December, 18 2012, 09:55am EDT
With Effective Roadmaps and Political Will, Governments Can Create Healthier, Livable Cities
Worldwatch Institute highlights solutions for more inclusive and sustainable urban development
WASHINGTON
By harnessing an innovative mix of tools and approaches, governments can strengthen the economies of urban areas and improve their overall livability, according to research presented in the Worldwatch Institute's State of the World 2012: Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity. Today, nearly 1 billion of the world's poor live in urban areas that are dangerously overcrowded and lack adequate access to basic sanitation and clean water, with wide-ranging health and environmental impacts. But even in wealthier countries, governments face serious challenges in making their cities more inclusive, sustainable, and livable.
In 2010, informal urban settlements, known more commonly as "slums," housed approximately one-third of the urban population of developing countries. "Slum populations are often viewed as an eyesore, but few realize that the urban poor are at the core of a city's economy, accounting for a large share of employment and performing essential functions for the city," said Eric Belsky, Managing Director of Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies and State of the World 2012 contributing author.
In his chapter, "Planning for Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Development," Belsky calls for a new paradigm for urban planning that utilizes all levels of government to promote more livable, environmentally sensitive, economically competitive, and socially inclusive cities. Although there are formidable barriers to inclusive and sustainable development, several bold steps, such as the creation of National Urban Sustainable Planning Commission, national incentive funds, and international academic collaboration on urban planning, can be taken to overcome these challenges. "With deliberate spatial planning, we can mitigate the environmental and health risks of slum dwellers, as well as harness their potential to contribute to economic growth and move out of poverty."
In the United States, meanwhile, more than 200 cities have developed plans for improving economic, environmental, and social sustainability, but few have established specific metrics to monitor their progress. A national indicator system would help cities more uniformly measure their success in moving toward sustainable development, according to the University of Pennsylvania's Eugenie Birch and Amy Lynch, co-authors of "Measuring U.S. Sustainable Urban Development" in State of the World 2012.
Using indicators to monitor sustainable development of urban areas has long been on the global agenda: Agenda 21, developed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, specifically called for the development of such benchmarks. In their chapter, Birch and Lynch provide three steps to develop a national indicator system that will help U.S. cities achieve sustainability:
Start with a vision. Until 2009, when the government created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the United States did not have a national sustainable development agenda, much less national standards. To fill this void, the Partnership crafted and released the Livability Principles, six statements that express what is needed to create liveable communities nationwide, including affordable housing and a better mix of transportation options.
Use what already exists.The lack of standardized national indicators in the United States is due not to a dearth of developed indicators, but to a failure to align local efforts with the national vision. Effective local initiatives include the STAR Community Index, created in cooperation with numerous national organizations, including the U.S. Green Building Council. Based on 81 goals, the index helps local governments manage their sustainability performance and encompasses broad themes of environment, society, and economy, but it fails to relate directly to any national policy. Other indicator systems in use include Philadelphia's Greenworks 2009 plan, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's 62 published economic and social indicators, and the Green City Index.
Create a national indicator database. As effective indicators are identified, they should be assessed and culminated into a national monitoring system. In 2010, the American Planning Association and the University of Pennsylvania's Institute of Urban Research identified and analyzed 22 existing indicator systems with the aim of creating a Sustainable Urban Development Indicator Database. Out of the 22 systems, 145 achievable and measurable indicators were identified, with the aim of ultimately developing a national indicator database.
With effective roadmaps and political will, governments can advance the goals of sustainability, inclusion, and poverty alleviation through improved urban planning to create healthier, livable cities.
Worldwatch's State of the World 2012, released in April 2012, focuses on the themes of inclusive sustainable development discussed at Rio+20, the 20-year follow-up to the historic Earth Summit of 1992, also held in Rio de Janeiro. The report presents a selection of innovative ideas and practices to achieve global environmental sustainability while meeting human needs and providing jobs and ensuring dignity for all.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
LATEST NEWS
Massachusetts Town Passes Resolution Urging State to Hold 'Lawless' ICE Agents Accountable
"I hope Amherst’s resolution kicks off a wave of similar resolutions in cities and towns across the state," said the measure's lead sponsor.
Feb 24, 2026
The town council of Amherst, Massachusetts passed a resolution on Monday urging state and local officials to hold federal immigration agents accountable for violating the Commonwealth's laws, a move that advocates hailed as a model for lawmakers across the United States.
The resolution—which says agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have "repeatedly committed acts of violence against Massachusetts residents—passed with unanimous support from the nine councilors who participated in the vote.
"ICE’s illegal operations have impacted residents of Amherst and surrounding communities directly, and we know that when any of our neighbors have their rights stripped away, none of us can take those rights for granted," Councilor Jill Brevik, the resolution's lead sponsor, said in a statement following the vote. "Silence and complying in advance created the environment that has enabled ICE agents to commit crimes and human rights abuses."
"As a result, it is critically important for our local and state-level leaders to speak loudly and take clear action to fight back and change course," Brevik added. "The work doesn’t end here, and I look forward to staying engaged. And I hope Amherst’s resolution kicks off a wave of similar resolutions in cities and towns across the state."
The resolution calls on Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, to "immediately cease all cooperation agreements with ICE," pointing to specific actions by federal immigration agents that "may be crimes under Massachusetts law, including but not limited to assault and battery, kidnapping, violation of constitutional rights, and assault and battery for the purpose of intimidation, and conspiracy, which may involve senior federal officials" including President Donald Trump.
Among the incidents highlighted by the resolution is ICE's 2025 abduction of Tufts University PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was targeted for deportation for writing an op-ed criticizing the US-backed Israeli assault on Gaza. Last month, an immigration judge terminated removal proceedings against Öztürk.
The resolution also condemns ICE and CBP agents for "illegally kidnapping an 18-year old with no warrant and detaining him for a week with no access to showers or sufficient food in Worcester County; illegally kidnapping and assaulting a lawful permanent resident in Essex County, stealing his belongings, and threatening his legal status; assaulting a resident of Middlesex County, smashing his car’s windows and dragging him from it; detaining a first-year college student at Boston Logan Airport and forcing her out of the country in defiance of a court order; and repeatedly using unlawfully excessive force in encounters with Massachusetts resident."
“When our constitutional rights, our civil liberties, and our very lives come under attack by Trump’s lawless agents, we need every public official to stand with the people to fight back,” Jeff Conant, an Amherst resident who helped organize support for the newly approved measure, said Monday. “This commonsense resolution by our town council should serve as a model for every town and city in the Commonwealth and across the nation.”
The resolution demands that state and local officials "take affirmative steps to protect" Massachusetts residents, including by:
- Making a public statement confirming the principles that federal officials and agents are subject to state criminal jurisdiction;
- Taking affirmative steps to collect evidence of criminal acts committed by federal agents, including through the creation and dissemination of an accessible online tool for citizens to submit evidence; and
- Issuing guidelines to local law enforcement to preserve evidence, especially in cases of federal noncooperation with investigations, and beginning investigations where evidence indicates that a crime has been committed, regardless of the power or prestige of the federal officeholder who is suspected of committing said crime.
John Bonifaz, constitutional attorney and president of Free Speech For People—an advocacy group that helped draft the resolution—said that "state and local prosecutors in Massachusetts and across the country have a sworn duty to enforce state criminal laws against federal agents who commit crimes in their states."
"There is no such thing as absolute immunity for federal ICE agents. While the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allows federal agents to carry out their lawful duties across the country, they do not have immunity to commit murder, to kidnap, to commit assault and battery, and to engage in illegal detentions," he continued. "Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and district attorneys across Massachusetts must enforce state criminal laws against ICE agents for their unlawful actions in this state."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do Not Get Numb to This': Trump Admin Kills 3 More People in Caribbean
"The illegality is compounding," said one expert. "Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
Feb 24, 2026
The ramp-up of deadly boat bombings in the Caribbean since General Francis L. Donovan took over as head of US Southern Command continued on Monday, with three more people killed in a strike on a vessel that the Department of Defense claimed was operated by "Designated Terrorist Organizations."
Donovan took over as commander of US Southern Command on February 5 following the abrupt retirement of Admiral Alvin Hosley, who had reportedly raised concerns about the Pentagon's campaign of striking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean—a policy that Trump administration officials have insisted is aimed at stopping drug trafficking from Venezuela.
Venezuela plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the drug involved in most overdoses in the US, and the administration has provided no evidence that the dozens of strikes it's carried out since September have actually been aimed at drug trafficking boats.
Even if the targets were involved in transporting illicit substances to the US, legal experts say the strikes have violated international law.
Following the attack on Monday, the death toll in the Trump administration's maritime operations in the region since September has reached at least 150, and Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America emphasized that this month, there has been a clear acceleration of boat bombings.
Twenty-five people have been killed in the administration's boat attacks in just 19 days.
"None posed imminent threats," said Isacson. "None faced more than an accusation of guilt for a non-capital crime—'take our word for it.' The illegality is compounding. Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
"Do not get numb to this," he added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Southern Command's killing of three people Monday amounted to "more summary executions."
On Sunday, after another strike that killed three people, the Freedom of the Press Foundation noted that "despite the rising death toll, the government’s legal rationale for these likely illegal attacks remains secret."
"By keeping the legal justifications hidden, the government is sidestepping accountability for what appear to be extrajudicial killings," said Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy.
President Donald Trump told Congress in October that the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. At the time, Gregory Corn, a former senior adviser for law-of-war issues for the US Army, said the president was crossing a "major legal line."
The boat bombing campaign led up to the US government's invasion of Venezuela in January and its abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were brought to the US and charged with drug trafficking. They pleaded not guilty in court last month. Since that military operation, the Trump administration has sought to take control of Venezuela's oil.
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have spoken out against the boat bombings and have introduced war powers resolutions to stop the US from continuing the campaign and from attacking Venezuela, but so far, the vast majority of GOP lawmakers have voted down the efforts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault
"The stakes are clear," said the National Iranian American Council. "There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Feb 24, 2026
President Donald Trump admitted Monday that a US assault on Iran would be disastrous for the Middle East nation's people as he considers options for a military attack, reportedly drawing private warnings from the United States' top general.
In a Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against reports that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has voiced concerns about the potentially massive risks of attacking Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. Trump has previously claimed that Caine believed any military conflict with Iran would be "something easily won."
"He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack," Trump wrote of Caine in his Monday post.
The US president—who blew up a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran during his first term—added that if a new deal with the Iranian government doesn't materialize, "it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them."
Trump's acknowledgment that a US military assault would likely be devastating for ordinary Iranians runs counter to the narrative pushed by supporters of war, who claim conflict and regime change is necessary to aid Iran's population.
"The stakes are clear," the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy organization that has vocally opposed a US attack on Iran, wrote late Monday. "President Trump himself says that war with Iran will mean a 'very bad day' for Iran and 'very sadly, its people.' There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are expected to vote this week on a resolution aimed at preventing war with Iran without congressional authorization, but the measure stands little chance of reaching Trump's desk.
The president, meanwhile, has shown no indication that he intends to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. One poll conducted earlier this month showed that just 21% of Americans would support the Trump administration "initiating an attack on Iran."
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump is considering an "initial targeted US attack" on Iran followed by "a much bigger attack in the coming months" if the nation's government doesn't capitulate to Washington's demands, principally that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Negotiators from the US and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva later this week.
"Behind the scenes, a new proposal is being considered by both sides that could create an off-ramp to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments," the Times reported. "It is unclear whether either side would agree. But the last-minute proposal comes as two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers,k and refueling aircraft are now massing within striking distance of Iran."
Multiple outlets reported Monday that Caine, the top US general, has offered warnings about the potential risks of attacking Iran. According to the Washington Post, Caine voiced concerns at a recent White House meeting that "any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the US munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine."
The Trump administration's march to war with Iran has also drawn significant outside opposition.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Monday that "like the June 2025 bombings that failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, another US strike would be an illegal act of war."
"As with his false claims that last year’s attack had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capacity, the president has now dropped the pretense that military intervention would be aimed at protecting Iranian protestors who bravely faced a deadly crackdown to demonstrate against the regime’s many human rights violations," said Duss.
"With Trump sending mixed signals over the timing and scope of possible strikes—and given his record of attacking even when active diplomacy is taking place—Congress must act swiftly to make clear that the president does not have its authorization for the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


