Received: 14 November 2018 
|  Revised: 21 November 2018 
DOI: 10.1111/grow.12297
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sustainable urbanization in Southeast Asia and
beyond: Challenges of population growth, land use
change, and environmental health
Md. Arfanuzzaman1  
1
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), Dhaka, Bangladesh
2
College of Interdisciplinary
Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok,
Thailand
Correspondence
Md. Arfanuzzaman, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh.
Email: thisisarfan@gmail.com; md.
uzzaman@fao.org
Growth and Change. 2019;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/grow |
|
  Accepted: 13 February 2019
| Bharat Dahiya2
Abstract
As economic growth centres, the Southeast Asian cities fea-
ture high population pressure, unsustainable land use, envi-
ronmental degradation, and large ecological footprints. It is
difficult to manage environmental health and basic services
for urban dwellers, and ensure optimum flow of ecosystem
services in the context of rapid, unplanned, and haphazard
urbanization. These challenges are particularly multifaceted
in the developing countries of Southeast Asian region. This
study, based on secondary sources, adopted multidiscipli-
nary lenses, such as geographical information systems,
socio‐economic perspective, and sustainability science to
examine the population situation, land use change pattern,
and drivers of environmental degradation in the Southeast
Asian cities as well as the Dhaka megacity, and brought
forth a fresh perspective to look into contemporary urban
ecosystems, population dynamics, environmental health,
and sustainability. It also focused on identifying the com-
monalities among the cities under study to create a common
understanding towards promoting collaborative urban de-
velopment. This study shows that the urbanization process
in the Southeast Asia region is taking place mostly in an un-
planned and haphazard manner. With little concern for na-
ture, life‐supporting ecological systems, and the
environment, urban spatial growth continues unabated. The
data surveyed and discussed in this paper shows that the
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     1
 |
2       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

current style of urbanization in Southeast Asia can best be

called unsustainable. The findings also suggest that the gen-
eral wellbeing and welfare of the current and future genera-
tions in Southeast Asian cities as well as in Dhaka is at risk.
The paper recommends concerted efforts towards making
the urbanization process sustainable, including better urban
planning, policymaking, and international and regional
cooperation.

