a) Research objectives and background

   Since the end of the 20th century we have seen a rapid increase in the size of urban populations in developing countries as these countries simultaneously experience high rates of economic growth. These two phenomena have unleashed a multitude of problems in these countries, such as waste and garbage issues, air pollution, traffic congestion, food shortages, and/or rampant consumerism. These problems afflicting the enormous cities in these countries have started to spill over and impact on the developed world and the planet as a whole. We do not necessarily have a detailed understanding, however, of how this emergence of supersized cities in developing countries, along with what is happening inside them, relates to global environmental problems; of which particular global environmental problems to which they relate; the damage being caused by those global environmental problems as a result; or what measures to take to deal with those problems. Many research institutions are currently taking tentative steps to conduct research into supersized cities in relation to global environmental problems. Much of this research, however, is focused on macro, indirect observations using remote sensing and similar methods, or alternatively is oriented to stereotypical solutions of the “low-carbon city” sort, which place disproportionate importance on the use of science and technology.
   This was the background to start of this project towards the end of the last century, which had as its objectives the development and presentation to communities of reconciliatory proposals that enhance the futurability of both the global environment and the enormous megacities within some developing countries by promoting improvements to the local environments of the residents of those cities while helping to achieve solutions for global environmental problems. 

 

b) Research methods and organization

   In order to escape from the constrictive approach of looking for more of the existing sort of partial ‘optimal’ solutions for megacities, for this project we set two principal directions for our research. The first was to set a whole region (in this case, Jakarta) as our case study. The second was to start by building an awareness of the object of our research (the megacity), and then proceed to engaging in interventions in local communities using the findings from that process of building awareness – in sum an approach of engaging in “theoretical” science, followed by “practical” science, followed by interventions.
   The first direction of our research was comprised of three aspects: 1) conducting specific research on a megacity itself (by conducting field work in Jakarta as our megacity case study); 2) understanding megacities in relation to the global environment (determining their CSI grouping); and 3) analyzing how the case study connected to issues at the global level (the All World Cities Whole History Group).

   The second research direction involved: 1) analyzing the megacity from different angles (by a Natural Environment Group, Built Environment Group, Economy Group, and History Group); 2) integrating the findings of that analysis (by an Integration Group and a Scenario Group); and 3) developing and verifying methods for interventions in communities (by an Integration Group and a Scenario Group).
   Nine years (IS-FS1-FS2-PR-F1-F2-F3-F4-F5) were spent on this project. These nine years were divided into four phases, and using the track and field sport of the triple-jump as an analogy, these phases could be described respectively as a running approach phase (IS-FS1-FS2), followed by a hop (PR-F1), step (F2, F3, F4), and jump (F3, F4, F5) phase. In the running approach phase we undertook a broad discussion of the relationship between cities and the global environment; during the hop phase we focused on the problems of megacities; in the step phase we went on an exploration to achieve integration; and in the final jump phase we integrated the different findings in pursuit of the originality of this project.

　Already four years have passed since FR1 of this project. Here we detail the results we have achieved to date through research in this project and areas where we have yet to achieve results based on the four questions we stated at the beginning (in RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND).

 

0)  Research Premises

   To establish coherence throughout the project, we reviewed the (1) definition of a city as a premise for this research, and determined it to be an area having a population density of 2,000 or more per square kilometer. Because this definition of a city was based on a current population standard, however, we had to give further thought about the extent to which it could be historically

retrospective. As a unit for urban analyses, we also developed (2) residentialenvironment types that classified urban built-up areas of 250m x 250m according to population density, building height, and planned/unplanned. This made it possible to analyze cities in greater detail than existing land usemaps. Moreover, because the existing definition of a megacity as a city with apopulation of 10 million and over was not clear, we undertook the task of redefining what a (3) megacity signified. On the basis of this new definition, we found that in cities with populations of four million and over in comparison with cities with populations of less than four million, the diversity of residential environment types found in those cities varied. Inaddition to recognizing the 18 existing cities with populations of 10 millionor more as megacities, we also found that 35 cities with populations of four million or more and not more than 10 million are similar in character to megacities.

 

1)     What kinds of impacts do cities have on the globalenvironment?

   We began our research with the value judgment that whatever was beneficial for both cities and the global environment was desirable. Therefore, to consider beneficial measures, instead of simply considering research that shed light on global limitations attributable to cities, we established (1) a CSI (city sustainable index) for assessing the efficiency of cities by analyzing the impact of cities on the environment and the social and economic benefits from cities based on a number of indicators relating to the environment (global environment and urban environment), the economy and society.  This CSI consists of two types of indicators: restricting indicators that restrict environmental impacts caused by cities, and maximizing indicators for strongly inducing social and economic benefits. At present we have already conducted 18 megacity assessments using five restricting indicators and seven maximizing indicators. We believe this research to be the most essential research inconsidering cities in relation to the global environment.

 

2)     How varied are the world’s cities in their stages of regional and economic development?

To answer this question, we undertook (1) a comparison of 18 megacities based on criteria such as topography, climate, city configuration, type of residential environment, and methods of communications, etc. As a result ofthis research, we found it was possible to classify the 18 megacities into about five types: 1) Monsoon Asia type (Tokyo, Shanghai, Jakarta, Dhaka, etc.); 2)Yellow Belt type (Beijing, Delhi, Cairo, etc.); 3) Euro-American type (NewYork, Los Angeles), 4) Tropical Africa type (Lagos); and 5) Latin American type(Mexico City, Sao Paulo, etc.)

