Integration of biodiversity in urban planning instruments in developing countries: the case of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, Ghana

被引:12
作者
Ahmed, Abubakari [1 ]
Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A. [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tokyo, Grad Program Sustainabil Sci, Global Leadership Initiat, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
[2] FGV, EAESP, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
[3] FGV, EBAPE, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Inst COPPEAD, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
[5] Fudan Univ, SIRPA, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[6] UNU, IIGH, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
关键词
Biodiversity; urban planning; planning instruments; Ghana; Africa; CAPE FLORISTIC REGION; ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION; BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; DECISION-MAKING; CONSERVATION; URBANIZATION; PERSPECTIVES; AREA; PARTICIPATION;
D O I
10.1080/09640568.2016.1255183
中图分类号
F0 [经济学]; F1 [世界各国经济概况、经济史、经济地理]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
0201 ; 020105 ; 03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
There is a growing concern about integrating biodiversity into urban planning, yet, discussions are concentrated on science-informed planning in general. Few have explored the integration of biodiversity in specific planning instruments, especially in African cities. This paper examines how and what components of biodiversity are integrated into master plans, medium-term plans, building codes, zoning codes and permits in Kumasi City, Ghana. There is limited integration of biodiversity in most planning instruments as they were mostly designed on the basis of health, safety and economy. Allied to lack of funding and public participation, biodiversity in Kumasi is under significant threat from rapid urban development. Creating an opportunity for popular participation and decentralizing the planning system could set the preconditions for local integration and revision of instruments. Simplifying the definition of biodiversity could increase local planners' appreciation, understanding and their ability to make use of biodiversity data.
引用
收藏
页码:1741 / 1764
页数:24
相关论文
共 106 条
[51]  
MA [Millenium Ecosystem Assessment], 2005, EC HUM WELL BEING BI
[52]   Urban wildlife research: Past, present, and future [J].
Magle, Seth B. ;
Hunt, Victoria M. ;
Vernon, Marian ;
Crooks, Kevin R. .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2012, 155 :23-32
[53]   Landscape history as a planning tool [J].
Marcucci, DJ .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2000, 49 (1-2) :67-81
[54]   Systematic conservation planning [J].
Margules, CR ;
Pressey, RL .
NATURE, 2000, 405 (6783) :243-253
[55]   Urban centers: An assessment of sustainability [J].
McGranahan, G ;
Satterthwaite, D .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2003, 28 :243-274
[56]  
Mensah Sam Sarkodie, 2010, THESIS
[57]   Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning [J].
Miller, James R. ;
Groom, Martha ;
Hess, George R. ;
Steelman, Toddi ;
Stokes, David L. ;
Thompson, Jan ;
Bowman, Troy ;
Fricke, Laura ;
King, Brandon ;
Marquardt, Ryan .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2009, 23 (01) :53-63
[58]  
Mills Jane, 2010, J ENVIRON PLANN MAN, V45, P533
[59]  
Myerson G., 1996, The language of the environment: A new rhetoric
[60]   Integrating economic costs into conservation planning [J].
Naidoo, Robin ;
Balmford, Andrew ;
Ferraro, Paul J. ;
Polasky, Stephen ;
Ricketts, Taylor H. ;
Rouget, Mathieu .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2006, 21 (12) :681-687