For a New Balance Among Nature, Humans and Artefacts in Cities

  • Voula P. Mega


Cities are dynamic and complex ecosystems, open and vulnerable, the only human ones. By analogy to the biological concentration of species in a mutually supportive environment, humans come together in places that optimise their reciprocal benefits. As sociobiospaces, cities require an extraordinary array of material and labour, they have the most complex metabolisms and produce an equally remarkable array of products, waste and emissions. Their role in the transition to a low/zero- and postcarbon society and economy is crucial. This chapter focuses on key elements of the urban ecosystems and principles and actions inaugurating better consumption and production models.


Clean Development Mechanism Carbon Footprint Ecological Footprint Urban Sprawl Emission Trading Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ACR+. 2009. Municipal Waste in Europe - Towards a European Recycling Society. Paris: Ed. VictoiresGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsterdam Climate Office. 2008. New Amsterdam Climate – Summary of Plans and Ongoing Projects. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. CERES. 2008. Ceres Sustainability Report. BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Ecological Footprint network et al. 2008. Living Planet Report. OaklandGoogle Scholar
  5. Enerpresse. 2006. Bâtiment : Le défi énergétique. Paris : Le MoniteurGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission. 2009b.Climate Change: Act and Adapt. Green Week Brussels, 23-26 June 2009. Conference Proceedings. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission. 2009c. The 2009 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. 2008e.EU Environment – Related Indicators 2008. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2006a. Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2003b. Second European Climate Change Programme. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. European Environment Agency (EEA). 2009a. Annual EC Greenhouse gas Inventory 1990–2007 and Inventory Report 2009. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  12. European Environment Agency. 2009c. Ensuring Quality of Life in Europe’s Cities and Towns. CopenhaguenGoogle Scholar
  13. European Environment Agency. 2007a. Europe's Environment. The Fourth Assessment. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. European Environment Agency. 2007b. Exeedances of Air Quality Limit Values in Urban Areas. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. European Environment Agency. 2006. Urban Sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. European Environment Agency. 2005. The European Environment. State and Outlook 2005. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign (ESCTC). 1994. Charter of European Cities and Towns: Towards Sustainability. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. Fussler, C. 1996. Driving Eco-innovation. London: PitmanGoogle Scholar
  19. Garvey, J. 2008. Ethics for Climate Change. London: ContinuumGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelford, P., Jaedicke, W., Winkler, B. and Wollmann, H. 1992. Ökologie in den Städten. Basle, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser VerlagGoogle Scholar
  21. Gore, A. 2007. An Inconvenient Truth. New York: Adapted for a New Generation.Google Scholar
  22. Hahn, E. 1997. Local Agenda 21 and Ecological Urban Restructuring. A European Model Project in Leipzig. Berlin: WZBGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001. Summary for Policy Makers. BonnGoogle Scholar
  24. Malmö. 2008. Making Sustainability Reality. Malmö Office of City PlanningGoogle Scholar
  25. Mega, V. 2005. Sustainable Development, Energy and the City. New York. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. M.I.T. 2008. Architecture for the Carbon-free City. Policy seminar June 2008Google Scholar
  27. OECD. 2007b. OECD Forum on Innovation, Growth and Equity. ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD. 2003. Poverty and Climate Change. Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation. ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD. 2000c. The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond. ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD. 1996. The Ecological City. ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Roaf, S. 2007. Ecohouse. Third edition, London: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt-Eichstaedt, G. 1993. Schwabach, Modell Stadt - Okologie. Berlin: TU Institut für Stadt und RegionalplannungGoogle Scholar
  33. Stern, N. 2009. A Blueprint for a Safer Planet. London: Bodley HeadGoogle Scholar
  34. Stern, N. 2006. The economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. SustainAbility/UNEP. 1998. Engaging Stakeholders. The non-Reporting report. LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) / World Bank (Urban Management Programme). 1993. Environmental Innovation and Management in Curitiba, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  37. UNEP/HABITAT. 2005. Urban Air Quality Management Toolbook. NairobiGoogle Scholar
  38. UN / Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 1998. Eco - partnerships Tokyo. Cultivating an Eco - Society. TokyoGoogle Scholar
  39. WBCSD. 2009. Corporate Ecosystem Valuation - Building the Business Case. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. WBCSD. 1998. Signals of Change. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. World Resources Institute (WRI). 2006. Hot Climate, Cool Commerce: A Service Sector Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management. Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations