Sustainable urban infrastructure refers to engineered facilities, utilities and systems that contribute to an elevated quality of life in an urban area. Projects must also consider their distributional implications on vulnerable groups within it.
Building with nature provides cost-effective infrastructure services with climate resilience at reduced costs while providing co-benefits to citizens. Thus, incorporating its value must be at the core of strategic, cross-sectoral planning processes.
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services are free, non-resource-based benefits provided by natural systems for free to humans – these benefits could include biodiversity support, soil formation, water purification, climate regulation, carbon sequestration or recreational opportunities. If cities fail to take into account ecosystem services when making development decisions, they could end up damaging these important systems that provide these advantages.
An important challenge of urban development lies in understanding how different strategies influence ecosystem service delivery and trade-offs between them, using different methodologies such as LULC mapping, service valuation and multi-criteria evaluation.
Note also that ecosystem services vary with location, being affected by factors like green infrastructure size and type, climate conditions and non-ecological elements like buildings and roads. To account for these variations it is vitally important to conduct ecosystem service assessments at high spatial resolution in each location.
Energy Efficiency
As cities expand, they must construct infrastructure with sustainable principles in mind. This means using green and resilient technologies that offer energy, water, and waste management systems at more reasonable costs.
Buildings consume immense amounts of energy at every stage, from raw material processing and construction through daily operational needs such as lighting and air conditioning. Urban sprawl necessitates private motorized transport which also consumes enormous amounts of energy.
Sustainable urban infrastructure allows cities to meet both current and future energy demands with less impact on the environment. Building with nature can reduce electricity use through evapotranspiration and mitigate urban heat island effect – while simultaneously improving air quality, biodiversity habitat management, water management and managing cost effectively. Co-benefits like these are especially crucial as we look at resource depletion and climate change with increased resource depletion looming ahead – thus optimizing cost effectiveness with holistic planning approaches is the way forward.
Resilience
Resilience is an increasingly used concept to describe complex social systems like urban areas. Unfortunately, no consensus has emerged regarding its definition and it is often interpreted differently across disciplines.
An increasing body of research highlights the key determinants of resilience: coping, capacity building, community support, connection to nature and personal control. While these determinants may vary depending on an individual’s experiences and challenges, resilience remains key regardless.
While focusing on these determinants is important, it is equally crucial that city residents participate in the discussion and planning process. Building urban resilience to address issues that threaten all, including inequality and insecurity related to economic and environmental changes; air pollution which compromises citizen health; natural disasters. All of these threats impact people living in cities as well as rural communities far removed from urban centers.
Public-Private Partnerships
State governments and localities spend billions annually to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain infrastructure projects in the US. Private firms usually take charge of one aspect of a project; when managing all three stages (design/build/financing) together however they have an incentive to design infrastructure to reduce lifecycle costs.
Private partners who invest in partnerships typically expect a return commensurate with the risk they assume, though ultimately public sectors end up shouldering any costs related to debt service or user fees for infrastructure development projects.
As governments gain experience with private financing, they alter the terms of contracts accordingly. Partnerships increasingly rely less on tolls for repayment than availability payments (guarantees of reimbursement in case a project does not generate sufficient traffic or revenues). These trends create incentives for the private sector to minimize risks; on the other hand, losing control by public entities could lead to expensive renegotiations proceedings over contract terms.