1.1 A Historic Perspective
For the first time in human history more than half of the worldâs population live in urban settlements. This currently accounts for about four billion people and is still increasing steadily. Some recent data do indicate slower population growth in comparison to the recent past, as a result of declining rates of fertility, mainly in Europe , North America and Asia (UN DESA 2015). An earlier projection indicates that most of the growing population is expected to be concentrated in urban areas (UN DESA 2014), particularly in the developing countries of Asia , Africa and South America.
From a historic perspective, the exponential growth in the urban population is a result of cities becoming the ultimate destination to fulfil the aspirations of material comfort, poverty reduction, prosperity and various opportunities. Yet, if such growth is uncontrolled and unplanned, the reverse effect is often the case, with cities being characterised by lower levels of material comfort, greater levels of poverty and increased slum development. Nevertheless, these characteristics have driven profound changes in the spatial distribution of population in most countries of the world, resulting in the growth of a very large number of urban agglomerations.
To successfully accommodate this level of population growth in cities, we require hindsight from a range of historical precedents. Can we gain pointers from civilisations of the past, most of which have failed? To answer this question, we first take a brief look at the history of two renowned urban centres: one global and one in the context of China. The first example is the Sumerian city of Ur , a settlement from almost 4000 years ago, and which is now part of present-day Iraq. The city was the largest in the world from 2030 to 1980 BCE with a population of about 65,000 people (Rosenburg 2016). It sat proudly on the banks of the River Euphrates, at the hub of an extensive system of irrigation canals (Lilienfeld and Rathje 1998). The residents of the city had valuable environmental instincts, ardently recycling old utensils made from metal, weapons, anything made from wood given the aridity of that region, shards of broken pottery and âeven aging grand temples and palaces were turned into new variations of the buildingsâ (Lilienfeld and Rathje 1998, p. 11). Strangely, as the residents of Ur were compulsive recyclers, its bureaucrats instituted agricultural practices that led to declining fertility and lower crop yields. Traditional farming practices were to let fields lie fallow, which allowed salinity to diminish and nutrients, especially nitrogen, to regenerate in the soil. The bureaucratsâ agricultural rules banned fallowing, since increases in food production were needed to keep pace with the growth in the numbers of merchants, artisans, soldiers and labourers. Many of the latter were brought in from rural areas to toil on new temples, palaces and other monuments of conspicuous consumption being built to âmemorialise the cityâs vast hubrisâ (ibid.).
The decrease in the time given to fallowing led to a rising water table, and lower levels of soil nutrients. At the same time, salt loads in the water brought from mountains in the historical region of Mesopotamia resulted in a sharp decline in crop yields (Lilienfeld and Rathje 1998). At this point the sensible reaction would have been to return for the city government to order a return to traditional farming practices. However, the bureaucrats simply demanded more from the farmers and diverted attention from the underlying problem by organising more labourers to build outrageous displays of the cityâs economic and political success. The farmlands were unable to support the demands of the city bureaucrats. Eventually, people starved and Ur became weaker. The city was challenged by long-term drought and warriors attacking from the north; and it eventually collapsed around 2000 BC.
The second historical example we consider is that of Anyang , the capital city of the Shang dynasty in China at around 1200 BC. Archaeological discoveries indicate that the city was large, with an area of around 15â24 km2. Anyang was home to around 230,000 residents, most of whom were artisans and other workers in various workshops and industries (Marks 2012, pp. 43â47). Similar to the situation of Ur , more food was required to support an increasing population. Food production was available only from surrounding hinterlands as the land inside the city was occupied mainly by palaces, temples, altars, houses, factories and tombs. Accordingly, much of the surrounding forests were cleared for farmlands. The appetite for farming and farmland was so strong that the Shang people invaded the territory of neighbouring states to seize uncultivated land or turned hunting areas and grazing pastures into farmlands.
Unsurprisingly, much of the fate of the Shang state related to issues around agriculture and the annual harvest. With increased areas of cultivated farmland, agricultural yields were increased gradually and there was a significant increase in population. Shang people experienced a favourable climate and a fecund environment (Keightley 1999). Optimistic opinions were spread based on a belief that the natural world was in a time of climatic stability. They were, accordingly, unprepared when the climate change eventually arrived.
The North China plain was considerably warmer and wetter at this time, which helped to increase agricultural output. However, climatologists have thus far cannot identify the reasoning behind the climatic conditions of the time (around 1100 BC), which led to the region suddenly becoming colder and drier. Colder weather lowered harvest yields by shortening the growing season (Marks 2012, p. 51). A complete failure of the harvest would have caused food shortages not only for the villagers, but also for the royal elite, soldiers and foundry workers. Declining food supplies also led to fewer births, and hence to a falling population. As a result, farmers fled to the woods or other states, further decreasing the labour and military force available to the Shang royalty (ibid.). Around 1050 BC, the Shang dynasty fell, having been overrun by the Zhou state. The foolishness of the Shangâs assumption of climate stability has many echoes of the modern worldâs attitude towards climate change.
Unfortunately, Ur and Anyang were not the only ancient settlements to act in such a foolhardy manner, with many polities suffering from the lust for âquick profits rather than long term stabilityâ (Lilienfeld and Rathje 1998, p. 13). It was not simply aggrandisement, but a combination of a fragile environment, unpredictable local climate conditions, and agricultural management techniques that led to a shortfall of essential foodstuffs in relation to a burgeoning population. Although advanced techniques for improving yield were adopted, a drive towards excessive demand without considering the natural capacity and a lack of preparation for climate change still led to the failure of Ur and Shang. With three millennia of hindsight, these actions appear to be imprudent in the extreme. However, they are quite representative of most of the civilisations of world history (Diamond 2011). We only picture two of the well-known examples to remind us of our recurring mistakes.
Similar to Ur and Anyang, todayâs cities offer greater geographic mobility, economic vitality and increased life expectancy. Present-day cities concentrate much of any countryâs economic activity, government services, commerce and transportation. Urban living is usually associated with higher levels of literacy and education, improved access to a more diversified labour market, and enhanced opportunities for cultural and political participation (UN DESA 2014). However, as the world continues to urbanise, environmental challenges have been increasingly concentrated in cities, particularly in countries where infrastructure is underdeveloped and policies are not implemented to ensure that the benefits of urban living are shared equitably. Inefficient building stock, high dependency on fossil fuels for energy supply, and inefficient water, waste and transportation management accompanied by rapid population growth, often unplanned, have brought increased air and noise pollution, a depletion of water resources and extreme levels of habitat and biodiversity loss in cities. At a much broader level, climate change is a considerable threat for most cities globally, since it tends to exacerbate heatwaves, extreme rainfall events and cyclones, as well as present more dangerous fire risks on the fringes of city environments. Moreover, cities are vulnerable to severe storm surges associated with rises in sea levels and extreme weather conditions. The impacts of such change on the built environment and major infrastructure networks, like transport and energy, could have immediate and damaging effects on urban communities, the urban environment and a cityâs productivity (Norman 2016).
It should be pointed out that the magnitude and complexity of the problems we face today are far greater than those experienced by the cities of Ur and Shang. In addition to the concrete issues facing city administrators, urban planners and sustainability professionals at the local level, the transgression of boundaries at the planetary scale was not an experience encountered by earlier civilisations in the Holocene. Experts in ecological footprints suggest that our activities can no longer be sustained by one Earth alone. It is estimated that man is now consuming the ecological resources of 1.5 Earths and is heading rapidly towards two Earths (Global Footprint Network 2013). Rockström et al. (2009) believe that three of nine interlinked planetary boundaries have already been overstepped and âpressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where anthropogenic activities could inadvertently drive the Earth system to a much less hospitable stateâ (Steffen et al. 2015, p. 2). Therefore, it is important to highlight the importance of earth system and eco-systems in the context of what we argue as the eco-development approach.
Returning to the question asked earlierâHave we learned any lessons from the failures of past civilisations? And have we gained anything from the efforts of archaeologists and climatologists to expose the failings of past civilisations, in addition to mere knowledge? The answer to these questions can be discussed from two very different perspectives. On the one hand, we seem to have learnt nothing tangible. Most of the countries in the developed world continue to regard economic growth as the fundamental criterion for measuring success in society and reluctant to take actions to counteract climate change. One recent example is the growing neglect of the politicians in the US, who argue continuously in favour of their countryâs prosperity through constantâbut not necessarily sustainableâeconomic growth. Thus, where there are conflicts between development projects and environmental goals or social fairness, it is economic interests that will usually prevail. Across the globe this has been the known âbusiness-as-usualâ mode for many decades. The so-called lessons learnt from the recent projects of the developed world seem to be less applicable for those nations who also aim to have a growing economy. Hence, we witnessed an obvious failure in the Copenhagen talks in 2009. However, on the other hand, there is still some considerable optimism that we be able to avoid the follies of the Ur and Shang civilisations, several millennia after their abrupt demise. Perhaps one key to our âredemptionâ is the depth of awareness we have of the issues facing the so...
