Urban management is based on outdated institutional frameworks. Most importantly, management
decisions are made on the basis of fragmented political jursidictions that violate ecological units and
leads to uncoordinated and often contradictory decision making. We can learn from Native People's
in North American, who often used rivers and large land forms to delineate boundaries between
different groups, and build on the experience we have gained with using ecological management
units in a variety of jurisdictions, including Ontario, BC, New Zealand, Tennessee, and New
Jersey.
Furthermore, our institutional structures mirror social structures in their compartmentalization. Each
public agency is designed to regulate some human constituency or serve some human need.
Departments of the Environment are hived off and given their own mandates, but have little
influence over the indirect environmental impacts of other public agencies, even at the same
jurisdictional level. While this approach to institutional design may be rational from a
anthropocentric point of view, it ignores the fact that ecological pathways cut across departmental
and jurisdictional lines. Innovative approaches are required to allow cooperation among public
agencies and to incorporate ecological concerns into every aspect of public decision-making.
Municipal governments are often associated with urban issues, but their fragmented nature and their
reliance on property taxes and developer contributions has made them notorious for
growth-oriented or socially exclusive polices. Reports on initiatives directed to reforming and
empowering municipal institutions would be welcome in this section of the Agenda.
Please check our articles in the following areas:
