Sustainable Urban Development in Santiago de Chile: Background – Concept – Challenges



The main objective of this chapter is to reflect on one element of the conceptual frame for urban development analysis – the goal dimension of the sustainability vision – and its application to the case of Santiago de Chile. The chapter provides essential insights into the sustainability concept in general and the current situation, debates and controversies in Santiago de Chile in particular. Basic sustainability documents are discussed in terms of their local applicability and potential for associated programmes and activities. For the case of Santiago, political and institutional characteristics and current thematic priorities are outlined. The Helmholtz Integrative Sustainability Concept is tendered as an appropriate tool for sustainability analysis. Using indicators as a basic tool, application of the concept to the Santiago case within a broader conceptual landscape provides orientation for a variety of decision-makers. Initial findings on the translation of the concept into indicators and its application to several thematic fields are presented and the most urgent sustainability performance deficits, defined as risks for future development, are highlighted. Based on an overview of the current sustainability policy in the Santiago Metropolitan Region, future challenges are identified and practical recommendations put forward.


Santiago de Chile Strategic planning Sustainability analysis Sustainability performance deficits Sustainability policy Sustainable development 


  1. Acselrad, H. (1999). Sustentabilidad y Ciudad. EURE, 74(2), 36–46.Google Scholar
  2. Arancón Sánchez, S. (2007). Grounding sustainable development in urban planning. A framework of sustainability indicators for the metropolitan region of Santiago de Chile. Masters thesis supported by the “Risk Habitat Megacity” project. Madrid.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, J., et al. (2007). Cuan sustentable es la Región Metropolitana de Santiago? Metodologías de evaluación de la sustentabilidad. Santiago.Google Scholar
  4. Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
  5. Chuaqui, T., & Valdivieso, P. (2004). Una ciudad en busca de un gobierno: una propuesta para Santiago. Revista de Ciencia Politica, 24(1), 104–127.Google Scholar
  6. CSD – United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2002). Second Local Agenda 21 survey. Background paper, No. 15. New York: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).Google Scholar
  7. de la Espriella, C. (2007). Designing for equality: Conceptualising a tool for strategic territorial planning. Habitat International, 31(3–4), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Sierra Club Ballantine.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (2004). EU member state experiences with sustainable development indicators. Luxembourg. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  10. GORE – Gobierno Regional de la Región Metropolitana (2005). Ordenamiento territorial ambientalmente sustentable. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  11. GORE – Gobierno Regional de la Región Metropolitana (2006). Estrategia de desarrollo regional. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  12. Gallopin, G. (2003). Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  13. Grunwald, A., & Kopfmüller, J. (2006). Nachhaltigkeit Eine Einführung. Campus Verlag: Frankfurt a. Main.Google Scholar
  14. Hák, T., Moldan, B., & Dahl, A. (2007). Sustainability indicators. A scientific assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heiland, S., Tischer, M., Döring, T., Pahl, T., & Jessel, B. (2003). Indikatoren zur Zielkonkretisierung und Erfolgskontrolle im Rahmen der Lokalen Agenda 21. UBA-Texte 67/03. Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. Heinrichs, D., Nuissl, H., & Rodríguez Seeger, C. (2009). Dispersion urbana y nuevo desafios para la gobernanza (metropolitana) en America Latina: el caso de Santiago de Chile. EURE, 35(104), 29–46.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Fourth assessment report. Geneva.Google Scholar
  19. IISD – International Institute for Sustainable Development (2002). Compendium of sustainable development indicator initiatives. WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiménez Herrero, L. (2000). Desarrollo sostenible. Transición hacia la coevolución global. Madrid: Ediciones Piramide.Google Scholar
  21. Kates, R., Parris, T., & Leiserowitz, A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment, 47(3), 9–20.Google Scholar
  22. Köckler, H. (2005). Zukunftsfähigkeit nach Maß. Kooperative Indikatorenentwicklung als Instrument regionaler Agenda-Prozesse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Kopfmüller, J. (2006). Ein Konzept auf dem Prüfstand. Das integrative Nachhaltigkeitskonzept in der Forschungspraxis. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
  24. Kopfmüller, J., Brandl, V., Jörissen, J., Paetau, M., Banse, G., Coenen, R., & Grunwald, A. (2001). Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet. Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
  25. Lele, S. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meadows, D., et al. (1972). The limits to growth. London: Signet.Google Scholar
  27. Naredo, J. M. (1996). Sobre el origen, el uso, y el contenido del termino sostenible. Cuidades para una futuro mas sostenible. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  28. Opschoor, H., & Reijnders, L. (1991). Towards sustainable development indicators. In O. Kuik & H. Verbruggen (Eds.), In search of indicators of sustainable development (pp. 7–27). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orellana, A. (2009). La gobernabilidad metropolitana de Santiago: la dispar relación de poder de los municipios. EURE, 35(104), 101–120.Google Scholar
  30. Parris, T., & Kates, R. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 559–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quiroga, R. (2001). Indicadores de sostenibilidad ambiental y de desarrollo sostenible: estado del arte y perspectivas. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  32. Steinberg, F. (2005). Strategic urban planning in Latin America: Experiences of building and managing the future. Habitat International, 29(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UNEP (2002). Melbourne principles for sustainable cities. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  34. UNEP/IEUT-UC (2004) Perspectivas del medio ambiente urbano: GEO Santiago. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  35. Volkery, A., & Ribeiro, T. (2009). Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technological Forecast & Social Change, 76(9), 1198–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. London: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  37. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. WCED – United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weiland, U. (2006). Sustainability indicators and urban development. In W. Wang, T. Krafft, & F. Kraas (Eds.), Global change. Urbanization and health (pp. 241–250). Beijing: China Meteorological Press.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, G. (1999). Metropolitan governance and strategic planning: A review of experience in Manchester, Melbourne and Toronto. Progress in Planning, 52, 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y TerritorialesPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (UC)SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations