Arabia

Ha’il

3.15

14.62

17.76

22.16

Saudi Arabia

Makkah

0.83

16.81

17.64

22.40

Saudi Arabia

At-Ta’if

1.30

10.49

11.78

23.56

Saudi Arabia

Jiddah including Al Khubar

0.80

14.43

15.24

24.11

Saudi Arabia

Al-Jubayl

2.43

10.11

12.54

24.11

Saudi Arabia

Al-Hufuf

4.68

9.19

13.87

30.05

Saudi Arabia

Ad-Dammam

1.79

13.80

15.60

34.59

Saudi Arabia

Ar-Rass

3.20

15.89

19.09

47.59

Saudi Arabia

Rafha’

2.76

16.30

19.06

53.79

Sudan

Khartoum

0.86

23.23

24.09

14.81

Sudan

Kassala

0.79

22.65

23.45

30.74

Sudan

Atbara

0.42

20.90

21.33

32.07

Sudan

Sannar

0.96

20.33

21.29

32.78

Sudan

Alfashir

0.83

23.17

24.01

40.37

Sudan

Bur Sudan

1.29

21.65

22.94

44.17

Sudan

Wad Madani

1.71

21.33

23.03

47.90

Sudan

Sinjah

1.51

15.05

16.56

61.19

Sudan

Al Qadarif

2.41

21.14

23.55

67.15

Tunisia

Safaqia

0.33

15.31

15.64

27.46

Tunisia

Banzart

1.53

15.60

17.13

40.95
45.30

Tunisia

Tunisvii

2.92

22.20

25.11

Tunisia

Susah

1.26

19.42

20.68

53.85

Tunisia

Qabis

3.07

22.42

25.49

63.06

Tunisia

Al_Qayrawan

1.89

24.08

25.97

66.68

Tunisia

Monastir

2.50

21.57

24.07

71.79

Tunisia

Tozeur

14.97

21.92

36.89

90.96

TurkeyAdapazari

1.82

20.03

21.85

41.80

TurkeyMalatya

1.00

15.20

16.20

58.76

TurkeyIstanbul

3.07

23.81

26.87

59.78

TurkeyElbistan

1.35

9.20

10.55

60.56

Turkey

Konya

3.00

19.22

22.21

65.32

v Includes: Jabaiyah and Bayt Lāhīyā
vi Includes Dayr al Balahvii Includes At-Tadamun and Sukrah

343

Statistical Annex

Country

CitiesShare of urban area
allocated to open public
space (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets (%)

Share of urban area
allocated to streets & open
public space (%)

Proportion of population
living within convenient
walking distance to open
public space (%)

TurkeyKayseri

2.04

17.84

19.87

66.70

TurkeyUzunköprü

1.47

21.16

22.63

67.15

Turkey

Izmir

3.83

25.82

29.65

68.95

TurkeyÇerkezköy

1.19

18.30

19.49

69.21

TurkeyAntalya

3.66

16.33

20.00

69.79

TurkeyTarsus

2.18

22.60

24.78

70.28

Turkey

Agri

1.59

15.07

16.65

70.56

Turkey

Bursa

2.89

27.01

29.90

70.68

TurkeySamsun

2.70

22.67

25.37

71.21

Turkey

Nigde

1.44

15.11

16.55

71.46

Turkey

Sivas

1.80

21.25

23.05

71.99

TurkeyDenzili

3.81

25.11

28.92

76.71

TurkeyAnkara

5.12

21.07

26.19

76.78

TurkeyCarasamba

3.00

15.02

18.02

77.30

Turkey

Corum

2.58

18.87

21.46

80.34

TurkeyGaziantep

6.00

27.55

33.55

83.10

TurkeySanliurfa

4.03

24.42

28.45

83.80

TurkeyViransehir

3.22

20.00

23.21

84.13

TurkeyAdiyaman

2.92

22.04

24.96

84.62

TurkeyBalikesir

2.69

29.02

31.71

90.30

UAE

Abu Dhabi

2.72

19.45

22.17

37.57

UAE

Dubaiviii

2.65

20.47

23.13

40.60

UAE

Al Ain

1.84

15.81

17.65

41.27

UAE

Ras Al Khaymah

0.61

19.12

19.73

41.46

UAE

Al Fujayrah

1.47

23.99

25.47

82.32

Yemen

Taizz

0.25

14.76

15.02

9.04

Yemen

Yarim

1.08

9.90

10.98

13.83

Yemen

Tarim

3.46

22.99

26.45

26.26

Yemen

Radaa

0.25

11.70

11.95

26.49

Yemen

Amran

0.77

16.05

16.82

27.70

Yemen

Dhamar

0.76

10.45

11.20

36.20

Yemen

Al Hudaydah

0.57

20.66

21.23

39.43

Yemen

Adan

1.93

22.94

24.86

51.74

viii Includes Ajman and Ash Shariqa

Notes:
Indicator is computed as share of urban land in streets and open pulbic space, as well as share of population who can access/live within a walking distance (along a street network) of 400 m to an open public space.
An open public space is defined as openly and freely accessible space for all (without any cost implication). Identification of open public spaces are based on data compiled from city land use plans as well as data available fromopen sources such as OSM and google.
Data used to estimate population with access to open public spaces is based on grid level population disaggregation directly from city/country data, HRSL (facebook and CIESIN) or WorldPop. Analysis year is 2019, which in somecases includes population data for 2018.
City/urban area used in the analyis has been generated using a classification approach based on the Urban Extent or the Degree of Urbanization concepts to city definition.
The urban/city area used for the indicator computation may be larger or smaller than the official municipality boundaries.

Source: United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat), Global Urban Indicators Database 2020

344

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table D.1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) & Gini Coefficient in Selected Cities
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

Country

Metropolitan areas

2017

Country

City/Region

2017

Country

City/region

2010

2015

2017

Australia

Greater Sydney

259,813Australia

Greater Sydney

21.9

Kazakhstan

Akmola

0.27

0.27

0.27

Australia

Greater Melbourne

208,411

Australia

Greater Melbourne

17.6

Kazakhstan

Aktobe

0.27

0.27

0.25

Australia

Greater Brisbane

113,090

Australia

Greater Brisbane

9.5

Kazakhstan

Almaty

0.26

0.26

0.28

Australia

Greater Perth

135,365

Australia

Greater Perth

11.4

Kazakhstan

Almaty City

0.24

0.27

0.29

Australia

Greater Adelaide

53,531

Australia

Greater Adelaide

4.5

Kazakhstan

Atyrau

0.22

0.22

0.23

Australia

Canberra

23,198Australia

Canberra

2.0

Kazakhstan

City of Astana

0.29

0.22

0.23

Austria

Vienna159,274

Austria

Vienna35.3

Kazakhstan

East Kazakhstan

0.28

0.28

0.31

AustriaGraz

33,854AustriaGraz

7.5

Kazakhstan

Karaganda

0.27

0.29

0.30

AustriaLinz

35,496AustriaLinz

7.9

Kazakhstan

Kostanai

0.26

0.25

0.25

Austria

Salzburg

24,247Austria

Salzburg

5.4

Kazakhstan

Kyzylorda

0.23

0.21

0.24

Austria

Innsbruck

19,080Austria

Innsbruck

4.2

Kazakhstan

Mangistau

0.18

0.21

0.17

Austria

Klagenfurt

11,632Austria

Klagenfurt

2.6

Kazakhstan

North Kazakhstan

0.27

0.27

0.29

Belgium

Brussels

195,763

Belgium

Brussels

36.3

Kazakhstan

Pavlodar

0.25

0.23

0.25

Belgium

Antwerp64,970Belgium

Antwerp12.0

Kazakhstan

South Kazakhstan

0.21

0.19

0.21

BelgiumGent

34,082

Belgium

Gent

6.3

KazakhstanWest Kazakhstan

0.25

0.26

0.28

Belgium

Charleroi

15,470Belgium

Charleroi

2.9

Kazakhstan

Zhambyl

0.22

0.22

0.23

Belgium

Liege

27,780Belgium

Liege

5.2

Philippines

Manila

..

0.39

..

Switzerland

Zurich103,562

Switzerland

Zurich

18.9

Singapore

Singapore

0.40

0.39

0.38

Switzerland

Geneva44,609Switzerland

Basel

8.9

Thailand

Bangkok

..

0.31

0.32

Switzerland

Basel

49,010

Switzerland

Geneva8.1

Vietnam

Can Tho

0.37

..

..

Switzerland

Lausanne

22,773

Switzerland

Lausanne

4.2

Vietnam

Da Nang

0.39

..

..

Chile

Antofagasta

24,763

Chile

Antofagasta

5.9

Vietnam

Ha noi

0.42

..

..

Chile

Coquimbo-La Serena

7,618

Chile

Coquimbo-La Serena

1.8

VietnamHai Phong

0.41

..

..

Chile

Valparaiso

19,205

Chile

Valparaiso

4.6

VietnamHo Chi Minh City

0.38

..

..

Chile

Santiago

161,134

Chile

Santiago

38.4

VietnamVinh Long

0.36

..

..

Czech Republic

Prague127,326

Czech Republic

Prague33.5

Argentina

Buenos Aires

0.51

..

..

Czech RepublicBrno

24,819Czech Republic

Brno

6.5

Argentina

Cordoba

0.51

..

..

Czech Republic

Ostrava

21,307

Czech Republic

Ostrava

5.6

Argentina

Formosa

0.45

..

..

Czech RepublicPlzen

11,537

Czech Republic

Plzen

3.0

Colombia

Armenia

0.53

0.49

0.45

Germany

Berlin231,498

Germany

Berlin5.7

Colombia

Barranquilla

0.50

0.44

0.44

Germany

Hamburg

197,838

Germany

Hamburg

4.8

Colombia

Bogota

0.53

0.50

0.50

Germany

Munich237,829

Germany

Munich5.8

Colombia

Bucamaranga

0.45

0.41

0.41

Germany

Cologne121,399

Germany

Cologne3.0

Colombia

Cali

0.53

0.48

0.46

GermanyFrankfurt am Main

184,622

GermanyFrankfurt am Main

4.5

Colombia

Cartagena

0.49

0.47

0.45

Germany

Stuttgart

185,964

Germany

Stuttgart

4.6

Colombia

Cucuta

0.48

0.44

0.43

Germany

Leipzig

40,869Germany

Leipzig

1.0

Colombia

Floencia

0.48

0.49

0.47

Germany

Dresden52,164Germany

Dresden

1.3

Colombia

Ibagué

0.50

0.44

0.43

Germany

Dusseldorf

109,324

Germany

Dusseldorf

2.7

Colombia

Manizales AM

0.50

0.46

0.46

Germany

Bremen61,115Germany

Bremen1.5

Colombia

Medellin

0.56

0.49

0.46

Germany

Hanover

69,146

Germany

Hanover

1.7

Colombia

Monteria

0.53

0.45

0.46

Germany

Nuremberg

78,727

Germany

Neubrandenburg

0.2

Colombia

Neiva

0.49

0.45

0.45

Germany

Bielefeld

16,163Germany

Bielefeld

0.4

Colombia

Pasto

0.52

0.49

0.47

Germany

Halle an der Saale

16,613Germany

Halle an der Saale

0.4

Colombia

Pereira AM

0.46

0.44

0.40

Germany

Magdeburg

19,193Germany

Magdeburg

0.5

Colombia

Popayan

0.51

0.50

0.49

Germany

Wiesbaden

28,251

Germany

Wiesbaden

0.7

Colombia

Quibdó

0.53

0.53

0.53

Germany

Gottingen19,285Germany

Gottingen

0.5

Colombia

Riohacha

0.52

0.52

0.52

Germany

Darmstadt

25,731

Germany

Darmstadt

0.6

Colombia

Santa Marta

0.49

0.46

0.47

Germany

Trier

9,753

Germany

Trier

0.2

Colombia

Sincelejo

0.47

0.45

0.44

Germany

Freiburg im Breisgau

30,581

Germany

Freiburg im Breisgau

0.7

Colombia

Tunja

0.47

0.47

0.46

345

Statistical Annex

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

Germany

Regensburg

27,537

Germany

Regensburg

0.7

Colombia

Valledupar

0.51

0.45

0.46

Germany

Schwerin

10,954Germany

Schwerin

0.3

Colombia

Villavicencio

0.47

0.45

0.45

Germany

Erfurt21,315Germany

Erfurt0.5

Costa Rica

San Jose

0.47

..

..

Germany

Augsburg

31,184Germany

Augsburg

0.8

Dominican RepublicSanto Domingo

0.58

..

..

GermanyBonn50,253GermanyBonn

1.2

Ecuador

Quito

0.51

..

..

Germany

Karlsruhe

44,922Germany

Karlsruhe

1.1

El Salvador

San Salvador

0.41

..

..

Germany

Monchengladbach

11,011

Germany

Monchengladbach

0.3

Honduras

Resto Urbano

0.54

0.49

0.52

GermanyMainz

24,235Germany

Mainz

0.6

Honduras

San Pedro Sula

0.54

0.50

0.51

GermanyRuhr

204,334

GermanyRuhr

5.0

Honduras

Tegucigalpa

0.54

0.52

0.51

GermanyKiel

27,584Germany

Kiel

0.7

MexicoCuliacan

0.37

..

..

Germany

Saarbrucken

37,549Germany

Saarbrucken

0.9

MexicoGuadalajara

0.42

..

..

Germany

Koblenz

18,260Germany

Koblenz

0.4

MexicoMexico City

0.49

..

..

Germany

Rostock

16,268Germany

Rostock

0.4

MexicoTijuana

0.50

..

..

Germany

Kaiserslautern

10,431

Germany

Kaiserslautern

0.3

PanamaPanama City

0.46

..

..

Germany

Iserlohn

19,029Germany

Iserlohn

0.5Paraguay

Asuncion

0.5

..

..

Germany

Flensburg

11,328Germany

Flensburg

0.3

Peru

Lima

0.4

..

..

Germany

Constance

12,059Germany

Constance

0.3

UruguayMontevideo

0.43

..

..

Germany

Giessen

11,649Germany

Giessen

0.3

Venezuela

Caracas

0.38

..

..

Germany

Aschaffenburg

18,712Germany

Aschaffenburg

0.5

United States

Ada

..

0.36

..

Germany

Neubrandenburg

8,781

Germany

Nuremberg

1.9

United States

Albany

..

0.32

..

Germany

Rosenheim

14,313Germany

Rosenheim

0.4

United States

Albuquerque

..

0.43

..

Germany

Offenburg

21,286

Germany

Offenburg

0.5

United Statesampa-Pinellas

..

0.39

..

Germany

Gorlitz

8,348

Germany

Gorlitz

0.2

United States

Atlanta

..

0.39

..

Germany

Schweinfurt

14,248Germany

Schweinfurt

0.3

United States

Boston

..

0.38

..

Germany

Wetzlar10,505Germany

Wetzlar0.3

United States

Brevard

..

0.36

..

Germany

Braunschweig-Salzgitter
Wolfsburg

62,369Germany

Braunschweig-Salzgitter
Wolfsburg

1.5

United States

Charleston

..

0.35

..

Germany

Mannheim-Ludwigshafen

67,466

Germany

Mannheim-Ludwigshafen

1.7

United States

Charlotte

..

0.38

..

Germany

Muenster

30,054Germany

Muenster

0.7

United States

Chicago

..

0.41

..

Germany

Aachen25,854Germany

Aachen0.6

United States

Cincinnati

..

0.36

..

Germany

Lubeck17,339Germany

Lubeck

0.4

United States

Columbus

..

0.36

..

Germany

Kassel22,142Germany

Kassel0.5

United States

Cuyahoga

..

0.39

..

Germany

Osnabruck

23,899Germany

Osnabruck

0.6

United States

Dallas

..

0.41

..

Germany

Oldenburg (Oldenburg)

18,073Germany

Oldenburg (Oldenburg)

0.4

United States

Dane

..

0.34

..

Germany

Heidelberg

33,935Germany

Heidelberg

0.8

United States

Dauphin

..

0.33

..

Germany

Paderborn

13,682Germany

Paderborn

0.3

United StatesDavidson

..

0.39

..

Germany

Wurzburg

25,436

Germany

Wurzburg

0.6

United States

Denver

..

0.37

..

Germany

Bremerhaven

10,866

Germany

Bremerhaven

0.3

United States

Detroit (Greater)

..

0.38

..

Germany

Heilbronn

29,142Germany

Heilbronn

0.7

United States

Douglas (NE)

..

0.34

..

GermanyUlm27,246

GermanyUlm

0.7

United States

East Baton Rouge

..

0.37

..

Germany

forzheim

13,809Germany

Pforzheim

0.3

United States

El Paso (CO)

..

0.34

..

Germany

Ingolstadt

38,034Germany

Ingolstadt

0.9

United States

El Paso (TX)

..

0.40

..

Germany

Reutlingen

14,188Germany

Reutlingen

0.3

United States

Erie (NY)

..

0.33

..

Germany

Siegen18,218Germany

Siegen0.4

United States

Fayette

..

0.37

..

Germany

Hildesheim

9,726

Germany

Hildesheim

0.2

United States

Forsyth

..

0.38

..

Germany

Zwickau

12,417

Germany

Zwickau

0.3

United States

Fresno (Greater)

..

0.40

..

Germany

Wuppertal

16,134Germany

Wuppertal

0.4

United States

Greene

..

0.37

..

Germany

Duren, Stadt

9,418

Germany

Duren, Stadt

0.2

United States

Guilford

..

0.39

..

Germany

Bocholt, Stadt

16,814Germany

Bocholt, Stadt

0.4

United States

Hamilton (TN)

..

0.37

..

Denmark

Copenhagen

116,136

Denmark

Copenhagen

39.5

United States

Hampden

..

0.36

..

Denmark

Aarhus22,971

Denmark

Aarhus7.8

United States

Hartford

..

0.35

..

346

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

Denmark

Odense14,961

Denmark

Odense5.1

United States

Hidalgo

..

0.43

..

Denmark

Aalborg

13,464

Denmark

Aalborg

4.6

United States

Houston

..

0.43

..

Spain

Madrid332,275

Spain

Madrid

19.3

United States

Indianapolis

..

0.39

..

Spain

Barcelona

213,713

Spain

Barcelona

12.4

United States

Jackson (MO)

..

0.37

..

Spain

Valencia

57,081

Spain

Valencia

3.3

United States

Jacksonville

..

0.39

..

Spain

Seville44,701

Spain

Seville2.6

United States

Jefferson (AL)

..

0.38

..

Spain

Saragossa

30,131

Spain

Saragossa

1.8

United States

Jefferson (KY)

..

0.35

..

Spain

Malaga22,857

Spain

Malaga1.3

United States

Kent

..

0.36

..

Spain

Las Palmas

18,337Spain

Las Palmas

1.1

United States

Kern

..

0.38

..

Spain

Valladolid

15,738Spain

Valladolid

0.9

United States

Lancaster (PA)

..

0.31

..

Spain

Palma de Mallorca

28,999Spain

Palma de Mallorca

1.7

United States

Las Vegas

..

0.39

..

Spain

Vitoria

14,748Spain

Vitoria

0.9

United States

Lee

..

0.40

..

Spain

Pamplona

16,736

Spain

Pamplona

1.0

United States

Lehigh

..

0.34

..

Spain

Santander

13,476

Spain

Santander

0.8

United States

Los Angeles (Greater)

..

0.42

..

Spain

Bilbao45,357

Spain

Bilbao2.6

United States

Lucas

..

0.38

..

Spain

Vigo

16,795

Spain

Vigo

1.0

United States

Memphis

..

0.39

..

Spain

Santa Cruz de Tenerife

16,564

Spain

Santa Cruz de Tenerife

1.0

United States

Miami (Greater)

..

0.44

..

Spain

Granada14,839Spain

Granada0.9

United States

Milwaukee

..

0.38

..

Estonia

Tallinn

18,112Estonia

Tallinn

43.2

United States

Minneapolis

..

0.33

..

FinlandHelsinki

86,078FinlandHelsinki

34.9

United States

Montgomery (OH)

..

0.37

..

FinlandTampere

17,881FinlandTampere7.2

United States

New Haven

..

0.43

..

FinlandTurku

14,903Finland

Turku

6.0

United States

New Orleans

..

0.41

..

Finland

Oulu

9,344

FinlandOulu

3.8

United States

New York (Greater)

..

0.42

..

FranceParis891,730

France

Paris

31.7

United States

Oklahoma

..

0.39

..

FranceLyon

111,077

FranceLyon

4.0

United States

Onondaga

..

0.33

..

FranceToulouse

67,315

FranceToulouse

2.4

United States

Orange

..

0.38

..

FranceStrasbourg

32,851

FranceStrasbourg

1.2

United States

Philadelphia (Greater)

..

0.39

..

FranceBordeaux

51,565

FranceBordeaux

1.8

United States

Phoenix

..

0.40

..

FranceNantes42,217

FranceNantes1.5

United States

Pima

..

0.41

..

FranceLille

53,623

FranceLille

1.9

United States

Pittsburgh

..

0.38

..

FranceMontpellier

24,786

FranceMontpellier

0.9

United States

Polk

..

0.34

..

FranceSaint-Etienne

16,169FranceSaint-Etienne

0.6

United States

Portland

..

0.36

..

FranceRennes

29,072

FranceRennes1.0

United States

Providence

..

0.38

..

FranceAmiens

10,981

FranceAmiens0.4

United States

Pulaski

..

0.36

..

FranceNancy

16,437

FranceNancy

0.6

United States

Richland

..

0.33

..

FranceReims

13,526

FranceReims

0.5

United States

Richmond (Greater)

..

0.36

..

FranceOrleans

16,522

FranceOrleans

0.6

United States

Rochester (NY)

..

0.34

..

FranceDijon

16,523

FranceDijon

0.6

United States

Sacramento

..

0.38

..

FrancePoitiers

9,704

FrancePoitiers

0.3

United States

Salt Lake

..

0.35

..

FranceClermont-Ferrand

18,737

FranceClermont-Ferrand

0.7

United States

San Antonio

..

0.39

..

FranceCaen

15,764

FranceCaen

0.6

United States

San Diego

..

0.39

..

FranceLimoges

11,466

FranceLimoges

0.4

United States

San Joaquin

..

0.37

..

FranceGrenoble

26,525

FranceGrenoble

0.9

United States

Sarasota

..

0.40

..

FranceFort-de-France

9,739

FranceFort-de-France

0.3

United States

Seattle

..

0.39

..

FranceToulon16,173

FranceToulon0.6

United States

Sedgwick

..

0.34

..

FranceTours

18,493

FranceTours

0.7

United States

Spokane

..

0.38

..

FranceAngers

14,172

FranceAngers0.5

United States

St. Louis

..

0.40

..

FranceLe Mans

13,160FranceLe Mans

0.5

United States

Stanislaus

..

0.38

..

FranceMulhouse

13,525

FranceMulhouse

0.5

United States

Summit

..

0.38

..

FrancePerpignan

11,391

FrancePerpignan

0.4

United States

Tampa-Hillsborough

..

0.40

..

347

Statistical Annex

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

FranceMarseille

52,814

FranceMarseille

1.9

United States

Tulsa

..

0.38

..

FranceNice42,676

FranceNice

1.5

United States

Utah

..

0.34

..

FranceLes Abymes

7,875FranceLes Abymes

0.3

United States

Ventura

..

0.37

..

United Kingdom

London840,175

United Kingdom

London29.2

United States

Virginia Beach

..

0.33

..

United Kingdom

West Midlands urban area

109,023

United Kingdom

West Midlands urban area

3.8

United States

Volusia-Daytona
Beach

..

0.38

..

United Kingdom

Leeds

94,036

United Kingdom

Leeds

3.3

United States

Wake

..

0.34

..

United Kingdom

Glasgow

65,110

United Kingdom

Glasgow

2.3

United States

Washington (Greater)

..

0.36

..

United Kingdom

Liverpool

49,746

United Kingdom

Liverpool

1.7

United States

Washoe

..

0.40

..

United Kingdom

Edinburgh

48,815

United Kingdom

Edinburgh

1.7

Austria

Graz

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Manchester

133,767

United Kingdom

Manchester

4.7

Austria

Linz

..

0.25

..

United Kingdom

Cardiff

31,564

United Kingdom

Cardiff

1.1

Austria

Vienna

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Sheffield

35,998

United Kingdom

Sheffield

1.3

Belgium

Antwerp

..

0.30

..

United Kingdom

Bristol

44,820

United Kingdom

Bristol

1.6

Belgium

Gent

..

0.29

..

United Kingdom

Belfast33,317

United Kingdom

Belfast

1.2

Belgium

Liege

..

0.31

..

United Kingdom

Newcastle upon Tyne

37,322

United Kingdom

Newcastle upon Tyne

1.3

CanadaMontreal

..

0.35

..

United Kingdom

Leicester

32,723

United Kingdom

Leicester

1.1

CanadaCalgary

..

0.45

..

United Kingdom

Aberdeen

27,351

United Kingdom

Aberdeen

1.0

CanadaHalifax

..

0.34

..

United Kingdom

Cambridge

17,312

United Kingdom

Cambridge

0.6

CanadaHamilton

..

0.34

..

United Kingdom

Exeter16,310

United Kingdom

Exeter

0.6

CanadaLondon

..

0.35

..

United Kingdom

Portsmouth

20,307

United Kingdom

Portsmouth

0.7

CanadaSaskatoon

..

0.36

..

United Kingdom

Coventry

33,872

United Kingdom

Coventry

1.2

CanadaSherbrooke

..

0.30

..

United Kingdom

Kingston upon Hull

19,552

United Kingdom

Kingston upon Hull

0.7

CanadaToronto

..

0.41

..

United Kingdom

Stoke-on-Trent

15,157

United Kingdom

Stoke-on-Trent

0.5

CanadaVancouver

..

0.41

..

United Kingdom

Nottingham

32,578

United Kingdom

Nottingham

1.1

CanadaVictoria

..

0.35

..

United Kingdom

Wirral7,940

United Kingdom

Wirral0.3

CanadaWindsor

..

0.36

..

United Kingdom

Sunderland

10,844

United Kingdom

Sunderland

0.4

CanadaWinnipeg

..

0.36

..

United Kingdom

Medway7,978

United Kingdom

Medway0.3

FranceRennes

..

0.25

..

United Kingdom

Brighton and Hove

17,583

United Kingdom

Brighton and Hove

0.6

FranceBordeaux

..

0.26

..

United Kingdom

Plymouth

13,237

United Kingdom

Plymouth

0.5

FranceGrenoble

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Swansea

12,606

United Kingdom

Swansea

0.4

France

Lille

..

0.28

..

United Kingdom

Derby

17,329

United Kingdom

Derby

0.6

France

Lyon

..

0.28

..

United Kingdom

Southampton

29,375

United Kingdom

Southampton

1.0

FranceMarseille

..

0.29

..

United Kingdom

Milton Keynes

20,829

United Kingdom

Milton Keynes

0.7FranceMontpellier

..

0.28

..

United Kingdom

Northampton

20,569

United Kingdom

Northampton

0.7

FranceNantes

..

0.24

..

United Kingdom

Bournemouth

20,108

United Kingdom

Bournemouth

0.7France

Nice

..

0.28

..

United Kingdom

Colchester

10,064

United Kingdom

Colchester

0.4

France

Paris

..

0.33

..

United Kingdom

Dundee City

8,421

United Kingdom

Dundee City

0.3

France

Rouen

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Blackburn with Darwen

10,447

United Kingdom

Blackburn with Darwen

0.4

FranceSaint-Etienne

..

0.25

..

United Kingdom

Middlesbrough

16,843

United Kingdom

Middlesbrough

0.6

FranceStrasbourg

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Oxford25,596

United Kingdom

Oxford0.9

FranceToulon

..

0.26

..

United Kingdom

Preston

11,744

United Kingdom

Preston

0.4

FranceToulouse

..

0.27

..

United Kingdom

Norwich14,205

United Kingdom

Norwich

0.5

Italy

Bari

..

0.33

..

United Kingdom

Cheshire West and Chester

20,699

United Kingdom

Cheshire West and Chester

0.7

Italy

Bologna

..

0.31

..

GreeceAthens132,525

GreeceAthens

44.9

Italy

Catania

..

0.29

..

GreeceThessaloniki

24,856

GreeceThessaloniki

8.4

Italy

Florence

..

0.31

..

Hungary

Budapest

129,911

Hungary

Budapest

46.4

Italy

Genoa

..

0.30

..

Hungary

Debrecen

6,759

Hungary

Debrecen

2.4

Italy

Milan

..

0.31

..

Hungary

Gyor

8,711

Hungary

Gyor

3.1

Italy

Naples

..

0.32

..

Hungary

Szekesfehervar

7,632

Hungary

Szekesfehervar

2.7

Italy

Padua

..

0.31

..

IrelandDublin174,706

IrelandDublin

48.0

Italy

Palermo

..

0.30

..

348

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

IrelandCork

52,523

Ireland

Cork

14.4

Italy

Rome

..

0.32

..

Italy

Rome

216,147

Italy

Rome

9.4

Italy

Turin

..

0.32

..

Italy

Milan

300,231

Italy

Milan

13.0

Italy

Venice

..

0.29

..

Italy

Naples86,497

Italy

Naples

3.7

Italy

Verona

..

0.31

..

Italy

Turin

75,673

Italy

Turin

3.3

Norway

Oslo

..

0.27

..

Italy

Palermo

25,111

Italy

Palermo

1.1

Portugal

Lisbon

..

0.40

..

Italy

Genoa

32,138

Italy

Genoa

1.4

Portugal

Porto

..

0.39

..

Italy

Florence

39,582

Italy

Florence

1.7

SwedenGothenburg

..

0.28

..

Italy

Bari

20,647

Italy

Bari

0.9

Sweden

Malmo

..

0.33

..

Italy

Bologna

41,747

Italy

Bologna

1.8

SwedenStockholm

..

0.31

..

Italy

Catania

15,283

Italy

Catania0.7South Africa

Ekurhuleni

..

0.62

..

Italy

Venice22,239Italy

Venice1.0South Africa

Ethekwini (Durban)

..

0.62

..

Italy

Verona22,899Italy

Verona1.0South Africa

Johannesburg

..

0.67

..

Italy

Taranto

9,882

Italy

Taranto

0.4

South Africa

Port Elizabeth

..

0.65

..

Italy

Cagliari

15,719Italy

Cagliari

0.7South Africa

Tshwane (Pretoria)

..

0.67

..

Italy

Padua

23,591

Italy

Padua

1.0

TurkeyIstanbul

0.37

0.40

..

Italy

Prato

11,690

Italy

Prato

0.5

Italy

Parma

16,972

Italy

Parma

0.7

Source: OECD - http://stats.oecd.org/Index.
aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES

Italy

Reggio nell’Emilia

13,383

Italy

Reggio nell’Emilia

0.6

Italy

Rimini

10,057

Italy

Rimini

0.4

Korea

Seoul

1,005,538

Korea

Seoul

49.0

Korea

Gimhae147,574

Korea

Gimhae7.2

Korea

Dalseong

61,319

Korea

Dalseong

3.0

Korea

Gwangsan47,546

Korea

Gwangsan

2.3

Korea

Seo

45,337

Korea

Seo

2.2

Korea

Ulsan

67,566

Korea

Ulsan

3.3

Korea

Heungdeok

41,158

Korea

Heungdeok

2.0

Korea

Jeju

17,392

Korea

Jeju

0.8

Lithuania

Vilnius24,836

Lithuania

Vilnius27.7

Lithuania

Kaunas9,809

Lithuania

Kaunas11.0

MexicoMexico City

518,787

MexicoMexico City

22.2

MexicoGuadalajara

103,732

MexicoGuadalajara

4.4

MexicoMonterrey

158,951

MexicoMonterrey

6.8

MexicoQueretaro

38,553MexicoQueretaro

1.6

MexicoMerida23,541

MexicoMerida1.0

MexicoCuernavaca

14,110

MexicoCuernavaca

0.6

MexicoAguascalientes

21,581

MexicoAguascalientes

0.9

Netherlands

The Hague

58,288Netherlands

The Hague

6.5

Netherlands

Amsterdam

195,944

Netherlands

Amsterdam

21.9

Netherlands

Rotterdam

99,751

Netherlands

Rotterdam

11.1

Netherlands

Utrecht

56,542

Netherlands

Utrecht

6.3

Netherlands

Eindhoven

45,572

Netherlands

Eindhoven

5.1

Netherlands

Tilburg

14,088Netherlands

Tilburg

1.6

Netherlands

Groningen25,051

Netherlands

Groningen

2.8

Netherlands

Enschede

16,721

Netherlands

Enschede

1.9

Netherlands

Arnhem18,964

Netherlands

Arnhem2.1

Netherlands

Breda

19,048Netherlands

Breda

2.1

Netherlands

Leiden15,311

Netherlands

Leiden1.7

Netherlands

Zwolle16,525

Netherlands

Zwolle1.8

Netherlands

Alkmaar11,203

Netherlands

Alkmaar

1.3

349

Statistical Annex

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP

NorwayOslo

92,462

NorwayOslo

28.5

NorwayBergen21,384

NorwayBergen

6.6

NorwayTrondheim

13,880

NorwayTrondheim

4.3

NorwayStavanger

18,167

NorwayStavanger

5.6

PolandWarsaw

192,249

PolandWarsaw

17.4

PolandLodz

29,904

PolandLodz

2.7

PolandCracow

51,046

PolandCracow

4.6

PolandWroclaw

37,800PolandWroclaw

3.4

PolandPoznan46,242

PolandPoznan4.2

PolandGdansk

39,841PolandGdansk3.6

PolandBydgoszcz

14,266

PolandBydgoszcz

1.3

PolandLublin17,530PolandLublin1.6

PolandKatowice

80,837

PolandKatowice

7.3

PolandBialystok

10,005

PolandBialystok

0.9

PolandRzeszow

12,271PolandRzeszow

1.1

PolandCzestochowa

9,937

PolandCzestochowa

0.9

PolandBielsko-Biala

10,764

PolandBielsko-Biala

1.0

PolandTarnow

5,586

PolandTarnow

0.5

Portugal

Lisbon119,484

Portugal

Lisbon36.8

PortugalPorto

37,888

Portugal

Porto

11.7

Portugal

Coimbra7,674

Portugal

Coimbra2.4

Slovak Republic

Bratislava

32,700Slovak Republic

Bratislava

19.1

Slovenia

Ljubljana

25,966

Slovenia

Ljubljana

36.8

Slovenia

Maribor

8,903

Slovenia

Maribor12.6

SwedenStockholm

155,127

SwedenStockholm

30.8

SwedenGothenburg

50,143SwedenGothenburg

10.0

SwedenMalmo

28,943SwedenMalmo

5.8

SwedenUppsala

14,295

SwedenUppsala2.8

United States

New York (Greater)

1,676,319

United States

New York (Greater)

8.8

United States

Los Angeles (Greater)

1,138,721

United States

Los Angeles (Greater)

6.0

United States

Chicago

641,022

United States

Chicago3.4

United States

Washington (Greater)

949,948

United States

Washington (Greater)

5.0

United States

San Francisco (Greater)

785,176

United States

San Francisco (Greater)

4.1

United States

Philadelphia (Greater)

440,309

United States

Philadelphia (Greater)

2.3

United States

Dallas477,088

United States

Dallas2.5

United States

Houston437,076

United States

Houston

2.3

United States

Miami (Greater)

334,968

United States

Miami (Greater)

1.8

United States

Atlanta

358,026

United States

Atlanta

1.9

United States

Boston400,894

United States

Boston2.1

United States

Phoenix

232,110

United States

Phoenix

1.2

United States

Detroit (Greater)

254,055

United States

Detroit (Greater)

1.3

United States

Seattle350,638

United States

Seattle1.8

United States

Minneapolis

242,197

United States

Minneapolis

1.3

United States

San Diego

224,202

United States

an Diego

1.2

United States

St. Louis

149,353

United States

St. Louis

0.8

United States

Denver196,188

United States

Denver

1.0

United States

San Antonio

122,777

United States

San Antonio

0.6

United States

Portland

146,760

United States

Portland

0.8

United States

Cincinnati

129,939

United States

Cincinnati

0.7

United States

Las Vegas

111,336

United States

Las Vegas

0.6

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

350

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Table D.1: Continued
GDP (Million USD, constant prices, constant PPP)
United States

OrangeUnited States
United States

GDP of the metropolitan area as a share of the national GDP
127,120

United States

Orange0.7

Jackson (MO)121,428

United States

Jackson (MO)0.6

Indianapolis

130,402

United States

Indianapolis

0.7

United States

Cuyahoga

124,990

United States

Cuyahoga

0.7

United States

New Haven

134,539

United States

New Haven

0.7

United States

Charlotte

137,241

United States

Charlotte

0.7

United States

Sacramento

133,623

United States

Sacramento

0.7

United States

Austin132,970

United States

Austin0.7

United States

Columbus

119,809

United States

Columbus

0.6

United States

Milwaukee

96,527

United States

Milwaukee

0.5

United States

Jacksonville

79,606

United States

Jacksonville

0.4

United States

Salt Lake103,794

United States

Salt Lake

0.5

United States

Tampa-Pinellas

59,732

United States

Tampa-Pinellas

0.3

United States

Jefferson (KY)71,194

United States

Jefferson (KY)

0.4

United States

Memphis70,118

United States

Memphis0.4

United StatesDavidson

102,456

United StatesDavidson

0.5

United States

Oklahoma

71,927

United States

Oklahoma

0.4

United States

Hartford

94,974

United States

Hartford

0.5

United States

Pittsburgh

103,144

United States

Pittsburgh

0.5

United States

New Orleans

69,980

United States

New Orleans

0.4

United States

Virginia Beach

64,715

United States

Virginia Beach

0.3

United States

Erie (NY)64,742

United States

Erie (NY)

0.3

United States

Fresno (Greater)

49,785

United States

Fresno (Greater)

0.3

United States

Richmond (Greater)

73,909

United States

Richmond (Greater)

0.4

United States

Wake

74,061

United States

Wake

0.4

United States

Jefferson (AL)58,265

United States

Jefferson (AL)

0.3

United States

Tampa-Hillsborough82,215

United States

Tampa-Hillsborough

0.4

United States

Pima

41,257

United States

Pima

0.2

United States

Tulsa

52,923

United States

Tulsa

0.3

United States

Albany60,515

United States

Albany0.3

United States

Providence

51,281

United States

Providence

0.3

United States

Albuquerque40,614

United States

Albuquerque

0.2

United States

Douglas (NE)59,331

United States

Douglas (NE)

0.3

United States

Rochester (NY)50,189

United States

Rochester (NY)

0.3

United States

Kern

46,490

United States

Kern

0.2

United States

Ventura55,950

United States

Ventura0.3

United States

El Paso (TX)

29,885

United States

El Paso (TX)

0.2

United States

East Baton Rouge

49,518

United States

East Baton Rouge

0.3

United States

Worcester

42,469

United States

Worcester

0.2

United States

Hidalgo21,488

United States

Hidalgo0.1

United States

Richland

40,128

United States

Richland

0.2

United States

Lehigh37,453

United States

Lehigh0.2

United States

Sarasota

31,293

United States

Sarasota

0.2

United States

Montgomery (OH)36,118

United States

Montgomery (OH)

0.2

United States

San Joaquin

29,455

United States

San Joaquin

0.2

United States

Kent

41,839

United States

Kent

0.2

United States

Charleston

39,145

United States

Charleston

0.2

United States

Onondaga

38,896

United States

Onondaga

0.2

United States

El Paso (CO)34,988

United States

El Paso (CO)0.2

Source: OECD - http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES

351

Gini coefficient (at disposable income, after taxes and transfers)

References

References

Abdel-Rahman, H. M. and A. Anas (2004)‘Theories of systems of cities‘ in J. V.
Henderson and J. F. Thisse (eds) Handbookof Regional and Urban Economics, vol. 4,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp.2293–2339
Abouzeid, R. (2019) ‘How women are stepping
up to remake Rwanda’, https://www.
nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/10/
how-women-are-remaking-rwanda-feature/,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Acemoglu, D., S. Naidu, P. Restrepo, and J. A.
Robinson (2019) ‘Democracy Does Cause
Growth’, Journal of Political Economy 127(1):47–100ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2013) Annual
report: Promoting environmentally sustainablegrowth in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.
adb.org/sites/default/files/institutionaldocument/42741/adb-annual-report-2013.
pdf, last accessed 22 September 2020
Adegun, O.B. (2015) ‘State-led versus community-initiated: Storm water drainage andinformal settlement intervention in Johannesburg, South Africa’, Environment and
Urbanization 27 (2): 407–420
Adelekan, I., C. Johnson, M. Manda, D. Matyas,
B.U. Mberu, S. Parnell, M. Pelling, D.
Satterthwaite, and J. Vivekananda (2015)‘Disaster risk and its reduction: An agenda
for urban Africa’, International Development
Planning Review 37 (1): 33–43
Ades, A. F. and E. L. Glaeser (1995) ‘Trade andCircuses: Explaining Urban Giants’, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1): 195–227
Adjei Mensah, C., L. Andres, P. Baidoo, J. K.
Eshun, and K. B. Antwi (2017 ) ‘Community Participation in Urban Planning: The
Case of Managing Green Spaces in Kumasi,
Ghana’, Urban Forum 28 (2):125–141
Administrative Staff College of India (2008)
Social Accountability in Urban Governance:
Indian Case Studies, Final Report Submitted
to The World Bank Institute, https://cuts-cart.org/pdf/Social_Accountability_
in_Urban_Governance.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
African Development Bank Group (AfDB)(undated) ‘Senegal and the AfDB’, https://www.afdb.org/en/countries/west-africa/
senegal/senegal-and-the-afdb/, last accessed
25 September 2020
African Union (2020) Impact of the Coronavirus(COVID-19) on The African Economy, https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/38326doc-covid-19_impact_on_african_economy.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Agarwal.V, K. Pokharel and R. Roy (2020)‘Village life in India won’t be the same ascoronavirus chases migrants out of cities’
The Wall Street Journal, 18 June, https://www.wsj.com/articles/village-life-in-indiawont-be-the-same-as-coronavirus-chasesmigrants-out-of-cities-11592478003, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
Agencia Digital del Gobierno de la Ciudadde México (2020) https://datos.cdmx.gob.
mx/explore/dataset/servicios-atencionviolencia-mujeres-durante-contingenciacovid19/information/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Agencia EFE (2015) ‘Sexual harassment of
women on public transit remains a problem
in Mexico City’, https://www.efe.com/efe/
english/life/sexual-harassment-of-womenon-public-transit-remains-a-problem-inmexico-city/50000263-2639795, last accessed
22 September 2020
Agyeman, J. (2013 ) Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, And Practice, Zed
Books Ltd.
Agyeman, J., D. Schlosberg, L. Craven, and C.
Matthews (2016 ) ‘Trends and directions
in environmental justice: From inequity toeveryday life, community, and just sustainabilities’, Annual Review of Environment andResources 41:321–340
Ahmad E., D. Dowling, C. Denise, S. Colenbrander,and N. Godfrey (2019) Scaling Up Investment
for Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: A Guide
to National and Subnational Reform, London
and Washington D. C., http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/cities-workingpapers, last accessed 25 September 2020
Ahmad, E., D. Dowling, D. Chan, S. Colenbrander and N. Godfrey (2019) Scaling Up
Investment for Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: A Guide to National and Subnational
Reform Coalition for Urban Transitions,London and Washington, DC, http://
newclimateeconomy.net/content/citiesworking-papers, last accessed 25 September
2020
Ahn, M.J. (2020) ‘Combating COVID-19:
Lessons from South Korea’ TechTank, 13
April, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/

techtank/2020/04/13/combating-covid19-lessons-from-south-korea/, last accessed
20 April 2020
Al Jazeera and News Agencies (2020) ‘Concerns after Mumbai’s Dharavi slum reports
COVID-19 cases’, Al Jazeera ,3 April,https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/
concerns-mumbai-dharavi-slum-reportscovid-19-cases-200403053646046.html, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Alam, M. (2014) Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
in Developing Countries: Case Studies from theCommonwealth, Commonwealth Secretariat,
LondonAlbino, V., U. Berardi, and R. M. Dangelico(2015 ) ‘Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives’,
Journal of Urban Technology 22 (1):3–21. doi:
10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
Albouy, D. (2008) Are Big Cities Bad Places to
Live? Estimating Quality of Life Across Metropolitan Areas, NBER Working Paper 14472
Albouy, D. and B. Stuart (2014) Urban Population
and Amenities: The Neoclassical Model of Location, NBER Working Paper 19919
Alderman, L. (2020) ‘Corona cycleways’ become
the new post-confinement commute’, The
New York Times, 12 June, https://www.
nytimes.com/2020/06/12/business/parisbicycles-commute-coronavirus.html, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Allegretti, G., N. Duxbury, M. Serapioni, E.
García Chueca, and M. Fricaudet (2016)‘More inclusive cities and territories’,
GOLD IV Think Piece, Centros de Estudos
Sociais (CES) and UCLG Committee on
Social Inclusion, Participatory Democracy
and Human Rights, https://www.uclg.org/
sites/default/files/inclusive_cities_tp_en_
final.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
AlMujadidi, L., C. Azoury, D. Schmautzer, and J.
Woetzel (2019) ‘Unlocking the full potentialof city revenues’ McKinsey and Company,
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/
public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-thefull-potential-of-city-revenues, last accessed
25 September 2020
Andersson, L. (2015) Overview of Municipal
Pooled Financing Practices —Prepared forthe participants of the European Study Tour,https://www.maproductions.se/wpcontent/2016/04/Overview-of-municipalpooled-financing-practices-study-tour-2015.

352

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
Andrewartha, J. (2019 ) ‘Support greta’s call fora global climate strike’, Green Left Weekly(1223):7
Angel, S. (2012) Planet of Cities, Lincoln Instituteof Land Policy, Cambridge, MA
Angélil, M. and R. Hehl (eds) (2012) Informalize!
Essays on the Political Economy of Urban Form,
Ruby Press, Berlin
Anguelovski, I., J. J. Connolly, L. Masip, and H.
Pearsall (2018 ) ‘Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchisedneighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial
analysis of Barcelona’, Urban Geography 39(3):458–491
Anguelovski, I., J. J. T. Connolly, H. Pearsall, G.
Shokry, M. Checker, J. Maantay, K. Gould,
T. Lewis, A. Maroko, and J. T. Roberts (2019) ‘Opinion: Why green “climate gentrification” threatens poor and vulnerable populations’, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 116 (52):26139–26143. doi: 10.1073/
pnas.1920490117
Arimah, B. C. (2010) ‘The Face of Urban Poverty:
Explaining the Prevalence of Slums in
Developing Countries’ in J. Beall, B. GuhaKhasnobis and R.i Kanbur (eds) Urbanization and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Aristizabal, N. and A.O. Gomez (2002) ‘Are
services more important than titles in
Bogotá?’, in G. Payne (ed), Land, Rights andInnovation: Improving Tenure Security for the
Urban Poor, ITDG Publishing, London
Arku, G. (2006) ‘Housing and economic development debate revisited: Economic significance of housing in developing countries’,
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment
21 (4): 377–395
Arku, G. (2009a) ‘Rapidly growing African cities
need to adopt smart growth policies tosolve urban problems’, Urban Forum 20 (3):253–270
Arku, G. (2009b) ‘The economics of housing
programmes in Ghana, 1929–1966’ Planning
Perspectives 24 (3): 281-300
Arku, G. (2009c) ‘Housing policy changes in
Ghana in the 1990s’, Housing Studies 24 (2):261–272
Arku, G. and R. Harris (2005) ‘Housing as atool of economic development since 1929’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 29 (4): 895–915
Arku, G. and R. Sadler (2017) ‘Healthy cities’,
in A. Bain and L. Peak (eds) Urbanization ina Global Context: A Canadian Readers Guide,
Oxford University Press, pp 361–376
Aronson, M. F., F. A. La Sorte, C. H. Nilon, M.
Katti, M. A. Goddard, C. A. Lepczyk, P. S.
Warren, N. S. Williams, S. Cilliers, and B.
Clarkson (2014 ) ‘A global analysis of the
impacts of urbanization on bird and plant
diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers’,
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological353

Sciences 281 (1780):20133330
ARUP (undated) ‘The Lahore safe city project—
Advanced digital and security technologies
help promote a safer Lahore’, https://www.
arup.com/projects/the-lahore-safe-cityproject, last accessed 25 September 2020
Asher, S. (2020) ‘Coronavirus in Singapore: The
garden city learning to love the wild’, BBC
News,14 June, https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-asia-52960623
Asher, S., J. P. Chauvin, and P. Novosad (2019)
Rural Spillovers of Urban Growth, InterAmerican Development Bank, Washington,
DC
Associated Press and dailymail.com (2020)‘Black people make up one third ofcoronavirus deaths making up 14 percentof the American population, new datashows’, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/
article-8231955/Racial-toll-virus-growsstarker-data-emerges.html, last accessed 21
September 2020
Astara, H. (2012) Culture as the Fourth Pillar of
Sustainable Development, http://sdct-journal.
com/images/Issues/2015/7.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
Au, C. and J. V. Henderson (2006) ‘Are Chinese
Cities Too Small?’, The Review of Economic
Studies 73(3): 549–576
Ayuntamiento de Bacerlona (2018) Estrategia de
inclusion y de reduccion de las desiguladadessociales de Barcelona 2017-2027, http://www.
bcn.cat/barcelonainclusiva/es/, last accessed
24 September 2020
Bäckstrand, K., J. W. Kuyper, B.-O. Linnér, andE. Lövbrand (2017 ) ‘Non-state actors inglobal climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond’, Routledge
Badgett, M.V. L. (2014) The Economic Cost of
Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A
Case Study of India, World Bank, Washington, DC
Bah E.M., I. Faye, and Z.F. Geh (2018) ‘The
housing sector in Africa: Setting the scene’,in Housing Market Dynamics in Africa, Palgrave Macmillan, London
Bai, X., R. J. Dawson, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, G.
C. Delgado, A. S. Barau, S. Dhakal, D.
Dodman, L. Leonardsen, V. MassonDelmotte, and D. C. Roberts (2018 ) ‘Six
research priorities for cities and climatechange’, Nature Publishing Group
Bai, X., T. McPhearson, H. Cleugh, H. Nagendra,
X. Tong, T. Zhu, and Y.-G. Zhu (2017 )‘Linking Urbanization and the Environment: Conceptual and Empirical Advances’,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
42 (1):215–240
Bain, P. G., T. L. Milfont, Y. Kashima, M. Bilewicz, G. Doron, R. B. Garðarsdóttir, V. V.
Gouveia, Y. Guan, L.-O. Johansson, and C.
Pasquali (2016 ) ‘Co-benefits of addressing
climate change can motivate action
around the world’, Nature Climate Change 6(2):154–157
Baker, J. L. (2008) Urban Poverty: A Global
View, World Bank Urban Papers, http://
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
en/954511468315832363/pdf/430280NWP
0Glob10Box327344B01PUBLIC1.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Bakker, J. D., C. Parsons, and F. Rauch (2019)
Migration and Urbanization in Post-Apartheid
South Africa, World Bank, Washington DC
Balmer. C. (2020) Italy’s coronavirus deaths
surge by 627 in a day, elderly at high risk,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcoronavirus-italy-tally/italys-coronavirusdeaths-surge-by-627-in-a-day-elderly-athigh-risk-idUSKBN2172VL, last accessed 22
September 2020
Bangladeshi and Garment Manufacturers
Exporters Association (2020) ‘Impact
of COVID-19 on the Bangladesh RMG
Industry’, https://www.bgmea.com.bd/, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Barber, B. (2016) ‘Can mayors really rule theworld?’ in A new urban paradigm: Pathways
to sustainable development —Policy in Focus
13(3):9–11
Barbier, E. B. (2009) A Global Green New Deal:
Rethinking the Economic Recovery, https://www.cbd.int/development/doc/UNEPglobal-green-new-deal.pdf, last accessed 22
September 2020
Barnett, C. and S. Parnell (2016) ‘Ideas, implementation and indicators: Epistemologiesof the post-2015 urban agenda’ Environment
and Urbanization 28(1): 87–98
Barragan, J.M. and M. De Andrés (2015) ‘Analysis
and trends of the world’s coastal cities andagglomerations’, Ocean and Coastal Management 114:11–20
Barro, R. (2001) ‘Human capital and growth’,
American Economic Review 91(2): 12–17,
Barros, R. and J. Sampaio (2016) ‘Do citizens
trust electronic participatory budgeting?
Public expression in online forums as anevaluation method in Belo Horizonte’ Policy
and Internet 8(3): 292–312
Bartlett, S. and D. Satterthwaite (2016 ) Cities
on a Finite Planet: Towards Transformative
Responses to Climate Change, Routledge
Bartolini, D. (2015) Municipal Fragmentationand Economic Performance of OECD TL2
Regions, OECD Regional Development
Working Papers 2015/02, https://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/5jrxqs60st5h-en, last accessed 28
April 2020
Batty, M., K. W. Axhausen, F. Giannotti, A.
Pozdnoukhov, A. Bazzani, M. Wachowicz,
G. Ouzounis, and Y. Portugali (2012 ) ‘Smartcities of the future’, The European PhysicalJournal Special Topics 214 (1):481–518
Baum-Snow,N. and R. Pavan (2012) ‘Understanding the city size wage gap’, Review of
Economic Studies 79: 88–127
Bay Area Economic Council (BASIC) (2019)References‘The Bay Area Innovation System’, http://
www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/BayAreaInnovationSystem2019.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
BBC (2019) ‘Essex lorry deaths: What we know’,
BBC News, 4 November, https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-europe-50159748, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
BBC (2020) ‘Coronavirus wreaks havoc in
African American neighbourhoods, BBC
News, 7 April, https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-us-canada-52194018 , last accessed 22
September 2020
Beall, J., B. Guha-Khasnobis, and R. Kanbur(eds) (2010) Urbanisation and Development:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Benson, M. and S. Faiez (2020) Reflexivity in The
Age of Pandemia: Adaptive Policy Making and
The Covid-19 Crisis, Urban Policy Series,
Issue No. (3April) Thinkcity Institute,
Kuala Lumpur
Berrisford, S. and P. McAusian, (2017) Reforming
Urban Laws in Africa. A Practical Guide,
Centre for Cities (ACC), Cities Alliance, United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-Habitat) and Urban
LandMark, https://unhabitat.org/sites/
default/files/2020/05/ulr-report_final_lr.pdf,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Bhalla, N. (2019) ‘Kenyan scientist builds withbottles to beat plastic pollution’, Reuters,
13 December, https://www.reuters.com/
article/us-kenya-environment-pollutiontrfn/kenyan-scientist-builds-with-bottlesto-beat-plastic-pollution-idUSKBN1YH0UL, last accessed 24 September 2020
Bhan, G., S. Srinivas and V. Watson (2018) The
Routledge Companion to Planning in the Global
South, Routledge, London and New York
Bhatkal, T and T. Lucci (2015) Community-Driven
Development in the Slums: Thailand’s experience, ODI Development Progress, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/9669.pdf,
last accessed 28 September 2020
Bigio, A. G. and Dahiya, B. (2004) Urban Environment and Infrastructure: Toward Livable
Cities, Directions in Development Series,
World Bank, Washington, DC
Bigio, A.G. and Dahiya, B. (2003) World Bank
Investments for the Urban Environment, Environment Strategy Note No. 8, World Bank,
Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/366001468151475459/
World-Bank-investments-for-the-urbanenvironment, last accessed 25 September
2020
Blakeley, G. (2010 ) ‘Governing ourselves: Citizen
participation and governance in Barcelona
and Manchester’, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 34 (1):130–145
Bliss, L. (2016) ‘How “maintainers,” not“innovators,” make the world Turn’

CityLab, https://www.citylab.com/
design/2016/04/how-maintainersnot-innovators-make-the-worldturn/477468/?utm_campaign=citylab&utm_
term=2019-10-25T21%3A31%3A53&utm_
source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_
content=edit-promo, last accessed 24
September 2020
Bloom, D. E. and T. Khanna (2007) ‘The urban
revolution’ Finance and Development Quarterly, 44 (3): 9-14, https://www.imf.org/
external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/09/pdf/bloom.
pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
Bloom, D., D. Canning, and G. Fink (2008)‘Urbanization and the wealth of nations’,
Science 319: 772–775
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) (2020) The
Employment Situation — August 2020, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
Bodansky, D. (2016 ) ‘The Paris climate change
agreement: A new hope?’, American Journalof International Law 110 (2):288–319
Bonanno, M (2017) ‘The real impact of US
withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord’,
https://impakter.com/real-impact-us-withdrawal-paris-climate-accord/, last accessed
22 September 2020
Bond, P. (2016 ) ‘Who Wins From” Climate
Apartheid”?: African Climate Justice Narratives About the Paris COP21’, New Politics
15 (4):83
Bonilla, M. and I. Zapparoli (2017) The Challengeof Financing Urban Infrastructure for Sustainable Cities, Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB) https://publications.iadb.org/
publications/english/document/The-Challenge-of-Financing-Urban-Infrastructurefor-Sustainable-Cities.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Borck, R. and J. K. Brueckner (2018) ‘Optimalenergy taxation in cities’, Journal of the
Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists 5(2): 481–516
Boston Consulting Group (2018) Unlocking Cities:
The Impact of Ridesharing Across India, The
Boston Consulting Group, https://imagesrc.bcg.com/Images/BCG-UnlockingCities-Ridesharing-India_tcm9-185213.pdf,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Boston Consulting Group (2020) ‘COVID-19
threatens to shutter Latin America’s small
businesses’ April 19, https://www.bcg.com/
publications/2020/covid-19-impacts-smallbusinesses-latin-america.aspx, last accessed
13 May 2020
Bouchet, M., S. Liu, J. Parilla, and N. Kabbani(2018) Global Metro Monitor 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro_GlobalMetro-Monitor-2018-Executive-summary.
pdf, last accessed 22 September 2020
Bouton, S., D. Newsome, and J.Woetzel (2015)‘Building the cities of the future with green

districts’, McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/building-thecities-of-the-future-with-green-districts,
last accessed 25 September 2020Brenner, N. (2013 ) ‘Theses on urbanization’,
Public culture 25 (1 (69)):85–114
Broadband Commission for Sustainable
Development (2017) The State of Broadband: Broadband catalyzing sustainable
development September 2017, https://www.
itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POLBROADBAND.18-2017-PDF-E.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Brooks, R., E. Ribakova, S. Lanau, J. Fortun, and
B. Hilgenstock (2020) Capital Flows Report:
Suden Stop in Emerging Markets, Institute ofInternational Finance, https://www.iif.com/
portals/0/files/content/2_IIF2020_April_
CFR.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020.
Brown, C., A. de Lannoy, D. McCracken, T. Gill,
M. Grant, H. Wright and S. Williams (2019)‘Special issue: Child-friendly cities’, Cities &Health 3:(1-2): 1–7
Brown, D. and G. McGranahan (2016 ) ‘The
urban informal economy, local inclusion
and achieving a global green transformation’, Habitat international 53:97–105
Brown, D., G. McGranahan, and D. Dodman(2014 ) Urban Informality and Building a More
Inclusive, Resilient and Green Economy, IIED,
LondonBrown, K. (2020) ‘Global issues to watch in2020’, https://unfoundation.org/blog/
post/5-global-issues-to-watch-in-2020/, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Brueckner, J. K. and K. S. Sridhar (2012)‘Measuring welfare gains from relaxationof land-use restrictions: The case of India’sbuilding-height limits’, Regional Science and
Urban Economics 42(6): 1061–1067
Buchanan, L., Q. Bui, and J. K. Patel (2020)‘Black Lives Matter may be the largest
movement in U.S. history’ The New YorkTimes, 3 July, https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floydprotests-crowd-size.html, last accessed 24
September 2020
Buhaug, H. and H. Urdal (2013 ) ‘An urbanization bomb? Population growth and social
disorder in cities’, Global Environmental
Change 23 (1):1–10
Bulkeley, H. (2019) Accomplishing Climate
Governance, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Burdet, R. and P. Rodes (eds) (2018) Shaping
Cities in an Urban Age, Phaidon Press,
LondonBurger, M. J., B. Van der Knaap, and R. S. Wall(2012) ‘Revealed competition for greenfield
investments between European regions’,
Journal of Economic Geography 13(4): 619–648
Butt, N., F. Lambrick, M. Menton, and A.
Renwick (2019 ) ‘The supply chain of vio-354

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

lence’, Nature Sustainability 2 (8):742–747
C40 and Ramboll (2018) ‘Urban climate
impacts action framework; A frameworkfor describing and measuring the wider
impacts of urban climate action’, https://
c40-production-images.s3.amazonaws.com/
other_uploads/images/1605_C40_UCAIF_
report_V3.original.pdf?1518203136, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
C40 Cities (2019) ‘Hanoi’s bus rapid transit
system – The key to sustainable urban
development’, https://www.c40.org/case_studies/hanoi-s-bus-rapid-transit-systemthe-key-to-sustainable-urban-development
C40 Cities (2020) “Global Mayors COVID-19
Recovery Task Force Statement of Principles” https://www.c40.org/other/covid-taskforce, last accessed 22 September 2020
C40-and EIT Climate-KIC (2018) Municipalityled circular economy case studies, C40, London
Cabannes, Y. and B. Lipietz (2017) ‘Revisiting
the democratic promise of participatory
budgeting in light of competing political,
good governance and technocratic logics’,
Environment and Urbanization, IIED,
London, pp. 1–18
Cabannes, Y. (eds) (2018) Highlights on some Asianand Russian Participatory Budgeting Pioneers,
KKF, IODP, UCL/DPU, https://www.ucl.
ac.uk/bartlett/development/sites/bartlett/files/pub_asiarussia_2.pdf, last accessed 29
September 2020
CAF (Development Bank of Latin America)(2017) ‘Latin America must invest at least
5 percent per year in infrastructure to takethe leap toward competitiveness’, https://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/2017/05/
latin-america-must-invest-at-least-5-percent-per-year-in-infrastructure-to-makethe-leap-toward-competitiveness/, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Cahill, F. and E. Ryan (2019) ‘Women andCities’, Global Compact Cities Programme,
https://citiesprogramme.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/10/Case-Study-Porto-AlegreChocolatao.pdf, last accessed 24 September2020Calì, M. and C. Menon (2013) ‘Does urbanization
affect rural poverty? Evidence from Indian
districts’, World Bank Economic Review 27(2): 171–201
Calnec-Sugin, T. and C. Heeckt (2020)‘Mobility for the masses: The essential roleof informal transport in the COVID-19
recovery’, LSE, https://www.lse.ac.uk/
cities/publications/blogs/Mobility-for-theMasses, last accessed 23 September 2020
Campante, F. R. and Q. Do (2014) ‘Isolated
capital cities, accountability, and corruption: Evidence from US States’, American
Economic Review 104(8): 2456–2481
Campante, F. R., Q. Do, and B. Guimaraes(2019) ‘Capital cities, conflict, and misgovernance’, American Economic Journal: Applied

355

Economics 11(3): 298–337
Campbell K, J. Rising, J.M. Klopp and J.
Mwikali (2019) ‘Accessibility AcrossTransport Modes and Residential Types in
Nairobi’, Journal of Transport Geography 74:
77–90
Caprotti, F., R. Cowley, A. Datta, V. Castán
Broto, E. Gao, L. Georgeson, C. Herrick,N. Odendaal, and S. Joss (2017 ) ‘The New
Urban Agenda: Key opportunities andchallenges for policy and practice’, Urban
research & practice 10 (3):367–378
Carlos, V., J. Vetterly, J. Anderson, S. Goldstein,and V. J. DeSantis (2015) Why Project Bonds
Are on the Rise in Latin America, https://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/
why-project-bonds-are-rise-latin-america
Carmin, J., I. Anguelovski, and D. Roberts (2012) ‘Urban Climate Adaptation in the Global
South: Planning in an Emerging Policy
Domain’, Journal of Planning Education andResearch 32 (1):18–32
Carozzi, F., S. Provenzano and S. Roth (2020)
Urban Density and Covid-19, CEP Discussion
Paper No 1711, London School of Economics
and Political Science, London, http://cep.
lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1711.pdf, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
Cartwright, A., I. Palmer, A. Taylor, E. Pieterse,
S. Parnell, and S. Colenbrander (2018)
Developing Prosperous and Inclusive Cities inAfrica - National Urban Policies to the Rescue?
Coalition for Urban Transitions, London
and Washington, DC
Cartwright, A., J. Blignaut, and M. De Wit,
(2013) ‘Economics of climate change adaptation at the local scale under conditions of
uncertainty and resource constraints: Thecase of Durban, South Africa’ Environment
and Urbanization 25 (1):139–156
Carvalho, B., M. Cavalcanti and V. R. Venuturupalli (eds) (2016) Occupy All Streets: Olympic
Urbanism and Contested Futures in Rio deJaneiro, Terreform, New York
Castán Broto, V. (2014 ) ‘Planning for climatechange in the African city’, International
Development Planning Review 36 (3):257–264
Castán Broto, V. (2017a ) ‘Energy sovereignty
and development planning: The case of
Maputo, Mozambique’, International Development Planning Review 39 (3):229–248
Castán Broto, V. (2017b ) ‘Urban governanceand the politics of climate change’, Worlddevelopment 93:1–15
Castán Broto, V. and H. Sudhira (2019 ) ‘Engineering modernity: Water, electricity andthe infrastructure landscapes of Bangalore,
India’, Urban Studies:0042098018815600
Castán Broto, V. and L. Westman (2017 ) ‘Just
sustainabilities and local action: Evidence
from 400 flagship initiatives’, Local environment 22 (5):635–650
Castan Broto, V. and L. Westman (2020 ) ‘Ten
years after Copenhagen: Re-imagining

climate change governance in urban areas’,
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
ChangeCastán Broto, V. and S. Neves Alves (2018 )‘Intersectionality challenges for the coproduction of urban services: Notes for atheoretical and methodological agenda’,
Environment and Urbanization 30 (2):367–386
Castán Broto, V., L. Stevens, E. Ackom, J. Tomei,
P. Parikh, I. Bisaga, L. S. To, J. Kirshner, andY. Mulugetta (2017 ) ‘A research agenda for apeople-centred approach to energy access inthe urbanizing global south’, Nature Energy
2 (10):776–779
Castillo Cabrera, F. and D. Haase (2018 ) ‘Guatemala City: A socio-ecological profile’, Cities
72:379–390
Catalytic Communities (2018) Sustainable Favela
Network: Map (2017), http://catcomm.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SustainableFavela-Network-Map-2017-Final-Report.
pdf, last accessed 23 September 2020
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) (2020) ‘Health equity considerations
and racial and ethnic minority groups’,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html, last accessed 22 September
2020
CDC COVID-19 Response Team (2020) Severe
Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) —UnitedStates, February 12–March 16, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/
pdfs/mm6912e2-H.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
Cerdà, A., Ó. González-Pelayo, A. Giménez-Morera, A. Jordán, P. Pereira, A.
Novara, E. C. Brevik, M. Prosdocimi, M.
Mahmoodabadi, and S. Keesstra (2016 )‘Use of barley straw residues to avoid higherosion and runoff rates on persimmon
plantations in Eastern Spain under low frequency–high magnitude simulated rainfall
events’, Soil Research 54 (2):154–165
Cervero, R. and A. Golub (2007 ) ‘Informaltransport: A global perspective’, Transport
policy 14 (6):445–457
Chami, J. (2020) ‘As cities grow, so do thenumbers of homeless’, https://yaleglobal.
yale.edu/content/cities-grow-so-do-numbers-homeless, last accessed 22 September
2020
Chan, S., H. van Asselt, T. Hale, K. W. Abbott,
M. Beisheim, M. Hoffmann, B. Guy, N.
Höhne, A. Hsu, P. Pattberg, P. Pauw,
C. Ramstein, and O. Widerberg (2015 )‘Reinvigorating International Climate
Policy: A Comprehensive Framework for
Effective Nonstate Action’, Global Policy 6(4):466–473
Chang, Y., C. Lee and Y. Jung (2018) ‘Revival ofbus: Seoul Bus Reform in 2004’, City Voices
9 (1):13–15

References

Chant, S. (2013) ‘Cities through a “gender lens”:
A golden ‘urban age’ for women in the
global South?’, Environment and Urbanization
25 (1): 1–21
Chant, S. and C. Mcilwaine, (2013) ‘Gender,
urban development and the politics ofspace, e-international relations’, https://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/04/gender-urbandevelopment-and-the-politics-of-space/,last accessed 22 September 2020
Chatwin, M. and G. Arku (2018) ‘Co-creating
open government action plans: The case of
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly,
Ghana’ Growth and Change, 49(2):374–393
Chatwin, M., G. Arku, and E. Cleave (2019)‘Defining subnational open government:
Does local context influence policy andpractice’ Policy Sciences 52 (3):451–479
Chauvin, J. P., E. Glaeser, Y. Ma, and K. Tobio(2017) ‘What is different about urbanizationin rich and poor countries? Cities in Brazil,
China, India and the United States’, Journalof Urban Economics 98(C): 17–49
Chemnick, J. (2018) ‘U.S. Stands with Russia
and Saudi Arabia against climate science’,
Scientific American, 10 December, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-stands-with-russia-and-saudi-arabiaagainst-climate-science/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Chen, K., M. Wang, C. Huang, P.L. Kinney, andA.T. Paul (2020) Air Pollution Reduction andMortality Benefit during the COVID-19 Outbreak in China, https://www.medrxiv.org/
content/10.1101/2020.03.23.20039842v1.full.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
Chen, S. and M. Ravallion (2007) Absolute
Poverty Measures for the Developing World,
1981–2004, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, www.pnas.org/
content/104/43/16757.full.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
Cheung, H.(2020) ‘Coronavirus: US unemployment claims hit 33.3 million amid virus’,
BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/
business-52570600, last accessed 22 September 2020
Child Friendly Cities Initiative (2020) ‘Growing
cities’, https://childfriendlycities.org/
growing-cities/#:~:text=Of%20the%204%20
billion%20people,many%20of%20them%20
in%20slums, last accessed 24 September
2020
Chinese Center for Disease Control andPrevention (2020) ‘The epidemiologicalcharacteristics of an outbreak of 2019 novel
coronavirus diseases (COVID-19)—China,
2020’, CCDC Weekly 2(8): 113–122
Cho, R. (2017) ‘What can we do about thegrowing E-waste problem?’ State of the EarthBlog, 27 August, Earth Institute, Columbia
University, https://blogs.ei.columbia.
edu/2018/08/27/growing-e-waste-problem/,last accessed 24 September 2020

Ciccone, A. and R. E. Hall (1996) Productivity
and the Density of Economic Activity, NBER
Working Papers 4313
Ćirković, S. (2019) ‘Bolsa Família in Brazil’,
Centre for Public Impact, https://www.
centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/
bolsa-familia-in-brazil/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Cities Alliance (2015) Sustainable Development
Goals and Habitat III: Opportunities for a
successful New Urban Agenda, https://www.
citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/Opportunities%20for%20the%20New%20Urban%20
Agenda.pdf, last accessed 21 September
2020
Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance(2015) State of City Climate Finance 2015,
Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance(CCFLA), New York
Cities Today (2020)’Seoul mayor explains how
the city is tackling COVID-19’, Cities Today,
26 March, https://cities-today.com/howseoul-contained-covid-19, last accessed 28
September 2020
City for All Women Initiative (2015) Advancing
Equity and Inclusion: A Guide for Municipalities, https://www.cawi-ivtf.org/sites/default/
files/publications/advancing-equity-inclusion-web_0.pdf, last accessed 24 September
2020
City Mayors (2015) ‘German mayors welcome
refugees despite the immediate challenges’
Metro News, 23 September, http://www.citymayors.com/news/metronews_ europe.html
City of Buenos Aires (2018) Buenos Aires Action
Plan. A Report, https://www.gpfi.org/
sites/gpfi/files/documents/Buenos_Aires_
Action_Plan.pdf, last accessed 22 September
2020
City of New York (2019) ‘Voluntary Local
Review Declaration’ https://www1.nyc.
gov/site/international/programs/voluntary-local-review-declaration.page, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
City of Vienna (2013) Gender Mainstreaming in
Urban Planning and Urban Development,
https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008358.pdf, last accessed 22
September 2020
Cleave, E., G. Arku, and M. Chatwin (2017)‘Cities’ economic development efforts in achanging global economy: Content analysis
of economic development plans in Ontario,
Canada’, Area. 49(3):359–368
Climate Bonds Initiative (2020) ‘2019 Green
Bond Market Summary–February 2020’,
https://www.climatebonds.net/files/
reports/2019_annual_highlights-final.pdf,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019) Climate
Emergency, Urban Opportunity: How National
Governments can Secure Economic Prosperity
and Avert Climate Catastrophe by Transforming Cities, https://urbantransitions.

global/urban-opportunity, last accessed 28
September 2020
Cobbinah, P., M. Erdiaw-Kwasie, and P.
Amoateng (2015) ‘Africa’s urbanisation:
Implications for sustainable development’Cities 47: 62–72
Cobham, A. and P. Janský (2017) Global Distribution Of Revenue Loss From Tax Avoidance:
Re-Estimation And Country Results, WIDER
Working Paper 2017/55,UNU-WIDER,
Helsinki
Coletto, D. (2010) The Informal Economy and
Employment in Brazil: Latin America,
Modernization and Social Changes, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Collier, P., E. Glaeser, A. Venables, P. Manwaring, and M. Blake (2018) Land and Property
Taxes for Municipal Finance, International
Growth Center, London School of Economicand Political Science, London
Combes, P. and L. Gobillon (2015) ‘The
empirics of agglomeration economies’,
in G. Duranton, J. V. Henderson and W.
C. Strange (eds) Handbook of Regional and
Urban Economics, vol. 5, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp.247–348
Combes, P., G. Duranton, L. Gobillon, D. Puga,
and S. Roux (2012) ‘The productivity advantages of large cities: Distinguishing agglomeration from firm selection’, Econometrica
80(6): 2543–2594
Conger, K. (2020) ‘Uber and Lyft Are Searchingfor Lifelines’, The New York Times, 17 April,https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/
technology/uber-lift-coronavirus.html, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Convergence (2018) The State of Blended Finance2018, https://www.convergence.finance/
resource/7LEqTu0YeceaQugSWaSKSk/view,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Correia, T. P (1993 ) ‘Threatened landscape in
Alentejo, Portugal: The ‘montado’and other‘agro-silvo-pastoral’systems’, Landscape and
Urban Planning 24 (1-4):43–48
Coulibaly, S., U. Deichmann, W. R. Dillinger,
M. I. Heroiu, I. N. Kessides, C. Kunaka,and D. Saslavsky (2012) Eurasian Cities: New
Realities along the Silk Road, World Bank,
Washington, DC
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (2020)‘Explore the biodiversity hotspots’ https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots, last accessed 22 September 2020
Croese, S. (2019) ‘Cities stepping up the game’,
https://www.mistraurbanfutures.org/en/
blog/cities-stepping-game, last accessed 28
September 2020
Dahiya B. and B. Gentry (2020) ‘Public-private
partnerships to improve urban environmental services’, in S. Cheema (eds) Governance for Urban Services: Access, Participation,
Accountability, and Transparency. Advancesin 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer,
Singapore

356

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Dasgupta, B., S. V. Lall, and N. Lazano-Garcia(2014) Urbanization and Housing Investment.
Policy Research Paper 7100, WorldBank.
Washington, DC
Datta, A. (2015 ) ‘New urban utopias of
postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial
urbanization’in Dholera smart city,
Gujarat’, Dialogues in Human Geography 5(1):3–22
Davis, J. C. and J. V. Henderson (2003) ‘Evidence
on the political economy of the urbanization process’, Journal of Urban Economics
53(1): 98–125
Davoudi, S. (2014 ) ‘Climate change, securitisation of nature, and resilient urbanism’,Environment and Planning C: Government andPolicy 32 (2):360–375
Dawson, R.J., M.S.A. Khan, V. Gornitz, M. F.
Lemos, L. Atkinson, J. Pullen, and J. C.
Osorio (2018) ‘Urban areas in coastal zones’,in C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, P. RomeroLankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S. A.
Ibrahim (eds) Climate Change and Cities:
Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate
Change, Research Network, Cambridge
University Press, New York, pp.319–362
de Waal, A. and P. Richards (2020) Coronavirus:
Why lockdowns may not be the answer inAfrica, https://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-52268320, last accessed 22 September
2020
Dearden, L. (2020) ‘Coronavirus: Calls todomestic abuse helpline up 25% during UK
lockdown’, Independent, 6 April, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/homenews/coronavirus-uk-domestic-abusehelpline-lockdown-isolation-a9449236.html,
last accessed 21 September 2020
Deka, K. (2019) ‘Why the smart cities mission
will miss its deadline’ India Today, 29 July,
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-todayinsight/story/why-the-smart-cities-missionwill-miss-its-deadline-1574728-2019-07-29,
last accessed 24 September 2020den Herder, M., G. Moreno, R. M. MosqueraLosada, J. H. Palma, A. Sidiropoulou, J. J.
S. Freijanes, J. Crous-Duran, J. A. Paulo,
M. Tomé, and A. Pantera (2017 ) ‘Current
extent and stratification of agroforestry in
the European Union’, Agriculture, Ecosystems& Environment 241:121–132
deSouza, P., V. Nthusi, J.M. Klopp, B. E. Shaw,
W. On Ho, J. Saffell, R. Jones and C. Ratti(2017) ‘A Nairobi experiment in using low
cost monitors’ Clean Air Journal 27 (2):12–42
Dessein, J., K. Soini, G. Fairclough and L. G.
Horlings (eds) (2015) Culture in, for and as
Sustainable Development: Conclusions from theCOST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural
Sustainability, http://www.culturalsustainability.eu/conclusions.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. MartínLópez, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill,

357

K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman,
S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A.
Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. vanOudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter,S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E.
Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G.
Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt,
H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama(2018 ) ‘Assessing nature’s contributions topeople’, Science 359 (6373):270–272
Dobson, S., H. Nyamweru, and D. Dodman(2015) ‘Local and participatory approaches
to building resilience in informal settlements in Uganda’, Environment and Urbanization 27(2): 605–620
Dodman, D., H. Leck, S. Colenbrander, and
M. Rusca (2017) ‘African urbanisation andurbanism: Implications for risk accumulation and reduction’, International Journal for
Disaster Risk Reduction 26:7–15
Doumar, K. (2018) ‘Urban sprawl and wildfires:
A dire combination for Californians’,
Pacific Standard, 30 Nov, https://psmag.com/
environment/how-urban-sprawl-affectswildfires, last accessed 23 September 2020
Dovey, K. and R. King (2011 ) ‘Forms of
informality: Morphology and visibility of
informal settlements’, Built Environment 37(1):11–29
Drummond, P., V. Thakoor and S. Yu (2014)
African Department Africa Rising: Harnessing
the Demographic Dividend, Working Paper
WP14/143, IMF, Washington, DC
du Toit, M. J., S. S. Cilliers, M. Dallimer, M.
Goddard, S. Guenat, and S. F. Cornelius(2018 ) ‘Urban green infrastructure andecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa’,
Landscape and Urban Planning 180:249–261
Du, S., C. He, Q. Huang, and P. Shi (2018 ) ‘How
did the urban land in floodplains distributeand expand in China from 1992–2015?’,
Environmental Research Letters 13 (3):034018
Dublin Office for Integration (2009) ‘Did you
know you can vote? Cities and democracy
at work’, Cities of Migration Conference,
Ryerson University, Toronto
Duranton, G. (2016) ‘Agglomeration effects in
Colombia’, Journal of Regional Science 56(2):210–238
Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2001) ‘Nursery cities:
Urban diversity, process innovation, andthe life cycle of products’, American Economic Review 91(5): 1454–1477
Duranton, G. and D. Puga (2004) ‘Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies’,
in J.V. Henderson and J. F. Thisse (eds)
Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,
vol. 4, Elsevier, Oxford, pp.2063–2117
Dyer, C. (2019 ) ‘Mother is granted new inquest
over daughter’s death from asthma’, BMJ
364:l192
Ebeke, C. H. and S. M. Ntsama Etoundi (2017) ‘The Effects of Natural Resources on
Urbanization, Concentration, and Living

Standards in Africa’, World Development
96:408–417
ECLAC(United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2018) Regional Action Plan for the
implementation of the New Urban Agenda in
Latin America and the Caribbean 2016–2036,
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/
handle/11362/42146/7/S1800032_en.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
ECLAC (2019) ‘CepalStat’, https://cepalstatprod.cepal.org/, last accessed 25 September
2020
ECLAC (2020a) Latin America and the Caribbean
and the COVID-19 pandemic Economic andsocial effects, https://www.cepal.org/en/
publications/45351-latin-america-and-caribbean-and-covid-19-pandemic-economicand-social-effects, last accessed 13 May 2020
ECLAC (2020b) ‘COVID-19 Pandemic will leadto the biggest contraction in economic
activity in the region’s history: A -5.3% dropin 2020’, https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/covid-19-pandemic-will-lead-biggestcontraction-economic-activity-regionshistory-53, last accessed 13 May 2020
EIP-SCC (European Innovation Partnershipon Smart Cities and Communities) (2015.)
Principles and Enablers for Citizen Engagement:
The Experience from the European Innovation
Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities,
EIP-SCC, Brussels. http://www.remourban.
eu/kdocs/1229105/Principles_and_enablers_
for_citizen_engagement.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) ‘Circular
economy in cities: A project guide’ https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ourwork/activities/circular-economy-in-cities,
last accessed 28 September 2020
Ellis, J.M.( 2018) ‘The Gap on the Block:
Aboriginality, Subjectivity, and Agency inContemporary Urban Australia’, College ofWilliam and Mary: Dissertations, Theses,and Masters Projects
Ellis, P. and M. Roberts (2016) Leveraging
Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial
Transformation for Prosperity and Livability,
World Bank, Washington, DC
Elmqvist, T., M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B.
Güneralp, P.J. Marcotullio, R.I. McDonald,
S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad,and K.C. Seto (eds)(2013) Urbanization,
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges
and Opportunities, Springer, London
Elmqvist, T., W. Zipperer, and B. Güneralp (2016) ‘Urbanization, habitat loss, biodiversity decline: Solution pathways to breakthe cycle’, in K. Seta,W.D. Solecki, andC.A. Griffith (eds ) Routledge Handbookof Urbanization and Global Environmental
Change, Routledge, London and New York,
pp.139–151
EpiCentro - Istituto Superiore di Sanità (2020)

References‘Characteristics of COVID-19 patients
dying in Italy’, https://www.epicentro.iss.
it/en/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-analysis-ofdeaths, last accessed 22 September 2020
ESPON (2017) The Geography of New Employment Dynamics in Europe, https://www.
espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.%20ESPON%20EMPLOY_Final%20
report_Main%20Report.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
Estrada, F., J. Velasco, A. Martinez-Arroyo1, andO. Calderón-Bustamante (2020) ‘An analysis
of current sustainability of Mexican Cities
and their exposure to climate change’, Frontiers of Environmental Science 8 (25): 1–16
eThekwini Municipality (2019) Municipal Spatial
Development Framework 2019-2020, http://
www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/development_planning_management/Documents/
FINAL_%20SDF2019-2020%20May%202019.
pdf, last accessed 28 September 2020
European Commission (2007) Leipzig Charteron Sustainable European Cities, https://
ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/
themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
European Commission (2017) The Urban
Agenda for the EU, https://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/en/policy/themes/urbandevelopment/agenda/, last accessed 28
September 2020
European Commission (2019) Global Human Settlement, https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.
php, last accessed 3 November 2019
European Commissions- Joint Research Centre(2020) Handbook of Sustainable Urban Development Strategies, EU Publication Office,Luxembourg
European Environment Agency (2016) ‘Investment in transport infrastructure’, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/infrastructure-investments/assessment-3, last accessed 25 September 2020
European Environment Agency (2020) Healthy
Environment, Healthy Lives: How the Environment Influences Health and Well-Being inEurope, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxenborg, https://www.eea.europa.
eu/highlights/tackling-pollution-andclimate-change
European Space Agency (2020) Coronavirus
lockdown leading to drop in pollution
across Europe, https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/
Sentinel5P/Coronavirus_lockdown_leading_
to_drop_in_pollution_across_Europe, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
European Union (2020) ‘Cities against social
exclusion’, https://keep.eu/projects/725
Fabre, E. A (2017) Local Implementation of The
SDG & The New Urban Agenda: Towards A
Swedish National Urban Policy; https://www.
local2030.org/library/384/Local-implementation-of-the-SDGs-the-New-Urban-

Agenda-towards-a-Swedish-national-urbanpolicy.pdf, last accessed 28 September 2020
Fafchamps, M. and F. Shilpi (2005) ‘Cities andspecialisation: Evidence from South Asia’,
Economic Journal 115 (503): 477–504
Families USA (2020) The COVID-19 Pandemic
and Resulting Economic Crash Have
Caused the Greatest Health Insurance
Losses in American History, https://www.familiesusa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/07/COV-254_CoverageLoss_Report_7-17-20.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
Farole, T., E. Ferro, and V. Michel Gutierrez(2017) Job Creation in the Private Sector :An Exploratory Assessment of Patterns andDeterminants at the Macro, Sector, andFirm Levels,Jobs Working Paper Number
5, https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/bitstream/handle/10986/28370/
AUS22807-WP-PUBLIC24-8-2017-18-50-23-JobCreationThomasFarole.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Fay, M. and C. Opal (2000) Urbanization Without
Growth: A Not-So-Uncommon Phenomenon,
Policy Research Working Paper 2412, World
Bank, Washington, DC
Ferreyra, M. M. and M. Roberts (eds) (2018)
Raising the Bar for Productive Cities in Latin
and the Caribbean, World Bank Group,
Washington, DC
Floater, G., D. Dowling, D. Chan, M. Ulterino,
J. Braunstein, T.McMinn, and E. Ahmad(2017) Global Review of Finance for Sustainable Urban Infrastructure, Coalition for
Urban Transitions, London and Washington, DC, http://newclimateeconomy.net/
content/cities-working-papers, last accessed
25 September 2020
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class:
And how It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life, Basic Books,
New York
Florida, R. (2017) ‘How urbanization drives
Southeast Asia’s development’, https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/01/southeastasia-martin-prosperity-institute/511952/,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Florida, R. (2018) ‘The rise of “urban tech”‘,
Citylab, 7 August, https://www.citylab.
com/life/2018/07/the-rise- of-urbantech/564653/, last accessed 24 September
2020
Florida, R. (2019) ‘The real powerhouses thatdrive the world’s economy’, CityLab,
28 February, https://www.citylab.com/
life/2019/02/global-megaregions-economicpowerhouse-megalopolis/583729/, lastaccessed 8 March 2020
Florida, R. (2020) ‘COVID-19 has shut down ourcities. Here’s how we bring them back tolife’ Globe and Mail, 2 April, https://www.
theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articlecovid-19-has-shut-down-our-cities-heres-how-we-bring-them-back-to/, last accessed
20 April 2020
Florida, R. and CityLab (2016) ‘The global
cities where tech venture capital isconcentrated’ The Atlantic,26 January,https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/global-startup-citiesventure-capital/429255/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Florida, R. and M. Fasche (2017) The Rise of the
Urban Creative Class in Southeast Asia,
Martin Prosperity Institute, http://www-2.
rotman.utoronto.ca/mpi/content/insightthe-rise-of-the-urban-creative-class-insoutheast-asia/, last accessed 22 September
2020
Florida, R. and M. Kenney (1988) ‘Venture
capital and high technology entrepreneurship’ Journal of Business Venturing 3 (4):
301–319
Ford, J. D. (2012 ) ‘Indigenous health and climatechange’, American Journal of Public Health 102(7):1260–1266
Ford, J. D., L. Cameron, J. Rubis, M. Maillet,
D. Nakashima, A. C. Willox, and T. Pearce(2016 ) ‘Including indigenous knowledge
and experience in IPCC assessment reports’,
Nature Climate Change 6 (4):349
Ford, M. (2015) Rise of the Robots, Basic Books,
New York
Forester, J. (1999 ) The Deliberative Practitioner:
Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes,
MIT Press
Forsyth, T. (2006 ) ‘Cooperative environmental
governance and waste-to-energy technologies in Asia’, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 5 (3):209-220
Foster, S. R (2006 ) ‘The city as an ecologicalspace: Social capital and urban land use’,Notre Dame L. Rev. 82:527
Foster, S. R (2011 ) ‘Collective action and theurban commons’, Notre Dame L. Rev. 87:57
Foster, S. R. and C. Iaione (2015 ) ‘The city as acommons’, Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 34:281
Foster, S. and C. Iaione (2019 ) ‘Ostrom in thecity: Design principles and practices forthe urban commons’,in D. Cole, B.Hudson
and J. Rosenbloom (eds) Routledge
Handbook of the Study of the Commons,
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/
doi/10.4324/9781315162782-19, last accessed
23 September 2020
Foster, V. and C. Briceño-Garmendia (eds)(2010) Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time forTransformation, The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/World
Bank, Washington, DC
Frank Knight (2020) Global Residential Cities
Index, https://content.knightfrank.com/
research/1026/documents/en/global-residential-cities-index-q1-2020-7274.pdf, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Frantzeskaki, N., V. Castán Broto, L. Coenen,

358

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020and D. Loorbach (2017 ) Urban Sustainability
Transitions, Routledge, London
Franzsen, R. and W. McCluskey (eds) (2017)
Property Tax in Africa: Status, Challenges, andProspects, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Fraser, N. (2007) ‘Identity, exclusion, andcritique: A response to four critics’ European
Journal of Political Theory 6(3):305–338
Freire, M.E. Lall, S. and D. Leipziger, (2014)
Africa’s Urbanization: Challenges and Opportunities, The Growth Dialogue, Working Paper
Number 7, http://growthdialogue.org/
growthdialog/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/
Working-Paper-Africa-Urbanizatoin.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
Fried, T., T. H. Tun, J. M. Klopp, and B. Welle(2020) ‘Measuring accessibility and the sustainable development goal (SDG) transport
target: A case study of Nairobi’s matatus’
Transport Research Record.matatus’, Transport Research Record 2674(5), https://doi.
org/10.1177/0361198120914620, last accessed
24 September 2020
Fuller, G. (2019) The Invisible Killer: The Rising
Global Threat of Air Pollution- and How We
can Fight Back, Melville House, UK.
Fursman, A. and G.F. King (2019) We’re thinking
about the fourth industrial revolution
all wrong’, Quartz , 29 January, https://qz.com/1515869/were-thinking-about-thefourth-industrial-revolution-all-wrong/, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Garikipati, S. and U. Kambhampati, (2020)
Leading the Fight Against the Pandemic: Does
Gender ‘Really’ Matter?, https://rady.ucsd.
edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/
gender-differences-preference.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Garnett, N. S (2011 ) ‘Managing the urban
commons’, U. Pa. L. Rev. 160:1995
Garschagen, M., L. Porter, D. Satterthwaite, A.
Fraser, R. Horne, M. Nolan, W. Solecki,
E. Friedman, E. Dellas, and F. Schreiber(2018 ) ‘The New Urban Agenda: From
Vision to Policy and Action/Will the New
Urban Agenda Have Any Positive Influence onGovernments and International
Agencies?/Informality in the New Urban
Agenda: From the Aspirational Policiesof
Integration to a Politics of Constructive
Engagement/Growing Up or Growing
Despair? Prospects for Multi-Sector
Progresson City Sustainability Under the
NUA/Approaching Risk and Hazards in
the New Urban Agenda: ACommentary/
Follow-Up and Review of the New Urban
Agenda’, Planning Theory & Practice 19(1):117–137
Gaspar, V., Amaglobeli, D., Garcia-Escribano,M., Prady, D., & Soto, M. (2019) Fiscal
policy and development: Human, social,
and physical investment for the SDGs. IMF
Staff Discussion Note, https://www.imf.org/

359

en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/
Issues/2019/01/18/Fiscal-Policy-andDevelopment-Human-Social-and-PhysicalInvestments-for-the-SDGs-46444
Gelles, D. (2020) ‘Coronavirus shutdown the“experience economy”. can it come back?’,
The New York Times, 20 May, https://www.
nytimes.com/2020/05/20/business/publicgathering-events-coronavirus.html, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Gentilini, U. (2015) Entering the City: Emerging
Evidence and Practices with Safety Nets in
Urban Areas, Social Protection and Labor
Discussion Paper; No. 1504 World Bank
Group, Washington, DC
Ghertner, D. A. (2011) ‘Gentrifying the state,
gentrifying participation: Elite governanceprograms in Delhi’, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 35(3): 504–32
Gilmore, A. (2014) Raising Our Quality of Life: The
Importance of Investment in Arts and Culture,
Centre for Labour and Social Studies,
LondonGIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit )(2017) Green Municipal
Bonds in India: Potential, Barriers and Advantages, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, :https://smartnet.niua.org/csc/assets/pdf/
RepositoryData/UP_Green_Cover/GIZ_
Green_Municipal_Bonds_eReport.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Glaeser, E. L. (1994) ‘Cities, information, andeconomic growth’, Cityscape 1: 9–47
Glaeser, E. L. (1998) ‘Are Cities Dying?’ The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 139–160
Glaeser, E. L. (1999) ‘Learning in Cities’, Journalof Urban Economics 46(2), 254–277
Glaeser, E. L. (2011) Triumph of the City, Penguin
Group, New York
Glaeser, E. L. (2012) Triumph of the City: How
Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer,
Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier Pan
Macmillan, London
Glaeser, E. L. (2014) ‘A World of Cities: The
causes and consequences of urbanizationin poorer countries’, Journal of the European
Economic Association 12(5): 1154–1199
Glaeser, E. L. and B. Millett Steinberg (2017)‘Transforming cities: Does urbanization
promote democratic change?’, Regional
Studies 51(1): 58–68
Glaeser, E. L. and D. C. Maré (2001) ‘Cities andSkills’, Journal of Labor Economics 19(2):316–342
Glaeser, E. L. and M.G. Resseger (2009) The Complementarity Between Cities and Skills, NBER
Working Papers 15103
Glaeser, E. L., H. Kallal, J. Scheinkman, and A.
Shleifer (1992) ‘Growth in cities’, Journal of
Political Economy 100(61):1126–1152
Glaeser, E. L., J. Kolko, and A. Saiz (2001) ‘Consumer city’, Journal of Economic Geography
1(1): 27–50

Global Commission on Adaptation (2019)
Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadershipon Climate Resilience, https://cdn.gca.org/
assets/2019-09/GlobalCommission_Report_
FINAL.pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
Global Communities (2015) ‘Citizen’s reportcard: Improving water & electricity services
in Ghana’, https://www.globalcommunities.
org/node/38135, last accessed 24 September
2020
Global Justice Now (2015) 10 Biggest Corporations
Make More Money Than Most Countries in theWorld Combined, https://www.globaljustice.
org.uk//sites/default/files/files/resources/
corporations_vs_governments_final.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (2018)
Global Migration Indicators 2018, International Organization for Migration, https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/
global_migration_indicators_2018.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Global Migration Data Portal (2020) ‘Remittances’, https://migrationdataportal.org/
themes/remittances, last accessed 24
September 2020
Global Partnership for Education (2017) ‘Along way to school in Kenya’, https://www.
globalpartnership.org/blog/long-wayschool-kenya, last accessed 24 September
2020
Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (2016) Roadmap for Localizing theSDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at
Subnational Level, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
commitments/818_11195_commitment_
ROADMAP%20LOCALIZING%20SDGS.
pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
Globalization and World Cities Research
Network (2018) ‘The world according to
GaWC 2018’, https://www.lboro.ac.uk/
gawc/world2018t.html, last accessed 22
September 2020
Gobierno de Colombia (2016) Reporte Nacional
Voluntario, Bogotá
Gobierno de Colombia (2018) Reporte Nacional
Voluntario, Bogotá
Godfrey, N. and X. Zhao (2016) Financing the
Urban Transition for Sustainable Development:
Better Finance for Better Cities, Contributing
paper for The Sustainable Infrastructure
Imperative: Financing for Better Growthand Development. New Climate Economy,
London and Washington, DC, http://
newclimateeconomy.report/misc/workingpapers/, last accessed 25 September 2020
Godin B. and P. Lucier (2012) Innovation andConceptual Innovation in Ancient Greece,
http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Antiquity.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Godin, B. (2015) Innovation Contested: The Idea
of Innovation over the Centuries, Routledge,
New YorkReferences

Godin, B. (2019) ‘Innovation theology‘, Projecton the Intellectual History of Innovation,
Montreal: INRS, http://www.csiic.ca/en/
the-idea-of-innovation/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Goldstein, B. and L. Dyson (2013) Beyond
Transparency: Open Data and the Future of
Civic Innovation, Code for America, San
Francisco
Gollin, D. (2014) ‘The Lewis Model: A 60-year
retrospective’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3): 71–88
Gollin, D., D. Lagakos, and M. E. Waugh(2014) ‘The agricultural productivity gap’,
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129(2):939–993
Gollin, D., R. Jedwab, and D. Vollrath (2016)‘Urbanization with and without industrialization’, Journal of Economic Growth 21(1):35–70
Gómez Álvarez, D, R. Rajack, E. López-Moreno,
and D. Gonzalez Canada (eds) (2017) Steering
the Metropolis, Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Urban Development, IDB, Washington,
DC
Goodfellow, T. (2015 ) ‘Taming the “rogue”
sector: Studying state effectiveness inAfrica through informal transport politics’,
Comparative Politics 47 (2):127–147
Gopinath, G. (2020) ‘The great lockdown:
Worst economic downturn since theGreat Depression’, https://blogs.imf.
org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worsteconomic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/, last accessed 22 September 2020
Gould, K. A. and T. L. Lewis (2012 ) ‘The environmental injustice of green gentrification:
The case of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park’, The
World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City,
pp.113–146
Gould, K. A. and T. L. Lewis (2016 ) Green
Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and The
Struggle for Environmental Justice, Routledge
Government of India (2015) ‘Smart cities:
Mission statements and guidelines’, http://
smartcities.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/
SmartCityGuidelines(1)pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
Government of India (undated) Pooled Finance
Development Scheme— Toolkits, Ministry of
Urban Development, http://mohua.gov.in/
upload/uploadfiles/files/toolkit_pfds(1).pdf,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Government of Kenya (2018) Kenya Affordable
Housing Programme: Development Framework
Guidelines, https://www.housingandurban.
go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Development-Framework-Guidelines-Release-Version.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
Government of the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka (2018) Sri Lanka
Voluntary National Review on the Status of
Implementing the Sustainable Development

Goal, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Wildlife and Regional Development,
Rajagiriya
Graham, S. and S. Marvin (2001) Splintered
Urbanism, Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition,
Routledge, London
Grahame, A (2018) ‘What would an age-friendly
city look like?’ https://www.theguardian.
com/cities/2018/oct/10/what-would-anage-friendly-city-look-like, last accessed 24
September 2020
Grand View Research (2019) Smart Cities Market
Analysis, https://www.grandviewresearch.
com/industry-analysis/smart-cities-market,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Green Climate Fund (2019) GCF: Driving theTransformation to a Climate-Resilient Financial
System. Green Climate Fund, Incheon.
Green Climate Fund (2020a) ‘Green Climate
Fund: Overview’, https://www.greenclimate.
fund/about, last accessed 25 September 2020
Green Climate Fund (2020b) ‘GCF Spotlight:
Eastern Europe’, 21 August. https://www.
greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-spotlight-eastern-europe.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Green Climate Fund (2020c) ‘GCF Spotlight:
Africa’ 21 August, https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/
gcf-spotlight-africa.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Green Climate Fund (2020d) ‘GCF Spotlight:
Asia-Pacific’ 21 August, https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/
gcf-spotlight-asia-pacific.pdf, last accessed
25 September 2020
Green Climate Fund (2020e) ‘Catalyzing
Climate Finance (Shandong Green Development Fund)’ https://www.greenclimate.
fund/project/fp082, last accessed 25 September 2020
Green, B. (2019) The Smart Enough City, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA
Green, R. (1997) ‘Follow the leader: Howchanges in residential and non-residential
investment predict changes in GDP’, Real
Estate Economics 25(2): 253–270
Greenfield, A. (2013) Against the Smart City, Do
Projects, New York
Grigoli, F. (2015) ‘A hybrid approach to estimating the efficiency of public spending
on education in emerging and developing
economies’, Applied Economics and Finance2(1):19–32
Grigoli, F. and J. Kapsoli (2018) ‘Waste not, want
not: The efficiency of health expenditure in
emerging and developing economies’ Reviewof Development Economics 22(1), https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12346, last accessed 25
September 2020
GTF (Global Taskforce of Local and Regional
Governments) and UCLG (United Cities
and Local Governments) (2017) Towards the

Localization of the SDGs— Local and Regional
Government’s Report to the HLPF,1st Report,
UCLG, Barcelona
GTF and UCLG (2018) Towards the Localizationof the SDGs— Local and Regional Government’s Report to the HLPF, 2nd Report, UCLG,
Barcelona
GTF and UCLG (2019) Towards the Localizationof the SDGs— Local and Regional Government’s Report to the HLPF, 3rd Report, UCLG,
Barcelona
GTF and UCLG (2020) Towards the Localizationof the SDGs— Local and Regional Government’s Report to the HLPF, 4th Report, UCLG,
Barcelona
Guibrunet, L. (2017 ) ‘The contribution of theinformal economy to urban sustainability–case study of waste management in Tepito,
Mexico City’, UCL (University College
London)Guibrunet, L. (2019 ) ‘The interplay of tacitand explicit knowledge in the informal
economy: The atypical case of a recycling
family business in Mexico City’, International Development Planning Review:1–19
Gunder, M., A. Madanipour, and V. Watson(2017 ) The Routledge Handbook of Planning
Theory, Routledge
Güneralp, B. and K. C. Seto (2013 ) ‘Futures ofglobal urban expansion: Uncertainties andimplications for biodiversity conservation’,Environmental Research Letters 8 (1):014025
Güneralp, B., S. Lwasa, H. Masundire, S. Parnell,and K. C. Seto (2017 ) ‘Urbanization in
Africa: Challenges and opportunities forconservation’, Environmental Research Letters
13 (1):015002
Güneralp, B., Y. Zhou, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, M.
Gupta, S. Yu, P. L. Patel, M. Fragkias, X. Li,
and K. C. Seto (2017 ) ‘Global scenarios ofurban density and its impacts on building
energy use through 2050’, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114 (34):89458950
Gutman, J. and N. Patel (2018) ‘Addressing
spatial inequity in Latin American cities’,
https://www.brookings.edu/research/
addressing-spatial-inequity-in-latin-american-cities, last accessed 22 September 2020
Gyourko, J. and R. Molloy (2014) Regulation andHousing Supply, NBER Working Paper 20536
Hagen-Zanker, J., E. M. Vidal, and G. Sturge(2018) ‘Social protection, migration and the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’in Migration and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Overseas Development
Institute, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.
uk/files/resource-documents/12422.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Hagen-Zanker, J., H. Postel, and E. M.
Vidal(2018) ‘Poverty, migration and the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ in Migration and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development, Overseas

360

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Development Institute, https://www.odi.
org/publications/10913-migration-and2030-agenda-sustainable-development, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Haila, A. (2000) ‘Real estate in global cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as property states’
Urban Studies 37(12):2241–2256
Hale, T. (2016 ) ‘“All hands on deck”: The Paris
agreement and nonstate climate action’,Global Environmental Politics 16 (3):12–22
Hall, M. J. and D. C. Weiss (2012 ) ‘Avoiding
adaptation apartheid: Climate change
adaptation and human rights law’, Yale J.
Int’l L. 37:309
Hallegatte, S., C. Green, J. Robert, R. J. Nicholls,
and J. Corfee-Morlot (2013) ‘Future flood
losses in major coastal cities’, Nature Climate
Change 3(9):802-806
Hancock, J (2019 ) Environmental Human Rights:
Power, Ethics and Law, Routledge
Hanushek, E. and L. Woessmann (2008) The roleof cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature 46 (3):607–68
Haque, E. and D. H. Kim (2003) Public Investment
in Transportation and Communication and
Growth: A Dynamic Panel Approach, Centre
for Growth and Business Cycle Research
Discussion Paper, Manchester, United
Kingdom, http://hummedia.manchester.
ac.uk/schools/soss/economics/discussionpapers/EDP-0324.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Harkness, A. J. and B. Katz (2017) ‘Make way formayors: Why the UK’s biggest power shift may
not be the June 8 general election’, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/metropolitan-revolution/2017/05/01/make-way-for-mayors/, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Harlan, S. L. and D. M. Ruddell (2011 ) ‘Climatechange and health in cities: Impacts of heat
and air pollution and potential co-benefits
from mitigation and adaptation’, Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3(3):126–134
Harris, R. and G. Arku (2006) ‘Housing andeconomic development: The evolution of an
idea since 1945’, Habitat International 30 (4):1007–1017
Harris, R. and G. Arku (2007) The rise of
housing in international development:
The effects of economic discourse’, Habitat
International 31 (1): 1–11
Hart, T. and B. Welham (2016) Fiscal Decentralisation: A Public Financial Management Introductory Guide, ODI, https://www.odi.org/sites/
odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/11063.
pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
Harvey, J. and A. C. Ogando (2019 ) ‘In times ofcrisis, grassroots organizations re-imagine
democratic practice’, WIEGO, https://www.
wiego.org/blog/times-crisis-grassrootsorganizations-re-imagine-democratic-practice, last accessed 23 September 2020

361

Hasan, A. (2006 ) ‘Orangi Pilot Project: The
expansion of work beyond Orangi andthe mapping of informal settlements andinfrastructure’, Environment and Urbanization 18 (2):451–480
Hauge, A. and B. J. Hracs (2010) ‘See the sound,hear the style: Collaborative linkages
between indie musicians and fashion
designers in local scenes’, Industry and Innovation 17 (1):113–129
Healy, J. and A. Liptak (2020) ‘Landmark
supreme court ruling affirms Native
American rights in Oklahoma’ The New
York Times, 9 July, https://www.nytimes.
com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-courtoklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.html, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
Helbing D., B.S. Frey, G. Gigerenzer, E. Hafen,
M. Hagner, Y. Hofstetter, J. van den Hoven,
R.V. Zicari and A. Zwitter (2017) ‘Will
democracy survive big data and artificial
intelligence?’ Scientific American, 25 February, https://www.scientificamerican.com/
article/will-democracy-survive-big-dataand-artificial-intelligence/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Henderson, J. V., T. Regan and A. J. Venables(2016) ‘Building the city: Urban transition
and institutional frictions’, Spatial Economic Research Center Discussion Paper
0196, London School of Economics
Henley, J. and E. A. Roy (2020) ‘Are female
leaders more successful at managing thecoronavirus crisis?’, The Guardian, 25 April,https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/
apr/25/why-do-female-leaders-seem-to-bemore-successful-at-managing-the-coronavirus-crisis, last accessed 24 September 2020
Henry-Nickle, M., K. Frimpong and H. Sun(2019) Trends in the Information Technology
Sector, Brookings Policy Report, https://www.brookings.edu/research/trends-inthe-information-technology-sector/, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Hepburn, C., B. O’Callaghan, N. Stern, J.
Stiglitz and D. Zenghelis (2020) ‘Will
COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages
accelerate or retard progress on climatechange?’ Forthcoming in the Oxford Review
of Economic Policy 36(S1)Hernandez, F. and P. Kellett (2008) Rethinking
the Informal City: A Radical Perspective from
Latin America, Berghahn, London and New
York
Hernandez, M. (2020) ‘This is the effect coronavirus has had on air pollution all acrossthe world’, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-covid19-airpollution-enviroment-nature-lockdown/,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw(2006 ) In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political
Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism,
Routledge

Hill, A and L. Martinez-Diaz (2020) Building a
Resilient Tomorrow, Oxford University Press
Hill, D. (2013) ‘On the smart city, a call for
smart citizens instead’, City of Sound,
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2013/02/
on-the-smart-city-a-call-for- smart-citizens-instead.html#more, last accessed 24
September 2020
Hill, E., A. Tiefenthäler, C.Triebert, D. Jordan,
H. Willis, and R. Stein (2020) ‘How George
Floyd was killed in police custody’, The New
York Times, 31 May, https://www.nytimes.
com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html, last accessed 24 September 2020
Hindustan Times (2019) ‘How data can help
improve mobility’, Hindustan Times, 30
March, https://www.hindustantimes.com/
delhi-news/how-data-can-help-improvemobility/story-P8mOW6mFCzwzk7J1mlRVEP.html, last accessed 24 September 2020
HM Government (2011) ‘Unlocking growthin cities’, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Hodson, M. and S. Marvin (2009 ) ‘‘Urban ecological security’: A new urban paradigm?’
International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 33 (1):193–215
Hodson, M. and S. Marvin (2010 ) World cities
And Climate Change: Producing Urban
Ecological Security, McGraw-Hill Education(UK)
Hogge, B. (2016) Open Data’s Impact: Transportfor London Get Set, Go! http://odimpact.org/
files/case-studies-transport-for-london.pdf,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Holder, S. (2016) ‘The tech companies spending
to oppose (and support) San Francisco’s
homelessness tax’, CityLab, 26 October,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-26/what-big-tech-is-spendingon-san-francisco-s-prop-c, last accessed 24
September 2020
Holifield, R., J. Chakraborty, and G. Walker(2017 ) The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice, Routledge
Holland, J. (2014) ‘“Tale of Two Cities:” NewYork has become the capital of inequality’,
Moyers on Democracy, 18 September, https://billmoyers.com/2014/09/18/tale-of-twocities-new-york-has-become-the-capitol-ofinequality/, last accessed 22 September 2020
Hommann, K. and S. V. Lall (2019) Which Way
to Livable and Productive Cities? A Road
Map for Sub-Saharan Africa, International
Development in Focus, World Bank Group;
Washington, DC
Hosagrahar, J. (2017) ‘Culture: At the heart of
SDGs’, https://en.unesco.org/courier/apriljune-2017/culture-heart-sdgs, last accessed
24 September 2020
Hsieh, C. and E. Moretti (2019) ‘Housing constraints and spatial misallocation’, American
Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 11(2): 1–39
Hu, B and C. Chen (2015) ‘New urbanization

References

under globalization and the social implications in China’ Asia and the Pacific Policy
Studies 2(1):34–43
Huang, Y., M. Sun, and Y. Sui (2020) ‘How
digital contact tracing slowed Covid-19 in
East Asia’ Harvard Business Review, 15April,https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-digital-contact-tracing-slowed-covid-19-in-east-asia,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Huawei and Oxford Economics (2017) Digital
Spillover: Measuring the True Impact of theDigital Economy, https://www.huawei.com/
minisite/gci/en/digital-spillover/files/
gci_digital_spillover.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
Huggins, C. M. and J. S. Debies-Carl (2015)‘Tolerance in the city: The multilevel effects
of urban environments on permissive attitudes’, Journal of Urban Affairs 37(3): 255-269
Hughes, C. (2018) Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality
and How We Earn, St. Martin’s Press
Hughes, S., E. K. Chu, and S. G. Mason (2018 )Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in MultiLevel Governance, Springer, Amsterdam
Hulchanski, J. D. (1995) ‘The concept of housing
affordability: Six contemporary uses ofthe expenditure to income ratio’, Housing
Studies 10(4): 471–491
Iacurci, G. (2020) ‘A second Great Depression? Unemployment crisis hits big cities
hard’ CNBC, 21 July, https://www.cnbc.
com/2020/07/21/some-big-cities-are-hittinggreat-depression-unemployment-levels.
html, last accessed 29 September 2020
IADB (Inter-American Development Bank)(2016) ‘The relationship between gender andtransport’, IADB, https://publications.iadb.
org/en/relationship-between-gender-andtransport, last accessed 22 September 2020
IADB (2018) What is Sustainable Infrastructure? A
Framework to Guide Sustainability Across the
Project Cycle, IADB, https://publications.
iadb.org/en/what-sustainable-infrastructure-framework-guide-sustainability-acrossproject-cycle, last accessed 25 September
2020
IADB (2020) ‘Coronavirus impact dashboard’,
IADB, https://www.iadb.org/en/topicseffectiveness-improving-lives/coronavirusimpact-dashboard , last accessed 22
September 2020
ICLEI (2019) The Nagano Declaration on Partnership for Collaborative Action for Sustainable Development, http://japan.iclei.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/Japan/Documents/
events/The_Nagano_Declaration/The_
Nagano_Declaration_final.pdf, last accessed
22 September 2020
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2020a)
Global Energy Review 2020, IEA, Paris
IEA (2020b) Sustainable Recovery: World Energy
Outlook Special Report, https://www.iea.org/
reports/sustainable-recovery/buildings#,
last accessed 25 September 2020

IFC (International Finance Corporation) (2019)
Green Buildings: A Finance and Policy Blueprint, IFC, Washington, DC
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2007) ‘The effect of land use
regulation on housing and land prices’,
Journal of Urban Economics 61(3): 420–435
IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) (2019) Cities
for All? Rethinking urban displacement,
London, Briefing, March, https://pubs.iied.
org/17642IIED/ , last accessed 28 September
2020
IISD and DRC (2015) Greening China’s Financial
System, the International Institute for
Sustainable Development and the Development Research Center of the State Council,
https://www.iisd.org/publications/greeningchinas-financial-system, last accessed 25
September 2020
ILO(International Labour Organization) (2015)
Recommendation 204: Transition from theInformal to the Formal Economy, https://www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/previoussessions/104/texts-adopted/WCMS_377774/
lang--en/index.htm, last accessed 20 April
2020
ILO (2017) Transition from the Informal to theFormal Economy Recommendation, 2015 (No.
204) – Workers’ Guide, ILO, Geneva
ILO (2018) ILO Global Estimates on International
Migrant Workers: Results and Methodology,
International Labour Office – Geneva, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/
publication/wcms_652001.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
ILO (2019) World Employment and Social Outlook– Trends 2019, ILO, Geneva
ILO (2020a) ‘ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and theworld of work. Second Edition’, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@
dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_740877.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
ILO (2020b) ‘ILO Monitor: COVID-19 andthe world of work Third Edition’ https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@
dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_743146.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
ILO (2020c) ‘COVID-19 eliminates the equivalent of 14 million jobs in Latin America
and the Caribbean, and challenges theregion to seek measures to face the crisis’,https://www.ilo.org/caribbean/newsroom/
WCMS_741225/lang--en/index.htm, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
ILO (2020d) ‘COVID-19 cruelly highlights
inequalities and threatens to deepen them’,
https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/
newsroom/news/WCMS_740101/lang--en/index.htm, last accessed 13 May 2020
ILO (2020e) ‘COVID-19 crisis and the informal
economy: Immediate responses and policy

challenges’, ILO Brief, https://www.ilo.org/
wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/--protrav/---travail/documents/briefingnote/
wcms_743623.pdf, last accessed 13 May 2020
ILO (2020f) ‘Pillar 1: Stimulating the economy
and employment’, ILO Policy Brief on
COVID-19, 18 May, https://www.ilo.org/
global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-andresponses/WCMS_739048/lang--en/index.
htm, last accessed 25 September 2020
ILO (2020g) World Employment and Social
Outlook: 2020 Report, International Labour
Organisation, Geneva
IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2015)
Making Public Investment More Efficient, IMF,
Washington, DC, https://www.imf.org/
external/np/pp/eng/2015/061115.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
IMF (2017) Regional Economic Outlook – Asia
and Pacific: Preparing for Choppy Seas, IMF,
Washington, DC
IMF (2018) Lessons for Effective Fiscal Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa, Working Paper,
NO 18/10, IMF, Washington, DC
IMF (2020) World Economic Outlook: The Great
Economic Lockdown, https://www.imf.org/
en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/04/14/
weo-april-2020, last accessed 22 September
2020
IMF, OECD, United Nations, and World Bank.
(2016) Enhancing the effectiveness of external
support in building tax capacity in developing
countries. Policy Paper prepared for submission to G20 finance ministers, https://www.
imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/
Issues/2016/12/31/Enhancing-the-Effectiveness-of-External-Support-in-Building-TaxCapacity-in-Developing-PP5059.
Inequality.org (2018) ‘New York, New York,
What a less than wonderful town’ https://inequality.org/great-divide/new-york-newyork-less-wonderful-town/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher (2010 ) Planning with
Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative
Rationality for Public Policy, Routledge
Institute for Social and Economic Research(2020) ‘New analysis of the impact oflockdown on UK jobs’, https://www.iser.
essex.ac.uk/2020/04/18/new-analysis-ofthe-impact-of-lockdown-on-uk-jobs, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Institute of Global Environmental Strategies(2020) ‘Online voluntary local review (VLR)
lab’ https://iges.or.jp/en/projects/vlr, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
Inter-Agency Task Force on Financing forDevelopment (2018) Financing for Development: Progress and Prospects 2018, UN, NewYork
Investment Industry Association of Canada(2019) Opportunities in the Canadian Green
Bond Market V3.0, https://iiac.ca/wpcontent/uploads/Opportunities-in-the-362

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Canadian-Green-Bond-Market_June-2019.
pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
IOM (2015) World Migration Report 2015: Migrants
and Cities: New Partnerships to Manage
Mobility, International Organization for
Migration, Geneva
IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),
https://ipbes.net/global-assessment, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change) (2018a) Global Warming of 1.5°C,
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/
sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020,
last accessed 22 September 2020
IPCC (2018b) Progress Report: International Conference on Climate Change andCities https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/12/100920181041-INF1Rev1CitiesReport.pdf, last accessed 22 September
2020
IRP (International Resource Panel)(2019 ) Land
restoration for achieving the sustainable development goals: An international
resource panel think piece, United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi
Irwin, T., S. Mazraani, and S. Saxena (2018) How
to Control the Fiscal Costs of Public-Private
Partnerships, IMF How to Note 18/04, IMF,
Washington, DC, https://www.imf.org/~/
media/Files/Publications/HowToNotes/
howtonote1804.ashx, last accessed 25 September 2020
Islam, A., R. Jedwab, P. Romer, and D. Pereira(2019) ‘Returns to experience and the sectoral allocation of labor’, working paper
ITU (International Telecommunication Union)(2015) ‘Focus group on smart sustainable
cities’, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Pages/default.aspx
IUCN (International Union for Conservationof Nature )(2016 ) ‘WCC-2016-Res-069-EN:
Defining nature-based solutions’, https://
portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/
resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.pdf,
last accessed 23 September 2020
Ivanyna, M. and A. Shah, (2014) ‘How close is yourgovernment to its people? Worldwide indicators on Localization and Decentralization’, Economics 8(2014-3), http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/
economics-ejournal.ja.2014-3, last accessed
25 September 2020
Iveson, K., C. Lyons, S. Clark, and S. Weir (2019)‘The informal Australian city’, Australian
Geographer 50 (1): 11–27
IWPR (Institute for Women’s Policy Research)(2015) Gender, urbanization and democratic
governance; https://www.ndi.org/sites/
default/files/Gender%20Urbanization%20
and%20Local%20Governance%20White%20
Paper.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020

363

Jabareen, Y. (2013) ‘Planning the resilient city:
Concepts and strategies for coping withclimate change and environmental risk’,Cities 31: 220–229
Jackson, K. K. (2018) ‘Regulation, land constraints, and California’s boom and bust’,
Regional Science and Urban Economics 68:
130–147
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great
American Cities, Random House, New York
Jacobs, J. (1984) Cities and the Wealth of Nations,Random House, New YorkJahnsen, K. and K. Pomerleau (2017) ‘Corporate
income tax rates around the world, 2017’,
Tax Foundation,7 September, https://
taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-taxratesaround-the-world-2017/, last accessed
25 September 2020
Jain-Chandra, S., N. Khor , R. Mano, J.
Schauer, P. Wingender, and J. Zhuang(2018) Inequality in China – Trends, Drivers
and Policy Remedies, IMF Working Paper,https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2018/wp18127.ashx, last accessed
22 September 2020
Jamison, D. and L. Summers (2013) ‘Global
health 2035: A world converging within ageneration’, The Lancet Commissions, http://
www.globalhealth2035.org/sites/default/
files/report/global-health-2035.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020.
Jedwab, R. and D. Vollrath (2015) ‘Urbanization
without growth in historical perspective’,
Explorations in Economic History 58(C): 1–21
Jedwab, R. and D. Vollrath (2019) ‘The urban
mortality transition and poor-country
urbanization’, American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics 11(1): 223–75
Jedwab, R., D. Pereira, and M. Roberts (2019)‘Cities of workers, children or seniors? Agestructure and economic growth in a global
cross-section of cities’, Institute for International Economic Policy Working Paper
2019-13, The George Washington University
Jedwab, R., L. Christiaensen, and M. Gindelsky(2017) ‘Demography, urbanization anddevelopment: Rural push, urban pull and…
urban push?’, Journal of Urban Economics
98(C): 6–16
Jenny, H., F. Asseline, Y. Wang, A. Mehta, B.
Dahiya, and M. Lindfield, (2020) Catalyzing Climate Finance with the Shandong
Green Development Fund. ADB Briefs.
No. 144. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/
BRF200192-2, last accessed 25 September
2020
Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems
Science Engineering (2020) ‘COVID-19
dashboard’, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/
map.html, last accessed 21 September 2020
Johnson, L. C. (2016) Cultural Capitals: Reevaluating the Arts, Remaking Urban Spaces.
Routledge, London and New York
Joint Research Centre – European Commission(2019) The Future of Cities – Opportunities, Challenges and the Way Forward, Publications Officeof the European Union, Luxembourg
Jones, P, O. D’Aoust, and L. Bernard (2017)‘The urban wage premium in Africa’ In S.
Johnson-Lans (ed) Wage Inequality in Africa,
pp. 33–53
Jordan, A. (2008) ‘The governance of sustainable
development: Taking stock and looking
forward’, Environment and Planning: Government and Policy 26 (1):17–33
Jowett, P. (2020) ‘An overview of Germany’s
response to Covid-19’ LGIU blog, 6 April,https://lgiu.org/an-overview-of-germanysresponse-to-covid-19/, last accessed 20 April
2020
Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S.
Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D.
Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, and J. Stadler(2016 ) ‘Nature-based solutions to climatechange mitigation and adaptation in urban
areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge
gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action’,
Ecology and Society 21 (2): 39
Kaika, M. (2017 ) ‘“Don’t call me resilient again!”:
The New Urban Agenda as immunology…
or… what happens when communities
refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities”
and indicators’, Environment and Urbanization 29 (1):89-102
Kalantari, Z. and L. Folkeson (2013 ) ‘Roaddrainage in Sweden: Current practiceand suggestions for adaptation to climatechange’, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 19(2):147–156
Kaplan, J. (2015) Humans Need Not Apply: A Guide
to Wealth and Work in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence, Yale University Press
Karanja, I. (2010 ) ‘An enumeration and mappingof informal settlements in Kisumu, Kenya,
implemented by their inhabitants’, Environment and Urbanization 22 (1):217–239
Karvonen, A. and B. Van Heur (2014 ) ‘Urban
laboratories: Experiments in reworking
cities’, International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 38 (2):379–392
Keesstra, S., J. Nunes, A. Novara, D. Finger, D.
Avelar, Z. Kalantari, and A. Cerdà (2018 )‘The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing
ecosystem services’, Science of The Total
Environment 610–611:997–1009
Keesstra, S., O. van Dam, G. Verstraeten, and J.
van Huissteden (2009 ) ‘Changing sediment
dynamics due to natural reforestation in the
Dragonja catchment, SW Slovenia’, Catena
78 (1):60–71
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2020)
Survey on Socio Economic Impact of COVID-19
on Households Report: Wave 2—30th June 2020,
KNBS, Nairobi
Kiddle, G., D. McEvoy, D. Mitchell, P. Jones, and
S. Mecartney (2017) ‘Unpacking the Pacificurban agenda: Resilience challenges andReferences

opportunities’, Sustainability 9 (10): 1–15
Kilroy, A. F. L., M. Mukim, and S. Negri (2015)
Competitive Cities for Jobs and Growth: What,
Who, and How, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/902411467990995484/Competitive-cities-for-jobs-and-growth-whatwho-and-how, last accessed 22 September
2020
King, B. (2020) ‘Unemployment rate: How many
people are out of work?’, BBC News, 15
September, https://www.bbc.com/news/
business-52660591
Kishimoto, S., L. Stinfort, and O. Petitjean,(2019) ‘The Future is Public. Towards Democratic Ownership of Public Services’ draft
presented at the Future is Public Conferencein Amsterdam, http://futurispublic.org, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Kitchin, R. (2015 ) ‘Making sense of smart cities:
Addressing present shortcomings’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
8 (1):131–136
Kivuva, E. (2020) ‘City dwellers retreat to thevillages for a fresh start’, Business daily, 13
August, https://www.businessdailyafrica.
com/datahub/City-dwellers-retreat-tothe-villages-for-a-fresh-start/38154185608170-nrq9j3z/index.html, last accessed 23
September 2020
Klopp, J.M. and C. Cavoli. (2019) ‘Mapping mass
mini-bus transit in Maputo and Nairobi:
Engaging “paratransit” in transportation
planning for African cities’, Transport
Reviews 39(5):657–676
Klopp, J.M. and D. Petretta (2017) ‘The urban
sustainable development goal: Indicators,
complexity and the politics of measuring
cities’ Cities 63: 92–97
Kolko (2017) ‘The myth of the return to cities’,
New York Times. 22 May, https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/05/22/upshot/seattleclimbs-but-austin-sprawls-the-myth-ofthe-return-to-cities.html, last accessed 21
September 2020
Kondo, K. (2015) ‘Why are wages higher in large
cities?’ Research Institute of Economy,
Trade and Industry, https://www.rieti.go.jp/
users/kondo-keisuke/serial/en/002.html,
last accessed 20 April 2020
Koutroumpis, P. and F. Lafond (2018) Disruptive
Technologies and Regional Innovation Policy,
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/
KoutroumpisLafond(2018)Disruptive%20
technologies%20and%20regional%20innovation%20policy_FI.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
Krader, K and R. Vines (2020) ‘Overwhelmedby the virus, the golden age of restaurants
is over’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 March,https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2020-03-27/coronavirus-impacton-new-york-and-london-restaurants, lastaccessed 22 September 2020

Krugman, P. (1991) Geography and Trade, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA
Krugman, P. (1996) The Self-Organising Economy,Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
Kuecker, G. D. (2015) ‘New Songdo City: A
bridge to the future?’, Case study in: The
Second Assessment Report on Climate
Change and Cities (ARC3-2)
Kuo, F. (2016) ‘San Francisco has become one
huge metaphor for inequality in America’
Quartz, 21 June, https://qz.com/711854/
the-inequality-happening-now-in-san-francisco-will-impact-america-for-generationsto-come/, last accessed 24 September 2020
Kurth, M. (2016) ‘How partnerships can help
cities make the New Urban Agenda a
reality’, https://www.urbanet.info/partnerships-new-urban-agenda/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Laberenne, R. and P. Lamson-Hall (2018) ‘Planning for urban growth for a more resilient
future’, http://100resilientcities.org/planning-urban-growth-resilient-future/, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
LabGov.City (2018 ) ‘The co-city cycle’ https://labgov.city/commonspress/the-co-city-cycle/,last accessed 23 September 2020
Lall, S. V., J. V. Henderson, and A. J. Venables(2017) Africa’s Cities: Opening Doors to theWorld, World Bank, Washington, DC
Lamson-Hall, P., S. Angel, D. DeGroot, R.
Martin, and T. Tafesse (2018) ‘A new planfor African cities: The Ethiopia urban
expansion initiative’, Urban Studies 56(6):1234–1249
Landry, C. (2006) The Art of City Making, Routledge, London
Landry, J.-N., K. Webster, B. Wylie, and P.
Robinson (2016 ) ‘How can we improveurban resilience with open data’, Open Data
Institute, London
Langelier, S. (2011) ‘Que Reste-T-Il de
L’expérience Pionnière de Porto Alegre?’
Le Monde Diplomatique. https://www.
monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/10/A/21113, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Lawrence, L. D. and M. S. Low (1990) ‘The Built
Environment and Spatial Form’, Annual
Review of Anthropology 19:453–505
Leck, H. and D. Simon (2013) ‘Fostering multiscalar collaboration and co-operationfor effective governance of climate change
adaptation’, Urban Studies 50(6) 1221–1238
Leck, H. and D. Simon (2018) ‘Local authority
responses to climate change in South
Africa: The challenges of transboundary
governance’, Sustainability 10(7): 2542,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072542, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
Lee, B. (2020) ‘America’s cities were designed to
oppress’, Bloomberg Citylab, https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/
how-to-design-justice-into-america-s-cities,
last accessed 24 September 2020

Lee, J.H., M.G. Hancock M, and M.C. Hu(2014) ‘Towards an effective framework forbuilding smart cities: Lessons from Seoul
and San Francisco’, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 89: 80–89
Lee, N. and M. Nathan (2011) Does Cultural Diversity Help Innovation in Cities: Evidence from
London Firms, SERC Discussion Paper 69,
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33579/1/sercdp0069.
pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
Legatum Institute (2016) 2016 Africa Prosperity
Report, https://li.com/reports/2016africa-prosperity-report/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Leichenko, R. and K. O’Brien (2008 ) Environmental Change and Globalization: Double
Exposures, Oxford University Press
Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities(2007) https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf,
last accessed 28 September 2020
Lejano, R. P. and E. R. Gonzalez (2017 ) ‘Sorting
through Differences: The Problem of Planning as Reimagination’, Journal of Planning
Education and Research 37 (1):5–17
Levin B. and L. Downes (2019) ‘Cities, notrural areas, are the real Internet deserts’,
The Washington Post, 13 September,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/13/cities-not-rural-areasare-real-internet-deserts/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Li, K. and B. Lin (2015 ) ‘Impacts of urbanization and industrialization on energy
consumption/CO2 emissions: Does the levelof development matter?’, Renewable andSustainable Energy Reviews 52:1107–1122
Liang, L., Z. Wang, and J. Li (2019 ) ‘The effect ofurbanization on environmental pollution in
rapidly developing urban agglomerations’,
Journal of Cleaner Production 237:117649
Libertun de Duren, N., A. Hiramatsu, M.A.
Ariza, and M. P. Silva de Anzorena, (2018)
Inclusive Cities: Urban Productivity ThroughGender Equality, https://publications.
iadb.org/publications/english/document/
Ciudades-Inclusivas-Productividad-urbanaa-partir-de-la-igualdad-de-g%C3%A9nero.
pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
Liddle, B. and S. Lung (2010 ) ‘Age-structure,urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: Revisiting STIRPAT for
disaggregated population and consumptionrelated environmental impacts’, Populationand Environment 31 (5):317–343
Lieuw-Kie-Song, M. (2020) ‘The construction
sector can help lead the economic recovery– Here’s how’, ILO Blog, 11 May, https://
iloblog.org/2020/05/11/the-constructionsector-can-help-lead-the-economic-recovery-heres-how/, last accessed 25 September
2020
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2016) Atlasof Urban Expansion, Lincoln Institute of364

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Land Policy, https://www.lincolninst.edu/
research-data/data/atlas-urban-expansion,
last accessed 7 January 2020
Lind (2018) ‘The migrant caravan, explained’
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/24/18010340/
caravan-trump-border-honduras-mexico,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Long, J. and J. L. Rice (2019 ) ‘From sustainable urbanism to climate urbanism’, Urban
Studies 56 (5):992–1008
Lorrain, D. (2011) ‘The discrete hand, global
finance and the city’, Revue française descience politique 6(61):1097–1122
LSE Cities (2019) How cities are governed: Building
a global Database for current models of urban
governance; https://urbangovernance.net/
en/, last accessed 24 September 2020
Luque-Ayala, A., S. Marvin, and H. Bulkeley(eds) (2018) Rethinking Urban Transitions:
Politics in the Low Carbon City, Routledge,
London and New York
Macleod, A. and S. Fox (2019) Voluntary Local
Reviews: A Handbook for UK Cities, https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/
cabot-institute-2018/documents/uk-citiesvoluntary-local-review-handbook.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
Mahler, D., C. Lakner, R. Aguilar, and H. Wu(2020) ‘Updated estimates of the impact
of COVID-19 on global poverty’, WorldBank Blogs,8 June, https://blogs.worldbank.
org/opendata/updated-estimates-impactcovid-19-global-poverty, last accessed 23
September 2020
Mahoney, M. and R. Klitgaard (2019) ‘Revitalizing Mandaue City: Obstacles in implementing a performance governance system’,
Policy Design and Practice 2 (4): 383–399
Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation (2019)‘Million neighborhoods initiative’, University of Chicago, www.millionneighborhoods.org, lat accessed 23 September 2020
Maranhão, B. (2020) ‘Bolsa Família, Brazil’s
admired anti-poverty programme, isflailing’, https://www.economist.com/
the-americas/2020/01/30/bolsa-familiabrazils-admired-anti-poverty-programmeis-flailing, last accessed 24 September 2020
Marceau J. (2008) ‘Innovation in the city andinnovative cities’, Innovation: Management,
Policy and Practice 10 (2-3): 136–145
Marquardt, N. and V. Schreiber (2015 ) ‘Mothering urban space, governing migrant
women: The construction of intersectional
positions in area-based interventions in
Berlin’, Urban Geography 36 (1):44–63
Marr, B. (2018) ‘The fourth industrial revolution
is here: Are you ready?’, Forbes, 13 August,https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/08/13/the-4th-industrial-revolution-is-here-are-you-ready/#5bbde830628b,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Marsden, G., A. Ferreira, I. Bache, M. Flinders,and I. Bartle (2014 ) ‘Muddling through365

with climate change targets: A multi-levelgovernance perspective on the transport
sector’, Climate Policy 14 (5):617–636
Martin, R., B. Gardiner, and P. Tyler (2014) The
Evolving Economic Performance of UK Cities:
City growth patterns 1981-2011, Foresight,
Government Office for Science, London
Marvin, S., H. Bulkeley, L. Mai, K. McCormick,and Y. V. Palgan (2018 ) Urban Living Labs:
Experimenting with City Futures, Routledge
Mastercard (2019) Global Destination Cities
Index 2019, https://newsroom.mastercard.
com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GDCIGlobal-Report-FINAL-1.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
Mbah, P. O. and T. C. Nzeadibe (2017 ) ‘Inclusivemunicipal solid waste management policyin Nigeria: Engaging the informal economy
in post-2015 development agenda’, Local
environment 22 (2):203–224
McCarney, P., H. Blanco, J. Carmin, and M.
Colley(2011) ‘Cities and climate change: The
challenges for governance’, in C. Rosenzwieg, W. D. Solecki, S. A. Hammer,and S.
Mehrotra (eds) Climate Change and Cities:
First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate
Change Research Network, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 249–269
McFarlane, C. (2012) ‘Rethinking informality:
Politics, crisis, and the city’, Planning Theory
and Practice 13(1): 89–102
McFarlane, C., R. Desai, and S. Graham (2014) ‘Informal urban sanitation: Everyday
life, poverty, and comparison’, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 104(5):989–1011
McGranahan, G., D. Schensul, and G. Singh,(2016) ‘Inclusive urbanization: Can the 2030
Agenda be delivered without it?’ Environment and Urbanization 28(1):13–34
McGrath, M. (2017) ‘Five effects of US pullout from Paris climate deal’, BBC News, 1
June, https://www.bbc.com/news/scienceenvironment-40120770, last accessed 22
September 2020
McGrath, M. (2020) ‘Coronavirus: Air pollution
and CO2 fall rapidly as virus spreads’, BBC
News, 19 March, https://www.bbc.com/
news/science-environment-51944780, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
McKinsey & Company (2013) How to Make a City
Great, McKinsey Cities Special Initiative,
https://www.mckinsey.com/featuredinsights/urbanization/how-to-make-a-citygreat, last accessed 25 September 2020
McKinsey & Company (2015) ‘Building the citiesof the future with green districts’ https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/building-thecities-of-the-future-with-green-districts ,last accessed 25 September 2020
McKinsey Global Institute (2011) Urban World:
Mapping the economic power of cities, McKinsey Global Institute, New York

McKinsey Global Institute (2014) ‘A blueprint for addressing the global affordable
housing challenge’, https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20
Insights/Urbanization/Tackling%20the%20
worlds%20affordable%20housing%20challenge/MGI_Affordable_housing_Full%20
Report_October%202014.ashx, last accessed
22 September 2020
Medium.com (2018) ‘The cities coalition for
digital rights: A global initiative to put
citizens’ digital rights at the centre of thepolicy debate’, https://medium.com/dsi4eu/
the-cities-coalition-for-digital-rights-aglobal-initiative-to-put-citizens-digitalrights-at-601963879c90, last accessed 24
September 2020
Meerow, S. (2017 ) ‘Double exposure, infrastructure planning, and urban climate
resilience in coastal megacities: A case studyof Manila’, Environment and Planning A:
Economy and Space 49 (11):2649–2672
Mekonnen, M., S. D. Keesstra, L. Stroosnijder,J. E. Baartman, and J. Maroulis (2015 ) ‘Soil
conservation through sediment trapping: A
review’, Land Degradation & Development 26(6):544–556
Mendes, K. (2018) ‘Rio favela takes leadwith green solution amid infrastructure
shortfall’, Thomson Reuters Foundation
News, 5 March, https://news.trust.org/
item/20180305172139-nh72v, last accessed 23
September 2020
Mergel I, A. Kleibrink and J. Sorvik (2018)‘Open Data Outcomes: US Cities between
product and process innovation’, Government Information Quarterly (35): 622-632.
Mergel, I. (2012) ‘Distributed democracy:
SeeClickFix.Com for crowdsourced issue
reporting’, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1992968, last accessed 24 September
2020
Metropolis (2018) Safety and public space: Mapping
Metropolitan Gender Policies, Metropolis,
Barcelona
Midgley, J. (2020) Inequality, Social Protection andSocial Justice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts, USA
MIER (2015) The Case for Agglomeration Economies, Manchester Independent Economic
Review, Manchester
Migration Data Portal (2019) ’Types of migration’, https://migrationdataportal.org/
themes/irregular-migration#definition, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Migration Data Portal (2020) ‘Urbanization andmigration’, https://migrationdataportal.
org/themes/urbanisation-et-migration, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (2015a)Urban Food
Policy Framework for Action, http://www.
milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/06/Milan-Urban-Food-PolicyPact-EN.pdf, last accessed 28 SeptemberReferences

2020
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (2015b) The 210
Cities of The Milan Urban Food Policy
Pact; http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/signatory-cities, last accessed 28
September 2020
Moncayo, E. (2002) ‘Glocalización: Nuevos
enfoques teóricos sobre el desarrollo
regional’, in Desafíos, 7, II semester, 2002,
Bogotá, pp.50–99
Monslave, C. and K. Watsa (2020) ‘Human
capital and climate action: Outcomes thatdeliver for people and planet’ World Bank
Blogs, 12 May, https://blogs.worldbank.org/
climatechange/human-capital-and-climateaction-outcomes-deliver-people-and-planet,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Montagut T., G. Vilà, and S. Riutort (2016)‘Barcelona: A citizen’s agreement for an
inclusive city’, in T. Brandsen, S. Cattacin,
A. Evers and A. Zimmer (eds) Social Innovations in the Urban Context, Springer Cham,
Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London
Moore, M. (2018) Democracy Hacked: Political
Turmoil and Information Warfare in the Digital
Age, Oneworld Publications, London
Morales, M., M. Villacís Taco, V. Gutiérrez
Reyes, and J.J. Herrera (2016) National
Level Implications of SDGs Implementationin Ecuador. Southern Voice, Occasional Paper
Series 35, http://southernvoice.org/nationallevel-implications-of-sdg-implementationin-ecuador/, last accessed 25 September
2020
Moreno, E. M. and A. Panda (2017) Urban
Africa in the 21st century – Potential andchallenges’, Keynote Address, Conference
on Refractions of the National, the Popular,
and the Global in African cities, July 31 toAugust 1, 2017
Moreno-Monroy, A., J. Gars, T. Matsumoto, J.
Crook, R. Ahrend, and A. Schumann (2020)
Housing Policies for Sustainable and Inclusive
Cities: How National Governments can Deliver
Affordable Housing and Compact Urban Development, Coalition for Urban Transitions,
https://urbantransitions.global/publications, last accessed 28 September 2020
Moretti, E. (2004a) ‘Estimating the social return
to higher education: Evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data’,
Journal of Econometrics 121(1-2):175–212
Moretti, E. (2004b) ‘Human capital externalities in cities’, in J. V. Henderson and J. F.
Thisse (eds) Handbook of Regional and Urban
Economics, ed. 1, vol. 4, Elsevier, Oxford, pp.
2243–2291
Moretti, E. (2004c) ‘Workers’ education,
spillovers, and productivity: Evidence fromplant-level production functions’, American
Economic Review 94(3): 656–690
Muggah, R., O. Geray, and K. A. Eik, (2019)‘Innovative urban financing can make ourcities stronger’, https://www.weforum.

org/agenda/2019/03/innovative-urbanfinancing-can-unlock-stronger-cities/, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Mukhija, V. and A. Loukaitou-Sideris (eds)(2014) The Informal American City: Beyond
Taco Trucks and Day Labour, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA
Müller, D. B., G. Liu, A. N. Løvik, R. Modaresi,
S. Pauliuk, F. S. Steinhoff, and H. Brattebø(2013 ) ‘Carbon Emissions of Infrastructure
Development’, Environmental Science &Technology 47 (20):11739–11746
Municipal Finance Authority of British
Columbia (2020) 2019 Annual Report, https://
mfa.bc.ca/sites/default/files/Investors/
Annual%20Report/2019_annual_report.pdf,
last accessed 25 September 2020
Muro, M. (2020) ‘Could Big Tech’s move topermanent remote work save the American
heartland?’ https://www.brookings.edu/
blog/the-avenue/2020/05/26/could-bigtechs-move-to-permanent-remote-worksave-the-american-heartland/, last accessed
22 September 2020
Muro, M., T. H. Loh, M. Ross, J. Schuetz,
A. Goger, N. Bateman, W. H. Frey, J.
Parilla, S. Liu, and A. Tomer (2020)‘How COVID-19 will change the nation’s
long-term economic trends, according to
Brookings Metro scholars’, https://www.
brookings.edu/research/how-covid-19-willchange-the-nations-long-term-economictrends-brookings-metro/, last accessed 22
September 2020
Murphy, A. (2018) ‘The 2018 Digital 100’
Forbes, 20 September, https://www.forbes.
com/sites/andreamurphy/2018/09/20/
the-2018-digital-100/#289c85106137, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Myllyvirta, L. (2020) ‘Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by
a quarter’ https://www.eco-business.com/
news/coronavirus-has-temporarily-reducedchinas-co2-emissions-by-a-quarter/ , lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Nakamura, S., R. Harati, S. Lall, Y. Dikhanov, N.
Hamadeh, W. V. Oliver, M. O. Rissanen and
M. Yamanaka (2016) ‘Is living in African
cities expensive?’ Policy Research Working
Paper 7641, World Bank, Washington, DC
National Institute of Building Sciences (2019)
Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report,
National Institute of Building Sciences.
Washington, DC
Nature (2020) ‘Show evidence that apps for
COVID-19 contact-tracing are secure andeffective’ Editorial, 29April,: https://www.
nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01264-1, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
NDRC (Natural Resources Defense Council)(2019) Watered Down Justice, https://www.
nrdc.org/resources/watered-down-justice,last accessed 22 September 2020
Neiderud, C. (2015) ‘How urbanization affects

the epidemiology of emerging infectious
diseases’, Infection Ecology & Epidemiology
5(1), https://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v5.27060,
last accessed 20 April 2020
Nenova, T. (2010) Expanding Housing Financeto the Underserved in South Asia: Market
Review and Forward Agenda, World Bank,
Washington, DC
Newburger, E. (2020) ‘Carbon emissions sharply
rebound as countries lift coronavirus
restrictions’, CNBC, 18 June, https://www.
cnbc.com/2020/06/18/coronavirus-carbonemissions-rebound-sharply-as-countriesstates-open.html, last accessed 21 September
2020, last accessed 22 September 2020
Nightingale, A. J (2011 ) ‘Bounding difference:
Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment
in Nepal’, Geoforum 42 (2):153–162
Nobel, S. (2018) Algorithms of Oppression, NYU
Press, New York
Nolte, M. (2020) ‘Covid-19 is forcing an exodus
from Peru’s cities’ The Nation, 11 May,
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/
peru-coronavirus-covid-19/, last accessed 23
September 2020
Novara, A., S. Keesstra, A. Cerdà, P. Pereira,and L. Gristina (2016 ) ‘Understanding therole of soil erosion on CO2-C loss using 13C
isotopic signatures in abandoned Mediterranean agricultural land’, Science of the Total
Environment 550:330–336
Nzeadibe, T. C. and P. O. Mbah (2015 ) ‘Beyond
urban vulnerability: Interrogating the social
sustainability of a livelihood in the informal
economy of Nigerian cities’, Review ofAfrican Political Economy 42 (144):279–298
O’Brien, O. (2017) ‘Smart mobility and open
data: A global and personal perspective
transport matters’ , ITDP, https://www.
itdp.org/2017/11/20/smart-mobility-opendata/, last accessed 24 September 2020
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2006) Competitive
Cities in the Global Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2007) Competitive Cities: A New Entrepreneurial Paradigm in Spatial Development,
OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2012) ‘Innovation to strengthen growth
and address global and social challenges’,
http://www.oecd.org/sti/45326349.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
OECD (2014) Is migration good for the
economy? Migration Policy Debates;
https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20
Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20
Numero%202.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
OECD (2014) The Competitiveness of Global PortCities: Synthesis Report, OECD Publishing,
ParisOECD (2015) Governing the City, OECD Publishing,
Paris

366

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

OECD (2017) National Urban Policy in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2017) OECD Affordable Housing Database2017, OECD, Paris
OECD (2018) OECD Business and Finance Outlook
2018: China’s Belt and Road Initiative in
the Global Trade, Investment and FinanceLandscape, https://www.oecd.org/finance/
Chinas-Belt-and-Road-Initiative-in-theglobal-trade-investment-and-finance-landscape.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
OECD (2019a) ‘Affordable housing’, in Society at
a Glance 2019: OECD Social Indicators, OECD
Publishing, Paris
OECD (2019b) Global outlook on financing
for sustainable development 2019: Time
to face the challenge, https://www.oecd.
org/development/global-outlook-onfinancing-for-sustainable-development2019-9789264307995-en.htm , last accessed
25 September 2020
OECD (2020) A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis Report,
OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD and UCLG (2019) 2019 Report of the World
Observatory on Subnational Government Financeand Investment – Key Findings, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD and UN-Habitat (2018) Global State of
National Urban Policy, OECD Publishing,Paris/UN-HABITAT, Nairobi
Oka, R. (2011 ) ‘Unlikely cities in the desert: The
informal economy as causal agent for permanent “urban” sustainability In Kakuma
Refugee Camp, Kenya’, Urban Anthropology
and Studies of Cultural Systems and World
Economic Development:223-262
Oliver, P. (2016) Green Bonds for Cities: A Strategic
Guide for City-Level Policymakers in Developing Countries, Climate Policy Initiative,
https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/
publication/green-bonds-guide-city-policymakers-developing-countries/, last accessed
25 September 2020
O’Neill, J. and C. L. Spash (2000 ) ‘Conceptionsof value in environmental decision-making’,
Environmental Values 9 (4):521–536
O’Sullivan, F. (2017) ‘Paris is tripling its tax
on second homes’ Citilab, 26 January,https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/01/
paris-france-property-taxes-vacationhomes/514496/, last accessed 20 April 2020
Osuteye, E., C. Johnson, and D. Brown (2017) ‘The data gap: An analysis of data availability on disaster losses in sub-SaharanAfrican cities’, International Journal ofDisaster Risk Reduction 26:24-33
Oteh, A. (2019) ‘Leveraging innovative financefor realizing the Sustainable Development Goals’ https://www.worldbank.org/
en/news/speech/2018/05/15/leveraginginnovative-finance-for-realizing-the-sustainable-development-goals, last accessed 22
September 2020

367

Ottaviano, G. I. P. and G. Peri (2006) ‘The
economic value of cultural diversity:
Evidence from US cities’, Journal of Economic
Geography 6(1):9–44
OXFAM (2020) Time to Care: Unpaid and Underpaid Care Work and the Global Inequality
Crisis, OXFAM Briefing Paper, https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/
handle/10546/620928/bp-time-to-careinequality-200120-en.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
Panter, E. R. E., T. Primiani, T. Hasan, and E.
Calderon Pontaza (2017) Antidiscrimination
Law and Shared Prosperity: An Analysis of theLegal Framework of Six Economies and their
Impact on the Equality of Opportunities ofEthnic, Religious, and Sexual Minorities, Policy
Research Working Paper 7992,World Bank,
Washington, DC
Parnell, S. (2016) ‘Defining a global urban
development agenda’, World Development
78:529–540
Parnell, S. (2018 ) ‘Globalization and sustainable
development: At the urban crossroad’, The
European Journal of Development Research 30(2):169–171
Parnell, S. and D. Simon (2014) ‘National urbanization and urban strategies: Necessary but
absent policy instruments in Africa’, in S.
Parnell and E. Pieterse (eds) Africa’s Urban
Revolution, Zed Books, London, pp. 237–256
Parnell, S. and R. Walawege (2011) ‘Sub-SaharanAfrican urbanisation and global environmental change’, Global Environmental Change
21 (Supplement 1):S12–S20
Parnell, S., O. Crankshaw and M. Acuto (2016)‘2030 policy endorsement of a sustainable
future: Implications for urban research’,
http://www.urbantransformations.ox.ac.
uk/debate/2030-policy-endorsement-of-asustainable-future-implications-for-urbanresearch/, last accessed 22 September 2020
Partington, R. (2019) ‘The UK ranks among themost unequal nations in Europe and many
people feel they are not sharing in the country’s wealth’, The Guardian, 9 September,
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/
sep/09/inequality-is-it-rising-and-can-wereverse-it, last accessed 22 September 2020
Patel, A. D. and G. Steinhauser (2020) ‘South
Africa’s economy shrinks 51 per cent as
lockdown restrictions hurt businesses’, The
Wall Street Journal, 8 September, https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-africaseconomy-shrinks-51-as-lockdown-restrictions-hurt-businesses-11599563965, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Patel, S., C. Baptist, and C. D’Cruz (2012 )‘Knowledge is power – informal communities assert their right to the city throughSDI and community-led enumerations’,
Environment and Urbanization 24 (1):13–26
Patel, Z., S. Greyling, S. Parnell, and G. Pirie(2015 ) ‘Co-producing urban knowledge:

experimenting with alternatives to ‘bestpractice’for Cape Town, South Africa’,
International Development Planning Review 37(2):187–203
Pearson, N. O. (2019) ‘The taxes that sent
Vancouver’s luxury housing market reeling’,
Bloomberg,16 April, https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2019-04-16/the-taxesthat-sent-vancouver-s-luxury-housingmarket-reeling, last accessed 22 September
2020
Peck, J. (2002 ) ‘Political economies of scale: Fastpolicy, interscalar relations, and neoliberal
workfare’, Economic geography 78 (3):331–360
Pelling, M. and B. Wisner (2012 ) Disaster Risk
Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa, Routledge
Pelling, M., H. Leck, L. Pasquini, I. Ajibade, E.
Osuteye, S. Parnell, S. Lwasa, C. Johnson, A.
Fraser, A. Barcena, and S. Boubacar (2018)‘Africa’s urban adaptation transition under
a 1.5° climate’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31: 10–15
Persistence Market Research (2017) ‘Global
market study on smart cities: Massive
potential resides in Asia Pacific, https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/
market-research/smart-cities-market.asp,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Pescaroli, G. and D. Alexander (2018 ) ‘Understanding compound, interconnected,
interacting, and cascading risks: A holistic
framework’, Risk Analysis 38 (11):2245–2257
Pettit, H. and C. White (2018) ‘A glimpse into
the future? $39 billion high-tech smart city
in South Korea turns into a “Chernobyllike ghost town” after investment dries
up’, MailOnline, 28 March, https://www.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article5553001/28-billion-project-dubbed-worldsSmart-City-turned-Chernobyl-like-ghosttown.html, last accessed 21 September 2020
Pieterse, E. (2014) ‘Filling the void: An agenda
for tackling African urbanisation’, in S.
Parnell and E. Pieterse (eds) Africa’s Urban
Revolution, Zed Books, London, pp. 200–220
Pieterse, E. (2019) ‘Promoting sustainable infrastructure to underpin African urbanisation’https://www.ispionline.it/en/pubblicazione/promoting-sustainable-infrastructure-underpin-afri-can-urbanisation-23217,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Pilling, D. (2019) ‘Are tech companies Africa’s
new colonialists?’ The Financial Times,
https://www.ft.com/content/4625d9b89c16-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726, last accessed
24 September 2020
Pinder, R, J.M. Klopp, G. Kleiman, G.S.W.
Hagler, Y. Awe and S. Terry (2019) ‘Filling
the gaps: Improving measurement of air
quality in low and middle-income countries’ Atmospheric Environment 215:116794
Poon, L. (2018) ‘Sleepy in Songdo, Korea’s
Smartest City’, Bloomberg CityLab,22 June,References

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/
sleepy-in-songdo-koreas-smartestcity/561374/, last accessed 24 September
2020
Population Reference Bureau (2017) 2017 World
Population Data Sheet with a Special Focus on
Youth, https://www.prb.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/08/WPDS-2017.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Porter, E. (2020) ‘Coronavirus threatens theluster of superstar cities’, The New YorkTimes, 21 July, https://www.nytimes.
com/2020/07/21/business/economy/coronavirus-cities.html, last accessed 22 September
2020
Porter, L., S. Jackson, and L. Johnson (2018)‘Indigenous communities are reworking
urban planning, but planners need toaccept their history’, https://theconversation.com/indigenous-communities-arereworking-urban-planning-but-plannersneed-to-accept-their-history-92351, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Poumanyvong, P., S. Kaneko, and S. Dhakal(2012 ) ‘Impacts of urbanization on nationaltransport and road energy use: Evidence
from low, middle and high income countries’, Energy Policy 46:268–277
Powell, J. (2016) Targeted universalism: Equity
2.0., Haas Institute, https://www.michigan.
gov/documents/mdhhs/Targeted_Universalism_Equity_622281_7.pdf, last accessed 22
September 2020
Prime Minister’s Office Singapore (2019)‘Formation smart nation and digital government group prime minister’s office’, https://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/formationsmart-nation-and-digital-governmentgroup-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-office,last accessed 22 September 2020
Prorok, T., A. Todorović, D. Pichler, M.
Ivanović, L. Rücker and M. Pejčić (2019)
Agenda 2030 in my municipality: A handbook
for practitioners for localizing the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), https://socialrights-balkan.org/wp-content/uploads/
Handbook_2030-Agenda-in-my-Municipality-4.pdf, last accessed 25 September
2020
Pskowski, M. (2018) ‘Abandoned by the
U.S. media, the migrant caravan rolls
into Mexico City’, Bloomberg CityLab, 8November, https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2018-11-08/mexico-citygreets-the-central-american-migrant-caravan, last accessed 22 September 2020
Public Health England (2020) Disparities in the
Risk and Outcomes of COVID-19, https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/892085/disparities_review.pdf, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Público (2016) Urbanismo feminista o cómo
humanizar las ciudades desde la experiencia

de las mujeres. https://www.publico.es/sociedad/urbanismo-feminista-humanizarciudad-experiencia.html
Publish0x.com. (2019) ‘How disruptive technologies are driving the fourth industrial
revolution’, https://www.publish0x.com/
mina-down/how-disruptive-technologiesare-driving-fourth-industrial-re-xjjwwv,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Pulkkinen, L. (2019) ‘If Silicon Valley were acountry, it would be among the richest
on Earth’ The Guardian,30 April, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/30/silicon-valley-wealth-second-richestcountry-world-earth, last accessed 24
September 2020
QiangYan, C. Z., Y. Liu, M. Paganini and V.
Steenbergen (2020) ‘Foreign direct investment and global value chains in the wake of
COVID-19’ World Bank Blogs,1 May, https://
blogs.worldbank.org/psd/foreign-directinvestment-and-global-value-chains-wakecovid-19, last accessed 13 May 2020
Quintero, L. E. and M. Roberts (2018) Explaining
Spatial Variations in Productivity: Evidence
from Latin America and the Caribbean, Policy
Research Working Paper 8560, World Bank,
Washington, DC
Rabelo, R. J. and P. Bernus, (2015) ‘A holistic
model of building innovation ecosystems’,in 15th IFAC Symposium on Information
Control in Manufacturing, Ottawa, Canada
Rand Corporation (undated) ‘Preparing for an
aging world’, https://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_briefs/RB5058/index1.html, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Ranganathan, M. and C. Balazs (2015 ) ‘Water
marginalization at the urban fringe:
Environmental justice and urban political
ecology across the North–South divide’,
Urban Geography 36 (3):403–423
Ranganathan, M., L. Kamath, and V. Baindur(2009 ) ‘Piped water supply to greater bangalore: Putting the cart before the horse?’,
Economic and Political Weekly 44(33):53–62
Rapoport, E. (2015 ) ‘Globalising sustainableurbanism: The role of international masterplanners’, Area 47 (2):110–115
Ratcliffe, R. (2020) ‘We’re in a prison’: Singapore’s migrant workers suffer as Covid-19
surges back), The Guardian, 23 April, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/
singapore-million-migrant-workers-sufferas-covid-19-surges-back, last accessed 22
September 2020
Ratcliffe, R., L. Ford, L. McMullan, P. Gutiérrez, and G. Blight (2020) Cox’s Bazar
refugee camps: Where social distancing is
impossible, The Guardian, 29 June, https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jun/29/not-fit-for-a-humancoronavirus-in-coxs-bazar-refugee-camps,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Ratti, C, D. Frenchman, R.M. Pulsell and

S.Williams (2006) ‘Mobile landscapes: Using
location data from cell phones for urban’,Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 33:727–748
Rauch, J. E. (1993) ‘Productivity Gains fromgeographic concentration of human capital:
Evidence from the cities’, Journal of Urban
Economics 34(3): 380–400
Raymond, C. M., M. Breil, M. Nita, N. Kabisch,M. de Bel, V. Enzi, N. Frantzeskaki, G.
Geneletti, L. Lovinger, and M. Cardinaletti(2017 ) An Impact Evaluation Framework to
Support Planning and Evaluation of NatureBased Solutions Projects: An EKLIPSE Expert
Working Group report, Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Rebuild by Design (2013) ‘Hurricane Sandy
Design Competition’, http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/our-work/sandy-projects, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Reckien, D. (2018) ‘How are cities planning to
respond to climate change? Assessment oflocal climate plans from 885 in the EU-28’
Journal of Cleaner Production 191:207–219
Regan, H and C. Ulloa (2019) ‘Chile extends
curfew again as violent unrest paralyzes
one of Latin America’s biggest cities’,
CNN, 22 October, https://edition.cnn.
com/2019/10/22/americas/chile-protestsinequality-curfew-intl-hnk/index.html, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
Regional Plan Association (2017) ‘Northeast
Corridor: A megaregion of national andinternational significance’, http://fourthplan.org/places/northeast-corridor, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Reidy (2020) ‘The COVID-19 excuse? How
migration policies are hardening around theglobe’ https://www.thenewhumanitarian.
org/analysis/2020/04/17/coronavirus-globalmigration-policies-exploited, last accessed
22 September 2020
Republic of Indonesia (2019) Voluntary National
Review, Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equality, Government of Indonesia,
Jakarta
Rimmer, W. G. (1970) British Factory Towns
during the First Industrial Revolution, Frederick Warne &Co., London
Ripley, S. (2010) Culturally Diverse Arts andCulture Programming in After School Settings
for Culturally Diverse Children and Youth:
A Review of Literature, Creative Mosaics,
Scarborough, ON
Robin, E. and M. Acuto (2018 ) ‘Global urban
policy and the geopolitics of urban data’,
Political Geography 66:76–87
Robinson L.D., J.L. Cawthray, S.E. West, A.
Bonn, and J. Ansine (2018) ‘Ten principles
of citizen science’, in S. Hecker, M. Haklay,
A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, and A.
Bonn (eds) Citizen Science: Innovation inOpen Science, Society and Policy, UCL Press,
London, pp.1–23

368

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Rogan, M. and P. Cichello (2017) Can informal
employment actually reduce poverty?
WIEGO Blog, 16 February, https://www.
wiego.org/blog/can-informal-employmentactually-reduce-poverty, last accessed 20
April 2020
Rogelj, J., M. Den Elzen, N. Höhne, T. Fransen,
H. Fekete, H. Winkler, R. Schaeffer, F. Sha,
K. Riahi, and M. Meinshausen (2016 ) ‘Paris
Agreement climate proposals need a boost
to keep warming well below 2 C’, Nature 534(7609):631–639
Rohit J. (2014) ´The intangible dimension ofurban heritage´, in F. Bandarin, and R. vanOers (eds) Reconnecting the City: The Historic
Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of
Urban Heritage, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken,
New Jersey
Romero-Lankao, P., O. Wilhelmi, and M.
Chester (2018) ‘Live with risk while
reducing vulnerability’, in T. Elmqvist,
X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D.
Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P.
Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, and M. Watkins(eds) Urban Planet, Cambridge, University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 92–112
Romp, W. E. and J. de Haan. (2007) ‘Public
capital and economic growth: A criticalsurvey’, Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik(Economic Policy Perspectives) 8(S1), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2516.2007.00242.x, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Rosen, J. (2019) ‘Cities, states and companies
vow to meet U.S. climate goals without
Trump. Can they?’ Los Angeles Times, 4November, https://www.latimes.com/
environment/story/2019-11-04/cities-statescompanies-us-climate-goals-trump, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
Rosenblat, A. (2018) Uberland: How Algorithms
are Rewriting the Rules of Work, University ofCalifornia Press
Rosenthal, M. J. (2018) ‘The United States isn’t
the only country downplaying climatechange’, The Washington Post, 11 December,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
energy-environment/2018/12/11/unitedstates-isnt-only-country-downplayingclimate-change/, last accessed 22 September
2020
Rosenthal, S. and W. Strange (2004) ‘Evidence
on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies’, in J. V. Henderson and
J. F. Thisse (eds) Handbook of Regional and
Urban Economics, vol. 4, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp.2119–2171
Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao,
S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S.A. Ibrahim(2018a) ‘Pathways to urban transformation’,in C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, P. RomeroLankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S.A.
Ibrahim (eds) Climate Change and Cities;
Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate
Change Research Network, Cambridge Uni-

369

versity Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-26
Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao,
S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S.A. Ibrahim(2018b) (eds) Climate Change and Cities;
Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate
Change Research Network, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Routley, N. (2018) ‘Megacity 2020: The Pearl
River Delta’s astonishing growth’, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/pearl-river-deltamegacity-2020, last accessed 22 September
2020
Rowlatt, J. (2020) ‘India’s carbon emissions fall
for first time in four decades’, BBC News,https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiaindia-52614770, last accessed 22 September
2020
Rudd, A., D. Simon, M. Cardama, E.L. and A.
Birchand Revi (2018) ‘The UN, the Urban
Sustainable Development Goal, and the
New Urban Agenda’, in T. Elmqvist, X. Bai,
N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox,
T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. RomeroLankao, D. Simon, and M. Watkins (eds)
Urban Planet, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp.180–196
Runde, D. and A. Milner (2019) ‘Evolution ofrevolutions: The human element of technological change’ in Beyond Technology: The
Fourth Industrial Revolution in the Developing
World Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC
Ruzek, W. (2015 ) ‘The informal economy as acatalyst for sustainability’, Sustainability 7(1):23–34
Rwanda Governance Board (2018) Citizen
Report Card 2018, http://rgb.rw/fileadmin/
Publications/Citizen_Report_Card_all/
CRC_Report_ENG_2018.pdf, last accessed
24 September 2020
Rydin, Y. (2011 ) The Purpose of Planning: Creating
Sustainable Towns and Cities, Policy Press
Sánchez-Páramo, C. (2020) ‘COVID-19 will hit
the poor hardest. Here’s what we can doabout it’, World Bank Blogs April 23, https://
blogs.worldbank.org/voices/covid-19-willhit-poor-hardest-heres-what-we-can-doabout-it, last accessed 13 May 2020
Sanzana Calvet, M.G (2016) ‘The greening ofneoliberal urbanism in Santiago de Chile:
Urbanisation by green enclaves and the production of a new socio-nature in Chicureo’
Doctoral dissertation, University College
LondonSarkar, S. (2012 ) Environmental Philosophy: From
Theory to Practice, John Wiley & Sons
Sassen, S. (2018) ‘Who own the city?’ in R. Burdett
and P. Rode (eds) Shaping Cities in an Urban
Age. Phaidon Press, London and New York
Satterwaite, D. (2010) The Role of Cities in Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development
Insights. Boston University, http://www.
bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/04/UNsdkp004fsingle.pdf, last accessed 22 September 2020

