Effect of Urban Living on Sustainability

Effect of urban Living on Sustainability act Urbanisation Does it hold the mark to sustainable invigoration? March twenty-fifth 2010 was a key turning point in humanity (Graph 1) it was on that day, for the start sentence ever, that over half of the worlds universe (50.5%) were classified as living in urban beas (compared to rude), as a result of urbanization. Graph 1, showing Urban and Rural human race state change since 1950. Causes of Urbanisation Urbanisation is the emergence in the proportion of deal living in towns and cities1, this results from campestral to urban migration ( closely in LEDCs and NICs) inwrought increase (birth rate exceeds deathrate) (mostly in LEDCs and NICs)Urbanisation rates vary temporally and spatially, thencece most MEDCs began urbanising in the 1800s as a result of industrialisation. In the 1950s, North America and Europe were home to the worlds most urbanised regions, though Tokyo overtook New York as the worlds macrost city. By the mid 60s, the worlds urban tribe passed 1 billion, with rates of urbanization having begin nobleest in Asia and Africa and Asia having more(prenominal) than urban dwellers than Europe. By the 80s, urbanisation rates in chinaware were once again increasing, though had s deplorableed globally. Worldwide urban dwellers exceeded 2 billion, with Toykos cosmos having reached 30 million. During the first decade of the 21st century the urban/ outlandish balance of the industrial countries stabilised at 70-80% mark. Analysts predict that by 2020 the worlds urban commonwealth result reach 4 billion and mainland China will become more than 50% urbanised2.The greatest contributor to urbanisation is that of migration. Migration is controlled by a series of push and pull factors (Table 1).Table 1 agitate Pull factors contributing to urbanisationPush Factors(usually veto, and repel deal from the rural area)Pull Factors(usually positive, and attract people to move to the urban area)*high unemployment*low unemployment give away employment opportunities*population increase*better living standards*famines (such as in Ethiopia in the 1980s)* trapping quality and availability*flooding (such as in Bangladesh where people move to Dhaka)*essential service such as health and education are more readily available and tenderSustainable Urban LivingGlobal urbanisation is bringing the bulk of the worlds population together in cities, making it easier to let access to essential services, as the people are in concentrated areas. But, realistically, does put outd urbanisation actually hold the key to coming(prenominal) sustainable living, or is the rate of growth such that we footnot keep pace? For succeeding(a) sustainability, the lifestyle of our global population must overturn the rate of depletion of natural resources, from the earth, so that we after part meet our needs, whilst not negatively impacting on the lives of future tense generations. Sustainable living im agines living a lifestyle that uses as few resources as possible and causes the least amount of environmental misuse for future generations to deal with3. Figure 1 below considers some of the key elements of urban sustainability4 Essentially, to be sustainable, our system out gear ups should be recycled or re-used so as not to exceed our in gear ups. This applies to all settlements, not just urban ones. I live in an urban area, Telford, albeit a small one. Recycling has become a prominent part of our life (2004 onwards) as we aim to reduce landfill and address CO2 issues. I enjoy living in an urban environment, I cast a choice of health and education services, I have access to retail and leisure parks and our public mail system makes travelling around the town easier. On a negative note, I see a lot of expansion onto greenfield sites as more homes and retail areas are created. This is destroying the view from my window and saddens me, especially when I whirl through town and see boarded up shops.Solutions Ensuring sustainable urban livingScenariosThe future landscape could look truly different if urbanisation continues at an unabated rate and we take no action, some what ifs are considered below.What if .What this could mean How we could avert the issueUrban areas in LEDCs/NICs continue to grow at a rapid rateIncreased numbers of informal settlements (shanty towns) in urban areas, especially in LEDCs and NICs services under pressure collect to increased demand spread of diseaseProvide the essential services that rural areas need eg mobile doctors and schools, to reduce the desire to move this would help agricultural productivity too have an entry policy people have to apply for permission to move to the cityUrbanisation becomes more popular in MEDCsRedevelopment of brownfield sites is more costly and time consume compared to greenfield developments, so urban sprawl might extend, if green belts are non-existent or are developedPromote inner city living, including the ability to live, ferment and relax all in the one space reduces commuting time and costs and makes for a healthier lifestyleUrbanisation in ChinaGraph 2, showing change in Life antepast in China between 1960 and 2011 A good example of a realm that has seen a rapid increase in urbanisation is China. China has been urbanising cursorily in 1940 it had 69 cities, in 2007 it had 670 almost ten multiplication as many after only 67 years. This has very understandably touched Chinese life prevision dramatically, as the graph left clearly shows (Y-axis life foretaste in China at birth, X-axis Date of Birth). This shows very clearly that the more urban the country became, the higher the life expectancy so urbanisation sewer definitely be seen to increase the biography of the countries inhabitants. However, in Graph 3, below, it is very clear to see that in the same timespan (1960-2010) the CO2 emissions have greatly increased, showing the negative effect urbanisation h as had on air pollution, which is now a