Search

This paper reports the pros and cons of co-management (i.e. concerted actions towards climate change and air quality management) through local sustainability initiatives using three case studies, each encompassing the planning and management issues at local government levels. Case study I is policy-based and reports the outcome of a consultation exercise while case studies II and III have greater scientific bearing. These case studies pave the way for development of a more integrated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan at local scales, specifically regarding policies on emissions sources from transportation and decentralised energy. They highlight the merits and the trade-offs of implementing local scale co-management practices, using a more integrated planning framework than what is currently under offer. We recognise that delivery of such ambitious, cross-cutting agenda may be impeded, primarily owing to limited expertise in assessing the synergies and the expected outcomes from cross-fertility between these two arenas. This calls for a step-change through more cohesive, cross-disciplinary policy frameworks, going beyond the local administrative spheres to maximise the co-management potentials while mitigating the wider environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents abstracts on planning literature which include approaches to empirical work in regional economics, understanding the barriers to social adaptation, and management of large city regions.

This section presents abstracts of papers on city planning published from 2007 to 2008, including "Streets, Sounds and Identity in Inter-war Harlem," by Clare Corbould, "(Re)making the Other, Heterosexualising Everyday Space," by Kath Browne, and "Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds," by Wendy Nelson Espeland and Michael Sauder.

Estimation of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) is becoming an established part of assessing sustainability within environmental impact assessment (EIA). However, a comparative study of 25 environmental impact statements (EISs) to analyse the practice of accounting for emissions during the EIA process suggests that consideration of the effects of development on emissions of GHG is poorly understood. The extent to which assessment is actually carried out is also inconsistent and sporadically implemented. A key indicator appears to be the varying and sometimes contradictory use of technical terminology, particularly of the term ‘carbon’ and its similar phraseology. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the differing terminology that is applied to GHG assessments undertaken as part of EIA process and explores the effect that misuse of these terms could have on an impact EIS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]