 

3)     How varied should measures for mitigating impacts onthe global environment be for each region?

   From our field work in greaterJakarta, we found that the monsoon Asia type of megacity is characterized by its establishment in a rice-producing region that incorporates farmland and farming villages as it expands outwards to mildly undulating areas, is located in areas with high temperatures, high humidity and heavy rainfall, and has a strong sense of community. In the monsoon Asia type megacity, four types of residential environments exist simultaneously: rural village area, urban village area, high-rise residential area, and planned residential area types). Unlike megacities in other areas, megacities at different stages of economic development exist in monsoon Asia type megacities. Therefore, we are beginning to believe that measures used in Tokyo may also be of assistance in greaterJakarta, and that research results in Jakarta may have applicability in cities such as Dhaka.       

 

4)     How can we simultaneously provide solutions for global environmental problems and benefits for residents of cities and other areas(including poverty, economies, and amenities)?

Using data resulting from research in greater Jakarta to date, we havebeen attempting to verify an urban configuration that will be compatible with the global environment for megacities of monsoon Asia, which are set to expand to areas including rice-producing areas in mildly undulating terrain. (1) In our preparation of Megacity Scenario 2050, we assessed the extent of the environmental impacts of the polycentric city, monocentric city, and city with urban sprawl respectively in efforts to contribute to the training of local administrators. Our research to date indicates that switching to a polycentric configuration with a historiccore has relative advantages in terms of environmental and urban amenities. Furthermore,we are presenting (2) proposals for an eco-urban house for each of the four types of residential environments with a view to mitigating environmental impacts and improving comfort. In specific terms, we are currently formulating plans to i) actually build together with residents an urban village-type communitycenter in a residential area of the poorest segment of the population. We are also planning ii) a new rural village residential model and iii) high-rise residential model that emphasize landscaping, as well as an open-space mid-rise complex residential model.      

 

5)      How can we return our research results to society?

Rather than confining the results of our research to the academic world, we perceive the scope of this project as extending to the development of methods for funneling the results back to the broader society itself. As noted earlier, local residents and local university students are involved in the (1) cooperative construction of an urban village-type community center, and we consider at present its role as a place of education. Moreover, in Jakarta at present we are also (2) conducting and analyzing urban environmental literacy education for elementary school students. In addition, after integrating collected data, we have also commenced the (3) development and installation of a megacity geographical information system (Megacity GIS) that can be accessed from anywhere.

  

Research Plan

FR5 (2014)

 Since next fiscal year is the final year of the project, we will not only complete the objectives of the project, but also set new goals for the further development of the project in the future.

 

1. Completion ofthe project goals

 

1)     Assessment of the burden of cities on the global environment and benefits from cities

(1) Completionof the CSI (city sustainability index): We will strive to make visible the efficiency of all 18 megacities sothat they can be assessed according to approximately 20 indicators which people in general will be able to understand.

 

2)      Diversity of cities

(1) Comparison of the 18 megacities: We will undertake field studies of Cairo and megacities in South America that have not yet been studied in efforts to clarify more exhaustively the characters of megacity types.

(2) Comparison of urban efficiency according to scale of population:The majority of the world’s 290,000 cities have populations of approximately 20,000. Using the CSI for smaller cities, we will assess urban efficiency by making comparisons of cities with varying population sizes. In doing so, we hope to be able to arrive at a relatively better understanding of the meaning of megacities.

 

3)     How varied should measures for mitigating impacts onglobal environment be for each region?

(1) We will clarify more exhaustively the commonalities and differences of megacities in monsoon Asia. We will continue to undertake field research inTokyo and Osaka as we have until now, and we will clarify the characters of megacitiesin monsoon Asia such as Dhaka, Jakarta, Manila, Tokyo, and Osaka, as well as the logic linking these.  

 

4)     Measures for both the mitigation of global environmental problems and benefits for urban residents

(1)  Completion of a “Megacity Scenario 2050” : In autumn 2014we will hold a joint workshop based on the Megacity Scenario 2050 in greaterJakarta with the participation of a local university and government, and we will establish the direction of future cooperative measures with local communities.

(2)  Realization of an eco-urban house for each type of residential environment: In Jakarta we will continue activities to realize new residential models with emphasis on landscaping as well as open-space mid-rise complexhousing models.   

 

5)      Returning research results

(1)   University study program: We will create aneco-urban house design program for tertiary-level study.

(2)   Completion of a megacity geographical information system (Megacity GIS): We will complete the Megacity GIS which will come packaged with dataof greater Jakarta data, and commence use of it.

(3)   Publication of “Global Environment and Megacities” works: We will summarize and organize the results of the project and publish them as books.

 

 

2. New objectives for further development of the project

1)     Exploring partnerships with megacities in monsoon Asia: We will create a platform for application of research results obtained in Jakarta to other megacities in monsoon Asia such as Dhaka, Manila, Bangkok, and Kolkata.

2)     Efforts to disseminate eco-urban houses: We will promote efforts to disseminate eco-urban residential designs by holding an exhibition on eco-urban housing in greater Jakarta and later take this exhibition to other cities.