major problem in China.Graph 3, showing Carbon Dioxide emission levels, per capita, between 1960 and 2010The most ingrained requirements for sustaining human life are shelter, food and piddle. Urbanisation, ascribable to the creation of flatbed buildings and streets in cities, usually has a positive impact on housing requirements. However, availability of food and water supply may be hindered by the accelerating amphetamine of global urbanisation as high population densities can put local water plants under extreme pressure, due to such high demand, so in the long term urbanisation can have a negative effect in this context.Urbanisation can as well as mean bad news for food affix the migration of people from rural areas into cities performer that long term, agricultural operations can suffer due to insufficient, capable rural workers being available and, in some cases, final stage of farming sites for construction of new urban sites is also a monstrous-minded problem. Due to these factors the production of food may slow down and supplies flush become depleted.Graph 4, showing Population Increase in China between 1961 and 2005.Another, negative, effect urbanisation can have is over population. reverting to the earlier example of China since China has been becoming a large urban country, its population has increased substantially the population of China in 2012 was approximately 1,344,130,000 (over 1/6 of the earths total population of 7.129 billion). China is widely considered to be one of the most over-populated countries in the world, and over-population can really hinder the goal of sustainable living. Looking at the three, aforementioned, staple fiber requirements to sustain human life shelter, food and water, we can see how overpopulation can have a negative impact on all of these. If there are too many people living in a country, it becomes very difficult to provide housing for all of them, and eve n harder to supply all of them with a job, so they can afford the upkeep of their accommodation. Overpopulation also places a high demand for constant provision of food and water this, added to the earlier mentioned effects that urbanisation has on the food and water supplies, means supply of both of these commodities, essential for human life, will be put under extreme pressure as a result of urbanisation and overpopulation. These factors really challenge the theory that global urbanisation could be the consequence to sustainable living and, to address this further, we need to compare an international rural living area with an urban one. Rural living in Ethiopia compared to Urban living in the U.K.Ethiopia, which had a rural population of 82.4% in 2010, provides a brilliant example of rural living and the United Kingdom, which had an urban population of 90.1% in 2010, provides a good example of an urban area.UK (urban)Ethiopia (rural)Life Expectancy80 years (2011)59 years (2011)Ad ult Literacy Rate99% (2003)39% (2007-2011)Internet Users82% (2011)1% (2011)Use of Improved urine Sources100% (2010)44% (2010)Adult HIV Prevalence0.3% (2011)1.4% (2011)(Data source CIA World Factbook, all other data from UNICEF )Looking at these indicators, it seems that urbanisation is plus in many areas. I included the adult literacy rate and mesh use to show the quality of education the use of improved water sources and HIV prevalence to show the quality of health and related services.As the table shows, UK, a highly urbanised area, has a much better quality of life than Ethiopia, an extremely rural area UK life expectancy is significantly higher than Ethiopias (by 35%) the literacy rate in Ethiopia is 60% lower than that of the UK internet use in the UK is substantially higher that in Ethiopia (81%) all UK citizens use improved water sources, whereas only 44% of Ethiopians do and the HIV prevalence rate in Ethiopia is almost 5 times higher than that in the UK. All of these in dicators clearly point towards the fact that urbanisation does contribute to life quality and longevity.In conclusion I think that the true key to sustainable living is to find a unblemished balance between populating urban and rural areas, as both are incredibly cardinal. Without urban areas we may not be as technologically advanced as we are today (many of our technology looks towards a future sustainable life, analogous electric powered cars), and if towns and cities werent being built, the usher risk of over population would be even more monstrous and without rural areas, agricultural industries would suffer greatly which are incredibly important to human life, and loss of large forests and/or grasslands could mean a large increase of Carbon Dioxide in the air as well as destroying many historical location.To improve urban areas governments can focus on improving public transportation systems, which have proved very made and eco-friendly in the past (for example the Londo n Underground and the new York Subway) and continue to develop more ways to be economically friendly like finding a better way to dispose of our waste or developing more means of transportation that dont need the environment as heavily as current transport does. In ordination to protect rural areas Green Belts and/or UGBs (Urban growth boundaries) can be put into place more frequently, which limit where cities can pad in order to protect and maintain rural and semi-rural areas.If we continue to hit the ceiling our urban areas whilst making sure we maintain enough rural locations then I think that we can easily accomplish sustainable living. I would suggest that a good percentage for the worlds population living in urban areas is around 80% in order to achieve this goal.Bibliography/Resource Listwww.internetgeography.nethttp//www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16606619www.regenerative.comhttp//beta.futurecities.ethz.ch/assets/FCL_web_circular_metabolism1.jpgwww.onlinegeography.co.ukwww. wikispaces.comwww.inhabitat.comwww.cat.org.ukwww.dawleyheritage.co.uk