Schenck, R. and P. F. Blaauw (2011 ) ‘The
work and lives of street waste pickers in
Pretoria—A case study of recycling inSouth Africa’s urban informal economy’,
Urban Forum 22:411–430
Scott, A. J. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities,
Sage, London
Scott, A.J. (2001) ‘Capitalism, cities and the
production of symbolic forms’, Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 26:11–22
SDI and Know Your City (2018) Know Your City:
Slum Dwellers Count, https://knowyourcity.
info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SDI_StateofSlums_LOW_FINAL.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
SDSN (United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network) (2014) ‘Why
the world needs an urban SDG?’, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/5448revi.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
SDSN (2015) Investment Needs to Achieve theSustainable Development Goals: Understanding
the Billions and Trillions, SDSN Working
Paper, https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.
com/be6d1d56/files/uploaded/151112-SDGFinancing-Needs.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
SDSN (2016) Getting Started with the SDGs in
Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders, https://
irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/6f2c9f57/
files/uploaded/Cities-SDG-Guide.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
SDSN (2018) Closing the SDG Budget Gap. Move
Humanity, https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.
com/6f2c9f57/files/uploaded/Move%20
Humanity%20Report_2018.pdf, last accessed
25 September 2020
SDSN (2019) SDG Costing and Financing for LowIncome Developing Countries, https://sdgfinancing.unsdsn.org/static/files/sdg-costingand-finance-for-LIDCS.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Sefa Dei, G., B. Hall, and D. Rosenberg (eds.)(2000) Indigenous Knowledges in Global
Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Senate of Berlin (2018) Berlin Strategy, Urban
Development Concept Berlin 2030, Senate
Department for Urban Development andthe Environment, Berlin, https://www.
stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/download/strategie/
BerlinStrategie_Broschuere_en.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2015) Promiseof Seoul: Taking Action Against Climate Change,see: https://ccacoalition.org/en/resources/
promise-seoul-taking-action-againstclimate-change, last accessed 25 September
2020
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2018) The Seoul
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, 17 Ways
to Change Seoul, http://www.urbansdgplat-Referencesform.org/board/viewPublicationDetail.
msc?no=146, last accessed 25 September 2020
Seto, K. C., B. Güneralp, and L. R. Hutyra (2012) ‘Global forecasts of urban expansion to2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity
and carbon pools’, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 109 (40):16083–16088
Seto, K. C., J. S. Golden, M. Alberti, and B. L.
Turner (2017 ) ‘Sustainability in an urbanizing planet’, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 114 (34):8935–8938
Sgeuo, G. (2016) Participatory Budgeting: An Innovative Approach, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2712213, last accessed 24 September
2020
Shaikh, M. (2020) ‘Mumbai: Dharavi reports
30 new Covid-19 cases, area’s tally reaches
168’, India Today, 20 April, https://www.
indiatoday.in/india/story/mumbai-dharavireports-30-new-covid-19-cases-area-stally-reaches-168-1669118-2020-04-20, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Sharp, R. (2020) ‘Black people in NYC are
TWICE as likely to die from coronavirus aswhite people, shocking new data reveals’,
MailOnline, 17 April, https://www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-8231077/Black-peopleNYC-TWICE-likely-die-coronavirus-whitepeople-data-shows.html, last accessed 21
September 2020
Shepherd, M. (2018) ‘How urbanization makes
wildfires and hurricanes worse’Forbes,
21 Nov, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
marshallshepherd/2018/11/21/how-urbanization-makes-wildfires-and-hurricanesworse/#7e05022918b3, last accessed 23
September 2020
SIDA (Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency) (2017) Sida Guarantee
Portfolio, SIDA, Stockholm, https://www.
sida.se/contentassets/95cc74d7ae78433db6
42fbe82a552138/10201165_guarantee_portfolios_2017_webb.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Sidewalk Toronto Tomorrow (undated)A new
approach for inclusive growth, https://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/, last accessed 24
September 2020
Simon, D. (2016a) ‘Green cities: From tokenism
to incrementalism and transformation’,in Simon, D. (ed.) Rethinking Sustainable
Cities: Accessible, Green and Fair, Policy Press,
Bristol, pp. 61–105
Simon, D. (2016b) ‘The potential of the green
economy in addressing urban environmental change’, in K.C. Seto, W.D.
Solecki, and C.A. Griffith (eds) Handbook
on Urbanization and Global Environmental
Change, Routledge, London and New York.
pp. 455–469
Simon, D. (2020) ‘Cities are at centre ofcoronavirus pandemic – understanding
this can help build a sustainable, equal
future’, The Conversation, 23 April. https://theconversation.com/cities-are-at-centreof-coronavirus-pandemic-understandingthis-can-help-build-a-sustainable-equalfuture-136440, last accessed 28 September
2020
Simon, D. and H. Leck (2014) ‘Understanding
Urban Adaptation Challenges in Diverse
Contexts’ (Editorial introduction: Special
issue on Urban Adaptation to Climate/
Environmental Change), Urban Climate,
7: 1–5
Simon, D., Griffith, C. and H. Nagendra(2018) ‘Rethinking urban sustainability
and resilience’, in T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N.
Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T.
McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao,
D. Simon, and M. Watkins (eds) Urban
Planet, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.149–162
Simon, D., H. Arfvidsson, G. Anand, A. Bazaz,
G. Fenna, K. Foster, G. Jain, S. Hansson, L.
M. Evans, N. Moodley, C. Nyambuga, M.
Oloko, D. C. Ombara, Z. Patel, B. Perry,N. Primo, A. Revi, B. Van Niekerk, A.
Wharton, and C. Wright (2016 ) ‘Developing
and testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indicators – afive-city study’, Environment and Urbanization 28 (1):49–63
Simon, D., M. Fragkias, R. Leichenko, R.
Sánchez-Rodríguez, K.C. Seto, and W.
Solecki (2011) The Green Economy and theProsperity of Cities, Background Paper for
the UN-HABITAT State of World Cities
Report 2012/3, available at http://www.
unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GreenEconomyCityProsperity5Aug11.pdf, last accessed
28 September 2020
Simone, A. and E. Pieterse (2018 ) New Urban
Worlds: Inhabiting Dissonant Times, John
Wiley & Sons
Smart Cities Association (2017) ‘Global smart
cities market to reach a whopping $3.5
trillion by 2026’, https://www.smartcitiesassociation.org/index.php/media-corner/
news/1-global-smart-cities-market-toreach-a-whopping-3-5-trillion-by-2026, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Smart Cities World (2020) ‘South Korea tostep-up online coronavirus tracking’,
https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/
news/south-korea-to-step-up-onlinecoronavirus-tracking-5109, last accessed 24
September 2020
Smith, L. (2017) ‘Benefits of open data forsmart cities’, https://hub.beesmart.city/en/
solutions/benefits-of-open-data-for-smartcities, last accessed 24 September 2020
Snow, J. (2017) ‘8 city mobile apps driving
citizen engagement’, https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/8-city-mobile-appsdriving-citizen-engagement/442952/, lastaccessed 24 September 2020Societe Generale, and UNEP FI (2018)‘Rethinking impact to finance the SDGs: A
position paper and call to action preparedby the positive impact initiative’, https://www.unepfi.org/publications/rethinkingimpact-to-finance-the-sdgs-a-position-paper-and-call-to-action/, last accessed
25 September 2020
South African Cities Network (2018a) The
People’s Guide to the State of City Finances,
http://www.sacities.net/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/WEB_72DPI_SACN%20
SoCF%20People’s%20Guide.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
South African Cities Network (2018b) Localising
the New Urban Agenda (South Africa Discussion Document), http://www.sacities.
net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/SA%20
NUA%20Localisation%20Discussion%20
Paper.pdf, last accessed 28 September 2020
Stakeholder Group on Ageing (2018) ‘Goal
11: Building Inclusive, Safe, Resilient andSustainable Cities for All Ages, Including
Older Persons’, Position paper submitted to
the High-Level Political Forum 2018,
Statistics South Africa (2019) ‘Unemployment
rises slightly in third quarter of 2019’,
http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=12689, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Stephens, M. (2005) ‘A critical analysis of
housing finance reform in a ‘super’ homeownership state: The case of Armenia’,
Urban Studies 42(10):1795–1815
Stolarick, K. and R. Florida (2006) ‘Creativity,
connections and innovation: A study oflinkages in the Montreal region’, Environment and Planning A 38(10):1799–1817
Stouffer, S. A. (1955) Communism, Conformity andCivil Liberties, Doubleday, Garden City, NJ
Stripple, J. and H. Bulkeley (2019) ‘Towards amaterial politics of socio-technical transitions: Navigating decarbonisation pathways
in Malmö’, Political Geography 72: 52–63.
Summers, N. (2019) ‘Toronto is reining in
Sidewalk Labs’ smart city dream’, https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/31/sidewalklabs-waterfront-toronto-threshold-issues/,
last accessed 24 September 2020
Sumner, A., C. Hoy and E. Ortiz-Juarez (2020)‘Estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on
global poverty’, WIDER Working Paper
2020/43, https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/
default/files/Publications/Working-paper/
PDF/wp2020-43.pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
Suzuki, H., J. Murakami, Y. Hong, and B.
Tamayose (2015) Financing Transit-Oriented
Development with Land Values: Adapting Land
Value Capture in Developing Countries, World
Bank, Washington, DC
Swilling, M., J.K. Musango, and J. Wakeford(eds) (2016) Greening the South African
Economy: Scoping the issues, challenges andopportunities, University of Cape Town
Press, Cape Town

370

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Swilling, M., M. Hajer, T. Baynes, J. Bergesen,
F. Labbé, J. K. Musango, A. Ramaswami,
B. Robinson, S. Salat, and S. Suh (2018) The Weight of Cities: Resource Requirements of Future Urbanization, International
Resource Panel, https://www.resourcepanel.
org/reports/weight-cities, last accessed 23
September 2020
Tait, R. and S. Walker (2020) ‘Coronavirus:
Central Europe faces worse second wave
after avoiding worst of first’, The Guardian,
10 September, https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2020/sep/10/czechs-face-secondcoronavirus-wave-as-cases-soar-in-europe,
last accessed 22 September 2020
Talbot, D. (2013) ‘African bus routes redrawn
using cellphone data’, MIT Technology
Review, 30 April, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514211/african-bus-routesredrawn-using-cell-phone-data/, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Tamajon, L.G., S.M. Perez, and J. Wilson (2019)‘The Airbnb effect and digital narratives ofcollaborative tourism platforms. The casesof Madrid and Barcelona’ Presentation to
the 8th Nordic Geographers Meeting, Trondheim, Norway, June 16–19 2019
Teale, C. (2020) ‘COVID-19 may sport thethinnest silver lining: A cleaner climate’,
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/
coronavirus-impact-cities-climate-changeefforts/574450/, last accessed 22 September
2020
Temper, L., D. Del Bene, and J. Martinez-Alier(2015 ) ‘Mapping the frontiers and front
lines of global environmental justice:
The EJAtlas’, Journal of Political Ecology 22(1):255–278
Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond,
M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist,
and C. Folke (2017 ) ‘Weaving knowledge
systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability’, Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
26-27:17–25
Thaman, R. R., W. Clarke, H. I. Manner, B. G.
Decker, and I. Ali (2017 ) Agroforestry in
the Pacific Islands: Systems for Sustainability,
United Nations University Press
Tharoor, I. (2018) ‘How Brazil’s Bolsonaro
threatens the planet’, The Washington Post, 19
October, https://www.washingtonpost.com/
world/2018/10/19/how-brazils-bolsonarothreatens-planet, last accessed 22 September
2020
The C40 Knowledge Hub (2019a) ‘Cities100: Citywide rapid bus electrification in Guangzhou’,https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/
Cities100-Citywide-rapid-bus-electrificationin-Guangzhou?language=en_US, last accessed
25 September 2020
The C40 Knowledge Hub (2019b) ‘Cities100:
Recognition and inclusion of informal waste
collectors reaps large benefits in Accra’,371

https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/
Cities100-Recognition-and-inclusion-ofinformal-waste-collectors-reaps-large-benefits-in-Accra?language=en_US, last accessed
25 September 2020
The Construction Specifier (2020) COVID-19‘pandemic shakes confidence in infrastructure investment’, https://www.constructionspecifier.com/covid-19-pandemic-shakesconfidence-in-infrastructure-investment/,
last accessed 25 September 2020
The Economic Times (2016) ‘IT Minister
approves 9,000 seats for call centres insmall towns’, The Economic Times, 3 October,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
news/economy/policy/it-minister-approves9000-seats-for-call-centres-in-small-towns/
articleshow/54659119.cms, last accessed 3
November 2019
The Economist (2020a) ‘New York is fast
becoming the world’s next coronavirus hotspot’, The Economist, 29 April,https://www.economist.com/unitedstates/2020/03/29/new-york-is-fastbecoming-the-worlds-next-coronavirushotspot, last accessed 22 September 2020
The Economist (2020b) ‘Covid-19 has led to apandemic of plastic pollution’, The Economist, 22 June, https://www.economist.com/
international/2020/06/22/covid-19-has-ledto-a-pandemic-of-plastic-pollution, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2015) Future
cities: Driving growth through the creative
economy; http://creativecities.eiu.com/ lastaccessed 24 September 2020
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2020) ‘Q2
global forecast 2020: Coronavirus sinks
global growth forecasts for 2020’, https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=q2globalforecast, last accessed 22
September 2020
The Local (2016) ‘How Cologne sexual assaults“changed German mood completely”‘
https://www.thelocal.de/20161215/
year-after-cologne-sex-assaults-germanyfrets-over-integration, last accessed 22
September 2020
The New Climate Economy (2016) The Sustainable Infrastructure Imperative: Financing for
Better Growth and Development:The 2016
New Climate Economy Report, http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/wp-content/
uploads/sites/4/2014/08/NCE_2016Report.
pdf/, last accessed 25 September 2020
Tibaijuka, A. K. (2009) Building Prosperity:
Housing and Economic Development, Earthscan, London-Sterling, VA
TNS Opinion and Social (2014) Public Opinion in
The European Union, First Results, European
Commission, Directorate-General for
Communication, https://ec.europa.eu/
commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/
eb/eb82/eb82_publ_en.pdf, last accessed 24

September 2020
Tobías, A., C. Carnerero, C. Reche, J. Massagué,
M. Via, M. C. Minguillón, A. Alastuey, and
X. Querol (2020) ‘Changes in air quality
during the lockdown in Barcelona (Spain)
one month into the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic’,
Science of The Total Environment 726: 1–4
TomTom (2018) Traffic Index 2018, https://www.
tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/ranking,last accessed 7 January 2020
Tornaghi, C. (2017 ) ‘Urban agriculture in the
food‐disabling city:(Re) defining urban
food justice, reimagining a politics of
empowerment’, Antipode 49 (3):781–801
Townsend, A. (2013) Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic
Hackers and the Quest for a New Utopia, W.
W. Norton and Co, New York and London
Transparency Market Research (2014) ‘Global
smart cities market - Industry analysis,size, share, growth trends and forecast, 2013
– 2019’, http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/smart-cities-market.html, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada (2015) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, http://www.trc.ca/
assets/pdf/Honouring_the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_July_23_2015.pdf, lastaccessed 23 September 2020
Tsen, W. H. and F. Furuoka (2005) ‘The relationship between population and economic
growth in Asian economies’, ASEAN
Economic Bulletin, Hong Kong, ASEAN
Economic Bulletin.
Tuch, S. A. (1987) ‘Urbanism, region, and tolerance revisited: The case of racial prejudice”,
American Sociological Review 52(4): 504–510
Turok, I. (2014) ‘Linking urbanisation and development in Africa’s economic revival’, in S.
Parnell and E. Pieterse (eds) Africa’s Urban
Revolution Zed Books, London, pp. 60–81
Turok, I. and G. McGranahan (2013) ‘Urbanization and economic growth: The arguments
and evidence for Africa and Asia’, Environment and Urbanization 25(2): 465–482
Turok, I. and S. Parnell (2009) Reshaping cities,
rebuilding nations: The role national urban
policies’ Urban Forum 20:157–174
Tuxford, K. (2020) ‘Leading cities on climate
action revealed’, https://cities-today.
com/leading-cities-on-climate-actionrevealed/?utm_source=cities-today&utm_
medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=20200305, last accessed 22 September
2020
UCLG (United Cities and Local Governments)(2010) Local Government Finance: The Challenges of the 21st Century—Second Global
Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy (GOLD II), Edward Elgar. Cheltenham(UK) and Northampton, MA (US)UCLG (2014) Basic Services for All in an Urbanizing World, Third Global Report on Local
Democracy and Decentralization— GOLD III

References

2013, https://www.uclg.org/en/media/news/
gold-iii-report-basic-services-all-urbanizing-world, last accessed 29 September
2020
UCLG (2016) Co-creating the Urban Future: The
agenda of metropolises, cities and territories,
GOLD IV Report 2016, UCLG, Barcelona
UCLG (2018) Culture in The Sustainable Development Goals: A Guide for Local Action, United
Cities and Local Governments Committee
on Culture http://www.agenda21culture.
net/sites/default/files/culturesdgs_web_en.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
UCLG (2019a) The Localization of the Global
Agendas: How Local Action is Transforming
Territories and Communities, GOLD V Report,
UCLG, Barcelona
UCLG (2019b) Towards the Localization of the
SDGs. Local and Regional Governments,
Report to the 2019 HLPF. 3rd Report.
United Cities and Local Governments,
Barcelona
UCLG Africa and Cities Alliance (2018)
Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local
Governments in Africa, UCLG Africa-Cities
Alliance, Belgium-Morocco
UCLG ASPAC, Cities Alliance and UNDP
(2018) City Enabling Environment Rating:Assessment of the Countries in Asia and thePacific, ASPAC-Cities Alliance, BelgiumIndonesia
UCLG Committee Digital and KnowledgeBased Cities and Bilbao (2017) Smart
Cities, Study 2017, Committee Digital andKnowledge-Based Cities, Bilbao
UK Parliament (2020) ‘Climate Assembly UK
publishes report on path to net zero emissions’,10 September, https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/september/climate-assembly-uk-new/,last accessed 23
September 2020
UN Development Group (2014) Localizing the
Post-2015 Agenda, Dialogues on Implementation, New YorkUN Environment (2019) Global Environment
Outlook – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy
People. Cambridge University Press. DOI
10.1017/9781108627146, last accessed 29
September 2020
UN General Assembly (2017) New Urban Agenda,
Resolution adopted by the General Assemblyon 23 December 2016, A/RES/71/256, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/
globalcompact/A_RES_71_256.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
UNCHR (United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees) (2018) Report of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Part II Global compact on refugees, https://www.unhcr.org/gcr/GCR_English.pdf, lastaccessed 21 September 2020
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development) (2010) The Creative

Economy Report, 2020: Creative Economy, A
Feasible Development Option; https://unctad.
org/en/Docs/ditctab20103_en.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report
2014: Investing in The SDGs, an Action Plan,
https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/
wir2014_en.pdf, last accessed 25 September
2020
UNCTAD (2019) ‘UNCTAD’s work on thecreative economy’, https://unctad.org/en/
Pages/DITC/CreativeEconomy/CreativeEconomy, last accessed 28 September 2020
UNCTAD. (2020) Impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on Global FDI and GVCs: Updated
Analysis, https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeiainf2020d3_en.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
UNDESA (United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs)(2013) Crossnational Comparisons of Internal Migration:
An Update on Global Patterns and Trends,
United Nations, New York, http://www.
un.org/en/development/desa/population/
publications/pdf/technical/TP2013-1.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
UNDESA (2015) Financing Sustainable Development and Developing Sustainable Finance: A
DESA Briefing Note on the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda, https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/
wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/07/DESABriefing-Note-Addis-Action-Agenda.pdf,
last accessed 25 September 2020
UNDESA (2018) Working together: Integration,
Institutions and the Sustainable Development Goals, World Public Sector Report 2018,
UNDESA, New YorkUNDESA (2019) International Migrant Stock 2019,
United Nations, New York,https://www.
un.org/en/development/desa/population/
migration/publications/migrationreport/
docs/MigrationStock2019_TenKeyFindings.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
UNDESA (2020a) World Social Report 2020:
Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World,
https://www.un.org/development/desa/
dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/01/
World-Social-Report-2020-FullReport.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
UNDESA (2020b) ‘Everyone included: Social
impact of COVID-19’, https://www.un.org/
development/desa/dspd/everyone-includedcovid-19.html, last accessed 21 September
2020
UNDESA and UNCDF (undated) Financing
Sustainable Urban Development in the Least
Developed Countries, https://www.uncdf.org/
financing-sustainable-urban-developmentin-the-least-developed-countries, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2012) Green Economy in Action:
Articles and Excerpts that Illustrate Green
Economy and Sustainable Development Efforts,

https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/
pdf/green_economy_in_action_eng.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices andIndicators 2018 Statistical Update, United
Nations Development Programme, New
York, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/
files/2018_human_development_statistical_
update.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
UNDP (2019) Beyond Income, Beyond Averages,
Beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century. Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/
default/files/hdr2019.pdf, last accessed 22
September 2020
UNDP, UN-Habitat and GTF (2016) Roadmap
for Localizing the SDGs: Implementationand Monitoring at Sub-national Level, GTF,
Barcelona
UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa) (2018) ‘ECA presents new
harmonized regional framework for the
implementation of the New Urban Agenda(NUA) in Africa to local authorities’,
https://www.uneca.org/stories/eca-presentsnew-harmonized-regional-frameworkimplementation-new-urban-agenda-nuaafrica, last accessed 28 September 2020
UNECA (2020) ‘The economic impact of
COVID-19 on African cities likely to beacute through a sharp decline in productivity, jobs and revenues, says ECA’, https://www.uneca.org/stories/economic-impactcovid-19-african-cities-likely-be-acutethrough-sharp-decline-productivity, lastaccessed 12 May 2020
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) (2014) Main Findings andRecommendations from the Draft UNECE
Social Housing Study ‘Social Housing in the
UNECE Region: Models, Trends and Challenges’, UNECE, Geneva.
UNECE (2020) ‘UN supports socio-economic
response to COVID-19 crisis in Europe andCentral Asia’, http://www.unece.org/info/
media/news/sdgs/2020/un-supports-socioeconomic-response-to-covid-19-crisis-ineurope-and-central-asia/doc.html, lastaccessed 13 May 2020
UNESCAP (United Nations Economic andSocial Commission for Asia and the Pacific)(2020) The Impact and Policy Responses for
COVID-19 in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.unescap.org/resources/impact-andpolicy-responses-covid-19-asia-and-pacific,
last accessed 13 May 2020
UNESCAP and UN-Habitat (2019) The Futureof Asia and Pacific Cities: Transformative Pathways Towards Sustainable Urban Development,
UN, Bangkok
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2016a)
Cities Welcoming Refugees and Migrants,
UNESCO, Paris, https://www.refworld.

372

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

org/pdfid/5a5f429a4.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
UNESCO (2016b) Culture Urban Future: Global
Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2019) Culture: 2030 Indicators,
UNESCO, Paris
UNESCO (undated) ‘R&D Spending by
Country’, http://uis.unesco.org/apps/
visualisations/research-and-developmentspending/ , last accessed 24 September 2020
UNESCWA (United Nations Economic andSocial Commission for West Asia) (2020)
Regional Emergency Response to Mitigate the
Impact of COVID-19, https://www.unescwa.
org/publications/socioeconomic-impactcovid-19-policy-briefs, last accessed 13 May
2020
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change) (2019)‘Climate Ambition Alliance: Nations
renew their push to upscale action by 2020
and achieve net zero CO2 emissions by
2050’, Press release, 11 December, https://
unfccc.int/news/climate-ambition-alliancenations-renew-their-push-to-upscaleaction-by-2020-and-achieve-net-zero, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
UNFCCC (undated) ‘Nationally Determined
Contributions’, https://unfccc.int/processand-meetings/the-paris-agreement/theparis-agreement/nationally-determinedcontributions-ndcs, last accessed 23
September 2020
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund)(2007) State of the World Population 2007:
Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth,
UNFPA, New York, NY
UN-Habitat (2004) The State of the World’s Cities
2004/2005: Globalization and Urban Culture,
Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2006) State of the World Cities
Report 2006/2007, Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2007) Global Report on Human Settlements 2007: Enhancing Safety and Security,
Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2008) State of the World’s Cities
Report 2008, Harmonious Cities, Earthscan,
LondonUN-Habitat (2009a) Global Report on Human
Settlements 2009: Planning Sustainable Cities,
Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA
UN-Habitat (2010a) State of World Cities Report
2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide, Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2010b) Urban Equity in Development - Cities for Life, World Urban Forum 7
Concept Paper, https://mirror.unhabitat.
org/downloads/docs/12320_1_595236.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
UN-Habitat (2010c) Planning Sustainable Cities,
UN-Habitat Practices and Perspectives, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2011a) Cities and Climate Change:

373

Global Report on Human Settlements 2011,
Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2011b) Ghana Housing Profile, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2011c) The Economic Role of Cities.
The Global Urban Economic Dialogue Series,
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.
UN-Habitat (2011d) Innovative Land and Property
Taxation, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2012a) Zambia Urban Housing
Sector Profile, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2012b) Guide du maître d’ouvrage lesregistres fonciers urbains (RFU),UN-Habitat,
Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2013) State of the World’s Cities
Report 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities, Earthscan, London
UN-Habitat (2014) The Evolution of National
Urban Policies. A Global Overview, Nairobi,
Kenya
UN-Habitat (2015a) International Guidelines on
Urban and Territorial Planning, UN-Habitat,
Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2015b) E-Governance and Urban
Policy Design in Developing Countries, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2015c) National Urban Policy: Asia
and Pacific Report, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2015d) National Urban Policy: A
guiding framework, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016) Urbanization and Development:
Emerging Futures, World Cities Report 2016,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016a) World Cities Report 2016:
Urbanization and Development: Emerging
Urban Futures, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016b) The Fundamentals of
Urbanization: Evidence base for Policy Making,UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016c) Enhancing Productivity in
the Urban Informal Economy, UN-Habitat,
Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016d ) Slum Almanac 2015–2016:
Tracking Improvement in the Lives of Slum
Dwellers, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016e) Financing Sustainable Urban
Development: Challenges And Opportunities, https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/
wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/
Financing-Urban-Development_UN-Habitat.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
UN-Habitat (2016f) Leveraging Land: Land-based
Finance for Local Governments—A Reader,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016g) ‘New Euro 30 Million fundfor Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme (PSUP)’, World Urban Campaign,
https://www.worldurbancampaign.org/
psup/new-euro-30-million-fund-participatory-slum-upgrading-programme-psup
UN-Habitat (2016h) ‘The city we need: Towards
a new urban paradigm’ www.worldurban-

campaign.org, last accessed 28 September
2020
UN-Habitat (2016i) Addressing Climate Change in
National Urban Policy: A policy guide for lowcarbon and climate-resilient urban development,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2016j) The Economics of the Threepronged Approach to Urbanization: Planned
City Extensions, Legal Framework andMunicipal Finance, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2017a) Action Framework for
Implementation of the New Urban Agenda(AFINUA), UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2017b) Economic Foundations for
Sustainable Urbanization: A Study on ThreePronged Approach: Planned City Extensions,
Legal Framework, and Municipal Finance,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2017c) Finance for City Leaders:
Handbook on Improving Municipal Finance to
Deliver Better Services, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2018a) The State of African Cities
2018: The Geography of African Investment,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2018b) Prosperity for all: Enhancing
the Informal Economy Through Participatory
Slum Upgrading, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2018c) Planning Law Assessment
Framework UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2018d) Leading Change: Delivering
the New Urban Agenda through Urban and Territorial Planning, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019a) ‘Sustainable Development
Goal 11: Content analysis of Voluntary
National Reviews 2018’, Unpublished background document.
UN-Habitat (2019b) ‘UN-Habitat opens a‘One Stop Youth Centre’ in Wau, South
Sudan’, https://www.unhabitatyouth.
org/2019/03/06/un-habitat-opens-a-onestop-youth-centre-in-wau-south-sudan/,last accessed 22 September 2020
UN-Habitat (2019c) Global Future Cities Programme Iskandar Malaysia—City Context
Report, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019d) ‘Draft Ministerial Declaration: Innovation for better quality of life
in cities and communities: accelerated
implementation of the New Urban Agenda
towards the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals’, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019e) Net-Zero Carbon Village
Planning Guidelines for the Yangtze River Delta
Region in China, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019f) Annual Progress Report 2019,
UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019g) How to Formulate a National
Urban Policy: A Practical Guide, UN-Habitat,
Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019h) Country Activities Report
2019: Supporting the New Urban Agenda, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019i) SDG Project Assessment
Tool Vol 1: General Framework,UN-Habitat,References

Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2019j) SDG Project Assessment Tool
Vol 2: User Guide,UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2020a) Abu Dhabi Declared Actions,
https://wuf.unhabitat.org/sites/default/
files/2020-02/WUF10_final_declared_
actions.pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
UN-Habitat (2020b) Effectiveness of Planning Law
in Land-Rich Developed Countries, https://
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/05/
effectiveness_of_planning_law_in_land-rich_developed_countries_volume10_final_draft.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
UN-Habitat (2020c) UN-Habitat COVID-19
Response Plan, https://unhabitat.org/sites/
default/files/2020/04/final_un-habitat_
covid-19_response_plan.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
UN-Habitat (2020d) COVID-19 in African Cities:
Impacts, Responses and Policies, https://
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/
covid-19_in_african_cities_impacts_
responses_and_policies2.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
UN-Habitat (2020e) The Sustainable Investment
Gap and How to Close It: Cities, Infrastructureand SDG Investment Gap, https://unhabitat.
org/sites/default/files/2020/02/the_sustainable_investment_gap_and_how_to_
close_it_february_2020.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
UN-Habitat (2020f) Caribbean Strategy for
Informal Settlements Upgrading: A guide toInclusive and Resilient Urbanisation, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2020g) ‘Informal briefing toMember States by the Executive Directorof UN-Habitat on the New Urban Agenda
Monitoring Framework’, February, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2020h) Concept Note: New Urban
Agenda Platform, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (2020i) UN-Habitat Covid-19 Key
Messages, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat (undated) ‘Citizen report card’
https://mirror.unhabitat.org/content.asp?ty
peid=19&catid=635&cid=7660, last accessed
24 September 2020
UN-Habitat (undated) Urban Planning in a Stateof Flux, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat and CAF (2014) Construction of More
Equitable Cities: Public Policies for Inclusion in
Latin America, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance (2014) The
Evolution of National Urban Policies, https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/
National%20Urban%20Policies.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
UN-Habitat and CLGF (Commonwealth
Local Government Forum) (2015) Pacific
Urban Forum 2015: Towards a New Urban
Agenda. Harnessing Opportunities in a Post2015 Environment, http://www.clgfpacific.
org/userfiles/3/file/2015%20Pacific%20
Urban%20Forum%20Resolution%20and%20

Outcomes%20Document.pdf, last accessed
28 September 2020
UN-Habitat and EcoPlan (2005) Promoting Local
Economic Development through Strategic Planning, United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, Nairobi
UN-Habitat and OECD (2018) Global State of
National Urban Policy, UN-Habitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat and the UK Government Department for International Development (UNHabitat/DFID) (2002) Sustainable Urbanisation- Achieving Agenda 21 http://www.chs.
ubc.ca/archives/files/Sustainable_urbanization.pdf, last accessed 22 September 2020
UN-Habitat and UNICEF (2020) ‘Interim
technical note on water, sanitation andhygiene for COVID-19 response in slums
and informal urban settlements’, https://
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/05/
un-habitat-unicef_wash_technical_note-_
urban_wash_for_covid_in_informal_settlements.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2020
UN-Habitat, CAF and Fundación Avina (2014)
Construction of More Equitable Cities: Public
Policies for Inclusion in Latin America, UNHabitat, Nairobi
UN-Habitat, DERASAT and UNDP (2020)
State of Arab Cities Report 2020: Financing
Sustainable Urban Development in the Arab
Region,United Nations Publications, https://
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/
sacr_2020_executive_summary_en.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund)(2012) State of the World´s Children 2012.
Children in an Urban World, United Nations
Children’s Fund, New York, https://www.
unicef.org/sowc2012/pdfs/SOWC-2012Main-Report_EN_21Dec2011.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
UNICEF (2018) Shaping Urbanization for Children:
A Handbook on Child-Responsive Urban Planning, United Nations, New YorkUNICEF and WHO (2019) Progress on Household
Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
2000-2017. Special Focus on Inequalities,
https://www.unicef.org/media/55276/file/
Progress%20on%20drinking%20water,%20
sanitation%20and%20hygiene%202019%20.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
Union of Concerned Scientists (2017) Maximizing
the Benefits of Driving Vehicles. Policy Brief,
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/
files/attach/2017/02/Maximizing-BenefitsSelf-Driving-Vehicles.pdf, last accessed 24
September 2020
United Nations (2001) The Components of Urban
Growth in Developing Countries, United
Nations, New York
United Nations (2015) ‘Transforming Our
World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, https://www.un.org/ga/search/
view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E,
last accessed 24 September 2020

United Nations (2016) Urbanization and Sustainable Development: A United Nations System
Input to a New Urban Agenda, United
Nations System Chief Executives Board
for Coordination, https://www.unsceb.org/
CEBPublicFiles/Urbanization%20and%20
Sustainable%20Development_a%20UN%20
system%20input%20to%20the%20New%20
Urban%20Agenda-ODS.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
United Nations (2017a) New Urban Agenda, A/
RES/71/256*, http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English-With-Index-1.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
United Nations (2017b) Habitat III Policy papers:
Policy paper 1—The Right to The City andCities for All, United Nations, New York
United Nations (2018a) Progress on the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda; https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1628008/
files/A_73_83%26E_2018_62-EN.pdf, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
United Nations (2018b) 2018 Revision of World
Urbanization Prospects, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations,
New York
United Nations (2018c) World Youth Report:
Youth and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, https://www.un.org/development/desa/youth/wp-content/uploads/
sites/21/2018/12/WorldYouthReport2030Agenda.pdf, last accessed 21 September
2020
United Nations (2018d) Ageing Related Policies
and Priorities in the Implementation of the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - As
reported in the Voluntary National Reviewsof 2016, 2017 and 2018, https://www.un.org/
development/desa/ageing/wp-content/
uploads/sites/24/2019/07/Analysis-Ageing_
VNRs_Final28122018.pdf, last accessed 23
September 2020
United Nations (2019a) World Population Prospects
2019: Highlights. Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division ST/
ESA/SER.A/423, https://population.un.org/
wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
United Nations (2019b) UN System-WideStrategy on Sustainable Urban Development,
Chief Executive Board for Coordination,
CEB/2019/4/Add., https://unhabitat.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/05/UN-SystemWide-Strategy-on-Sustainable-UrbanDevelopment-1.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
United Nations (2019c) SDG Report 2019, https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-11/,
last accessed 4 April 2020
United Nations (2019d) Special edition: progress
towards the Sustainable Development Goals,
Report of the Secretary-General, Economic
and Social Council, E/2019/68
United Nations (2019e) UN Secretary-General’s374

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

Roadmap for Financing the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, https://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sg-financestrategy/
United Nations (2020) Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2020, Inter-agency
Task Force on Financing for Development,
United Nations, New York
United Nations (2020a) ‘Decade of Action: Ten
years to transform our world’, https://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/decade-ofaction/, last accessed 22 September 2020
United Nations (2020b) Shared Responsibility,
Global Solidarity: Responding to the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19, https://
unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/
SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-ofCovid19.pdf, last accessed 21 September
2020
United Nations (2020c) Policy Brief: Covid-19 In
an Urban World, https://www.un.org/en/
coronavirus/covid-19-urban-world, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
United Nations (2020d) The Sustainable Development Goals Report2020, https://unstats.
un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-SustainableDevelopment-Goals-Report-2020.pdf, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
United Nations (undated) ‘Goal 11: Make cities
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’,
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/, last accessed 22 September
2020
United Nations High Level Panel on Digital
Cooperation (2019) The Age of Digital Interdependence, United Nations, New York
United Nations Women Friendly Cities Joint
Programme (2014) ‘Women friendly cities’,
http://www.womenfriendlycities.com/wfcwomen-friendly-city.php, last accessed 24
September 2020
United Republic of Tanzania (2019) Voluntary
National Review 2019: Empowering People andEnsuring Inclusiveness And Equality, https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/SDGs/VNR_
Report_Tanzania_2019.pdf, last accessed 25
September 2020
Unnikrishnan, H. (2018 ) ‘Thinking beyond
fairy lights and fountains: lessons from thewaterscape of Bengaluru’, Ecology, Economy
and Society—The INSEE Journal 1 (2):95–99
Unnikrishnan, H., S. Sen, and H. Nagendra(2017 ) ‘Traditional water bodies andurban resilience: A historical perspectivefrom Bengaluru, India’, Water History 9(4):453–477
UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General)(2016) New York Declaration for Refugees andMigrants, A/RES/71/1, http://www.un.org/
en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/
RES/71/1, last accessed 22 September 2020
UN-Women (2017) Safe Cities and Safe Public
Spaces: Global Results Report, https://www.
unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attach-375

ments/sections/library/publications/2017/safe-cities-and-safe-public-spaces-globalresults-report-en.pdf?la=en&vs=45, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
Urbact Knowledge Hub (2019) Gender Equal
Cities, https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/
urbact-genderequalcities-edition-pagesweb.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
Urban 20 (U20) (2018) ‘Gender inequalities incities: Urban 20 white paper’, www.urban20.
org, last accessed 22 September 2020
Urban Sustainability Exchange (undated)‘Integrated community based solid waste
management’, https://use.metropolis.org/
case-studies/integrated-community-basedsolid-waste-management, last accessed 25
September 2020
US Department of State (2019) ‘On the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement’, https://www.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawalfrom-the-paris-agreement/, last accessed 22
September 2020
USAID (United States Agency for International
Development) (2019) ‘Beyond the grid’,
https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/beyondthegrid, last accessed 25 September 2020Utz, P. and C. Mejia-Mantilla (2019) ‘More thanjust growth: Accelerating poverty reductionin Kenya’, https://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/more-than-just-growth-acceleratingpoverty-reduction-in-kenya, last accessed 24
September 2020
Valencia, S., D. Simon, S. Croese,J. Nordqvist,
M. Oloko, TSharma, N. Taylor Buck andI. Versace (2019) ‘Adapting the Sustainable
Development Goals and the New Urban
Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project’,International Journal of Urban Sustainable
Development 11(1): 4–23
Valentine, G. (2007 ) ‘Theorizing and researchingintersectionality: A challenge for feminist
geography’, The professional geographer 59(1):10–21
van den Bosch, M. and Å. Ode Sang (2017 )‘Urban natural environments as naturebased solutions for improved public health– A systematic review of reviews’, Environmental Research 158:373–384
van Dorn, A., R.E. Cooney and M.L. Sabin(2020) ‘COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities
in the US’, Lancet 395:1243–1244
Van Duijne, R. J. and J. Nijman (2019) ‘India’s
emergent urban formations’, Annals of theAmerican Association of Geographers 109(6):1–21
van Hoof, J., J. K. Kazak, J. M. Perek-Białasand S. T. M. Peek (2018) ‘The challenges ofurban ageing: Making cities age-friendly inEurope’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15: 1–17
Van Huijstee, M. M., M. Francken, and P. Leroy(2007 ) ‘Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature’,

Environmental sciences 4 (2):75–89
Vandercasteelen, J., S. Beyene, S. Tamru, B.
Minten, and J. Swinnen (2018) ‘Cities andagricultural transformation in Africa:
Evidence from Ethiopia’, World Development
105(C): 383–399
Venkataraman, L. N (2015 ) ‘Social construction of capabilities and intersectional
complexities in a Tamil village’, Developmentin Practice 25 (8):1170–1181
Venter, C., G. Jennings, D. Hidalgo, and V.
Pineda (2018) ‘The equity impacts of bus
rapid transit: A review of the evidence andimplications for sustainable transport’,
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 12 (2):1556–8318
Villes en Développement (2019) ‘Urbanisationand financiarisation’, Villes en Développement(Bulletin n°111 – Janvier 2019) ADP, Paris
Visagie, J. and I. Turok (2020) ‘Getting urban
density to work in informal settlementsin Africa’, Environment and Urbanization,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247820907808,
last accessed 28 September 2020
Vizina, Y. and P. Wilson (2019 ) ‘Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples: A Holistic
Approach’, Canadian Commission for
UNESCO (CCUNESCO), Ottawa:
Voce, A., A. Kirk, and R. Partington (2020) ‘UK
coronavirus job losses: The latest data on
redundancies and furloughs’, https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/ukcoronavirus-job-losses-the-latest-data-onredundancies-and-furloughs, last accessed
22 September 2020
Wahba, S., M. M. Sharif, M. Mizutori, and L.
Sorkin (2020) ‘Cities are on the front linesof COVID-19’, https://blogs.worldbank.
org/sustainablecities/cities-are-front-linescovid-19?CID=WBW_AL_BlogNotification_
EN_EXT, last accessed 25 September 2020
Wainright, O. (2019) ‘The next era of humanprogress’: What lies behind the global
new cities epidemic’ The Guardian, 8 July,
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/
jul/08/the-next-era-of-human-progresswhat-lies-behind-the-global-new-citiesepidemic, last accessed 24 September 2020
Walker, J., A. A. Frediani, and J. F. Trani (2013) ‘Gender, difference and urban change:
Implications for the promotion of wellbeing?’, Environment and Urbanization 25(1):111–124.
Walker, R., T. Jojola, and D. Natcher (2013)
Reclaiming Indigenous Planning, McGillQueen University Press, Montreal
Wall, R. S. and G. A. Van der Knaap (2011)‘Sectoral differentiation and network
structure within contemporary worldwide
corporate networks’, Economic Geography
87(3): 267–308
Wall, R. S. and S. Stavropoulos (2016) ‘Smartcities within world city networks’, Applied
Economics Letters 23(12): 875–879

References

Wallace, J. (2013) ‘Cities, Redistribution, andAuthoritarian Regime Survival’, The Journalof Politics 75(3): 632–645
Walnycki, A. (2015)’The architecture of aid: How
decentralised finance can drive sustainable
development’, https://www.iied.org/files/
kiln/architecture-of-aid.html, last accessed
25 September 2020
Walter, I. (ed.) (2016) The Infrastructure Finance
Challenge, Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK
Wang, Z., X. Wang, and L. Liang (2019) ‘Greeneconomic efficiency in the Yangtze River
Delta: Spatiotemporal evolution andinfluencing factors’, Ecosystem Health andSustainability 5 (1): 20–35
Wanli, F. and S. Wahba (2020) ‘Urban density
is not an enemy in the coronavirus fight:
Evidence from China’ World Bank Blogs,
20 April, https://blogs.worldbank.org/
sustainablecities/urban-density-not-enemycoronavirus-fight-evidence-china , lastaccessed 20 April 2020
Washbourne, C. (2020) ‘UCL Blog: Urban
science advice and COVID-19’, UCL Blog,
2 April, https://www.ingsa.org/covidtag/
covid-19-commentary/washbourne-urban/,last accessed 28 September 2020
Watson, V. (2016) ‘Locating planning in the
New Urban Agenda of the urban sustainable development goal’, Planning Theory
15(4):435–448
Watson, V. (2019) ‘The return of the city-region
in the new urban agenda: Is this relevantin the Global South?’, Regional Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1664734, /, lastaccessed 28 September 2020
Watt, J. (2018) ‘Brazil reneges on hosting UN
climate talks under Bolsonaro presidency’,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/28/brazil-reneges-on-hosting-unclimate-talks-under-bolsonaro-presidency,
last accessed 22 September 2020
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global
Change) (2016) Humanity on the Move:
Unlocking the Transformative Power of Cities,
WBGU, Berlin
WCED (World Commission on Environmentand Development) ((1987) Our Common
Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford
and New York
Welsh, T. (2020) .Inequality and corruption:
Why Peru is losing its COVID-19 battle’,
https://www.devex.com/news/inequalityand-corruption-why-peru-is-losing-itscovid-19-battle-97604, last accessed 22
September 2020
Westra, L. (2012 ) Environmental Justice and theRights of Indigenous Peoples: International andDomestic Legal Perspectives, Routledge
Wheeler, S. M. and T. Beatley (2014 ) Sustainable
Urban Development Reader, Routledge
WHO (World Health Organization) (2007)
Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide, https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_
age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
WHO (2015) World Report on Ageing and Health,
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/186463/9789240694811_eng.
pdf?sequence=1, last accessed 24 September2020
WHO (2018) Global Health Observatory data repository, https://apps.
who.int/gho/data/view.main.
SDGPM25UNREGION6v?lang=en, lastaccessed 4 April 2020
WHO (2020) ‘WHO Director-General’s
opening remarks at the media briefing on
COVID-19 - 11 March 2020’, https://www.
who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-directorgeneral-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
WHO and ITU (2020) ‘ITU-WHO Joint Statement: Unleashing information technology
to defeat COVID-19’, https://www.who.
int/news-room/detail/20-04-2020-ituwho-joint-statement-unleashing-information-technology-to-defeat-covid-19, lastaccessed 24 September 2020WIEGO (2020) ‘Mexico City: May 2020 COVID-19 update’, https://www.wiego.
org/mexico-city, last accessed 23 September
2020
Williamson, B. (2015 ) ‘Governing methods:
policy innovation labs, design and data
science in the digital governance of education’, Journal of Educational Administrationand History 47 (3):251–271
Williamson, J. (1990) Coping with City Growth
During the British Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Winter, S., M.N. Dzombo and F. Barchi, (2019)‘Exploring the complex relationshipbetween women’s sanitation practices andhousehold diarrhea in the slums of Nairobi:a cross-sectional study’, BMC Infectious
Diseases 19(242):1–13
Wirth, L. (1938) ‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’, The
American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 1–24
Woetzel, J., N. Garemo, J. Mischke, P. Kamra,
and R. Palter (2017) ‘Bridging infrastructure gaps: Has the world made progress?’
McKinsey Global Institute, https://www.
mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projectsand-infrastructure/our-insights/bridginginfrastructure-gaps-has-the-world-madeprogress, last accessed 25 September 2020
Wood, C. (2016) ‘What is 311?’ Government Technology,4 August, https://www.govtech.com/
dc/articles/What-is-311.html, last accessed
24 September 2020
World Bank (2009) World Development Report
2009: Reshaping Economic Geography, World
Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2010) Assessing the Impact ofInfrastructure Quality on Firm Productivity in

Africa: Cross-Country Comparisons Based on
Investment Climate Surveys from 1999 to 2005,
Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS
5191, World Bank Group, Washington, DC
World Bank (2013a) ‘Financing sustainable cities:
How we’re helping Africa’s cities raise
their credit ratings’, World Bank Group;
Washington, DC, http://www.worldbank.
org/en/news/feature/2013/10/24/financingsustainable-cities-africa-creditworthy, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
World Bank (2013b) Global Monitoring Report
2013: Rural-Urban Dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals, World Bank Group,
Washington, DC
World Bank (2013c) World Development Report
2013: Jobs, World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2014a) ‘A model from Mexico to
the world’, https://www.worldbank.org/
en/news/feature/2014/11/19/un-modelode-mexico-para-el-mundo, last accessed 22
September 2020
World Bank (2014b) Social Inclusion: The Key for
Prosperity for All, World Bank, Washington,
DC
World Bank (2015a) ‘Urban Development’,
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
urbandevelopment/overview#1, lastaccessed 22 September 2020
World Bank (2015b) World Development Report
2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior, World
Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2015c) Competitive Cities for Jobs and
Growth: What, Who, and How, World Bank,
Washington, DC
World Bank (2016) ‘Government objectives:
Benefits and risks of PPPs’, https://ppp.
worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/
overview/ppp-objectives, last accessed 25
September 2020
World Bank (2017) World Bank Global Consumption Database, World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2018a) Overcoming Poverty andInequality in South Africa: An Assessmentof Drivers, Constraints and Opportunities,
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/530481521735906534/pdf/124521REV-OUO-South-Africa-Povertyand-Inequality-Assessment-Report2018-FINAL-WEB.pdf, last accessed 21
September 2020
World Bank (2018b) Poverty and Shared Prosperity
2018: Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle,
World Bank, Washington, DC
World bank (2018c) The Human Capital Project,World Bank Publications, Washington, DC
World Bank (2019a) ‘GDP per capita (current
US$) - Sub-Saharan Africa’, World Bank
national accounts data, https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.
CD?locations=ZG
World Bank (2019b) ‘World Development Indicators’, https://databank.worldbank.org/
source/world-development-indicators, last376

WORLD CITIES REPORT 2020

accessed 22 September 2020
World Bank (2019c) World Development
Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work,World Bank, Washington, DC http://
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
en/816281518818814423/2019-WDR-Report.
pdf, last accessed 21 September 2020
World Bank (2019d) World Development Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2019e) ‘Data release: Remittances
to low- and middle-income countries on
track to reach $551 billion in 2019 and $597
billion by 2021’, https://blogs.worldbank.
org/peoplemove/data-release-remittanceslow-and-middle-income-countries-trackreach-551-billion-2019, last accessed 24
September 2020
World Bank (2019f) ‘Boosting quality of urban
transport service in São Paulo’, https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2019/04/25/
boosting-quality-of-urban-transportservice-in-sao-paulo, last accessed 25
September 2020
World Bank (2019g) China – Green Urban
Financing and Innovation Project (English),World Bank Group, Washington, DC
World Bank (2020a) ‘The World Bank in China’,
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/
china/overview, last accessed 22 September
2020
World Bank (2020b) ‘World Bank predicts
sharpest decline of remittances in recent
history’, Press Release April 22, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2020/04/22/world-bank-predictssharpest-decline-of-remittances-in-recenthistory, last accessed 13 May 2020
World Bank (2020c) “Public Banks” South Asia
Economic Focus (April), World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2020d) ‘East Asia and Pacific in
the Time of COVID-19’, East Asia andPacific Economic Update (April), World Bank,
Washington, DC
World Bank and Kounkuey Design Initiative(2020) Handbook for Gender Inclusive Urban
Planning and Design, World Bank, Washington, DC
World Cities Culture Forum (2017) Culture
and Climate Change, http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/assets/others/
WCCF_Report_June_28_FINAL_v4.pdf, lastaccessed 24 September 2020
World Economic Forum (2014) Accelerating
Infrastructure Delivery New Evidence fromInternational Financial Institution, https://www.weforum.org/reports/acceleratinginfrastructure-delivery-new-evidence-international-financial-institutions, last accessed
25 September 2020
World Economic Forum (2015) Top Ten Urban
Innovations, http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/Top_10_Emerging_Urban_Innovations_report_2010_20.10.pdf, last accessed 21

377

September 2020
World Economic Forum (2016) The Global Risks
Report 2016, 11th Edition, http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/Media/TheGlobalRisksReport2016.pdf, last accessed 24 September
2020
World Economic Forum (2017) Migration and its
Impacts on Cities, http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/Migration_Impact_Cities_report_2017_
HR.pdf, last accessed 24 September 2020
World Economic Forum (2019) Global Gender
Gap Report 2020, Cologny, Geneva,
World Economic Forum (2020a)The Global Risk
Report 2020, http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf,
last accessed 21 September 2020
World Economic Forum (2020b) ‘This is
how cities are helping homeless people
self-isolate’, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/03/homeless-self-isolationcities-coronavirus/, last accessed 22
September 2020
World Economic Forum (2020c) Ten technology trends to watch in the COVID-19
pandemic, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/04/10-technology-trendscoronavirus-covid19-pandemic-roboticstelehealth/, last accessed 24 September 2020
World Economic Forum (2020d) Challenges andOpportunities in the Post-COVID-19 World,
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Challenges_and_Opportunities_Post_COVID_19.
pdf, last accessed 28 September 2020
Xiao, Y. and Z. Fan (2020) ‘10 technology
trends to watch in the COVID-19
pandemic’, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/04/10-technology-trendscoronavirus-covid19-pandemic-roboticstelehealth/, last accessed 24 September 2020
Yon, A. and S. Nadimpalli (2017 ) ‘Cities forwhom? Re-examining identity, to reclaim
the right to the city for women’, Australian
Planner 54 (1):33–40
Yuval-Davis, N (2006 ) ‘Intersectionality andfeminist politics’, European journal of women’sstudies 13 (3):193–209
Zeigermann, U. (2018) ‘Governing sustainable
development through “policy coherence”? The production and circulationof knowledge in the EU and the OECD’
European Journal of Sustainable Development,
7(1):133–149.
Zhang, N., K. Yu, and Z. Chen (2017 ) ‘How does
urbanization affect carbon dioxide emissions? A cross-country panel data analysis’,
Energy Policy 107:678–687
Zhu, Y. (2017) ‘In Situ Urbanization in China:
Processes, Contributing Factors, and Policy
Implications’, China Population and Development Studies 1(1): 45–66
Zhu, Y. and L. Liyue (2011) The mobility patternsof rural-urban migrants and their social protection in China: Beyond the extension of urbanbased approaches, CSP Research Report

01, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex
Zinkernagel, R., J. Evans, and L. Neij (2018 )‘Applying the SDGs to cities: Business as
usual or a new dawn?’, Sustainability 10(9):3201
Zottis, L. (2014) ‘Perdemos um mês por ano notrânsito’, TheCityFixBrasil, 2 July, http://
www.thecityfixbrasil.org/2014/07/02/perdemos-um-mes-por-ano-no-transito/, lastaccessed 25 September 2020
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the
New Frontier of Power, Public Affairs, NewYorkThe world we live in has been transformed in a manner not witnessed inrecent times. The coronavirus pandemic has triggered what arguably is
the worst public health crisis in a century and the worst economic
downturn since the Great Depression. In a rapidly urbanizing andglobalized world, cities have been the epicentres of COVID-19. The virus
has spread to virtually all parts of the world; first, among globallyconnected cities, and now, through community transmission and fromthe city to the countryside.
The World Cities Report 2020 shows that the intrinsic value ofsustainable urbanization can and should be harnessed for the wellbeingof all. The Report provides evidence and policy analysis of the value of
urbanization from an economic, social and environmental perspective,
including the unquantifiable value that gives cities their unique character;and also explores the role of innovation and technology, local
governments, targeted investments and the effective implementation of
the New Urban Agenda in fostering the value of sustainable urbanization.
The World Cities Report 2020 convincingly affirms that well-planned,
managed, and financed cities and towns create value that can beharnessed to build resilient cities that can bounce back from thedevastating impacts of pandemics, improve the quality of life of allresidents, and can be leveraged in the fight against poverty, inequality,
unemployment, climate change and other pressing global challenges.
As the world enters the Decade of Action to deliver the Sustainable
Development Goals by 2030, the policy recommendations in this Reportwill be beneficial to governments at all levels, enabling them deliver
programmes and strategies that enhance the value of sustainableurbanization, and in the process, contribute to achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals through the effective implementation of the New
Urban Agenda.

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME

P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100
E: infohabitat@unhabitat.org

www.unhabitat.org@UNHABITAT

HS Number: HS/045/20E
Sales no.:E.21.III.Q.1
ISBN:
978-92-1-132872-1
eISBN:
978-92-1-0054386
Print ISSN: 2518-6515
Online ISSN: 2518-654X