1  |   IN T RO D U C T ION
There is a clear nexus between population growth, land use, and environmental health in urban areas
across the world. High population growth leads to population pressure in urban areas, which causes
changes in land use pattern and impact on urban ecosystems (Kampa & Castanas, 2008). Inappropriate
and unplanned land use, especially for urban uses, reduces agriculture land, forest cover, and wetlands
in urban areas—all of which cause to degrade ecosystem services flow and environmental sustain-
ability (George & Bennett, 2005). Failure to properly address the inter‐linkages between population
growth, land use change, and urban environmental health in the planning and development process
can generate huge impact on urban sustainability across the globe (Alcacer & Chung, 2009; Gadenne
& Singhal, 2013). Urbanization is one of the prominent indicators for economic growth and prosper-
ity. Urbanization supports human development because urban dwellers often enjoy improved urban
facilities, amenities, and higher level of public services; hence, people tend to move to urban areas for
employment and better amenities that leads to expansion of urban areas.
In 1965, the urbanization rate was less than 20% for Asia and the Pacific region; it was nearly 60%
for the developed economies and 35% as average for the world. In 1995, the urbanization rate climbed
up to 25% in South Asia and crossed 30% in South East, East Asia, and the Pacific region; this was
nearly 80% for the developed member and 45% for the world in general. Later, in 2015, the urbaniza-
tion rate increased to nearly 55%, 48%, 40%, and 30%, respectively, in East Asia, South East Asia,
Central and West Asia, and South Asia (World Bank, 2016). The rate of urbanization was 82% in
the developed economies and 55% in the world (Asian Development Bank [ADB], 2015). It clearly
signifies that the rate of urbanization in the Asia‐Pacific region has been lower than the world, and
nearly half that for the developed economies. The Asia‐Pacific region is home to more than 4 billion
people, accounting for nearly 55% of the world’s population. The total population of the Asia‐Pacific
region grew at an annual rate of 1.21% between 2000 and 2015 (Asian Development Bank [ADB],
2017). About 45% of the population of the Asia‐Pacific region lives in urban areas (ADB, 2014).
As migration from rural to urban areas is driven largely by greater employment opportunities in the
Asian‐Pacific cities, as well as improved access to urban services, such as health care and education,
the urban population is expected to grow in the coming years (Dahiya, 2012b). In particular, the re-
gion’s urban population is expected to grow from 2.1 billion today to as much as 3.4 billion people by
2050. In 2015, the Asia‐Pacific region produced two‐fifths of global gross domestic product (GDP)
(according to purchasing power parity). Between 2014 and 2015, the growth of real GDP exceeded 3%
in 21 out of 41 economies in this region (ADB, 2016).
“Urbanization is one of the most important global change processes” (Haase, Guneralp, Dahiya, Bai, &
Elmqvist, 2018, p. 19). The pattern of urbanization is not the same in all regions and all national economies.
It has certain dynamics, and some pros and cons. Most urban megaprojects in cities of the global South
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
   3
|
expose an absence of an ecological mind of cities, and flourishing ecosystems, like urban water bodies and
green cover, are used and altered for future real estate development (Follman, 2015; Sen & Nagendra, 2019).
A civilized urban life requires some basic infrastructure and services, secure housing, decent food, access
to electricity, clean water, health care, and improved sanitation are among the essentials. In relative terms,
the Asia‐Pacific region has performed relatively well over the past 15 years (UN‐Habitat, 2016). Although
the percentage of slum residents  declined sharply in this region, such as 26% reduction in South Asia and
21.1% in South East Asia during 1990–2014. However, in a majority of the economies of the Asia Pacific
region, at least one‐third of urban population is still living in slums due to magnitude of poverty, rural to
urban migration, unequal wealth distribution, and limited public expenditure (World Bank, 2015a, 2015b;
UN‐Habitat, 2010). Thus, well‐planned urbanization has greater prospects for the economic growth‐centric
development in Southeast Asia and its partner countries; sustainable urbanization has the potential to be
used as a means of boosting the wellbeing of the people of these economies. All Southeast Asian countries
are growing persistently with a total population of more than 630 million in 2015; further, the region’s total
population is estimated to increase to more than 660 million in 2020 and more than 720 million by 2030
(ADB, 2016). In terms of urbanization rates, Southeast Asian countries present immense disparities, which
can become a strong scope for the cooperation in the whole region. Instead of similar countries competing
against one another, Southeast Asia brings together diverse economies that complement one another and
can benefit from each other and together as a diverse whole (Dahiya, 2015, 2016). Traditionally, urbaniza-
tion has always been positively linked to economic growth and development. Vibrant urban cooperation on
priority issues in the Southeast Asia region could gift them wider benefits and enable them to effectively
mitigate regional urban socio‐economic and environmental challenges.
This paper provides an overview of the population growth, land use change, urbanization growth
pattern, and environmental health of the selected cities of Southeast Asia and the megacity Dhaka with
a view to generating fresh knowledge on contemporary sustainability situation in the urban context.
Firstly, the study endeavours to identify the common urban socio‐economic and environmental issues
and challenges in order to help develop awareness among these cities for developing collaboration in
the areas of sustainable urban development and environmental management. Secondly, the attempt
has been made to examine how the rich and poor cities of Southeast Asia have performed from the
perspective of urban sustainability. Thirdly, the environmental performance of the Southeast Asian
cities and Dhaka is examined to find out whether the urban hotspots in Southeast Asia are growing at
the cost of environmental degradation.
Findings from existing literature and reports as well as the theoretical framework are discussed
in Section 2. Section 3 briefly presents the material and methods used in this study. Section 4 dis-
cusses the collected and analysed data on population growth pattern, urban socio‐economics, land use
change, and urban environmental health. The Results section also contains more specific analysis of
Dhaka megacity from the perspective of environmental sustainability. Section 5 focuses on the discus-
sion of this study’s results. In the concluding Section 6, the authors underline of the significance of
regional collaboration towards achieving sustainable urbanization and provide suggestions to improve
the urban sustainability situation in Southeast Asia.

2  |  LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Cities among the top 100 global economies contribute a remarkable proportion of their respective
national GDP, accounting for an average economic share that is 1.5 times higher than their share of
the national population (Toly & Tabory, 2016). Tokyo, London, Bangkok, Paris, and Istanbul gener-
ate 34%, 32%, 28.8%, 27.6%, and 23.1% GDP, respectively, with 29.2%, 22.4%, 22.9%, 18.7%, and
 |
4       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

17.8% of national population (Parilla, Leal, Berube, & Ran, 2015). In addition, cities located in coun-
tries with few other major metropolitan areas tend to lead that country’s overall GDP. Hence, cities
and urbanization are considered as engines of the national and global economy, both concentrating
and facilitating the flow of people, goods, resources, and wealth. The number of megacities (with
populations of 10 million or above) is increasing around the world, and half of the world’s megacities
are found in Asia (12 out of 21); this indicates Asia’s potential of vast opportunities for urban‐based
economic growth (UN‐Habitat, 2012). However, rapid demographic change and unplanned urbaniza-
tion in Asia puts unprecedented pressure on existing economic and social structures and environmen-
tal resources (Dahiya, 2012c; Marshall, 2005; UN‐Habitat and UN‐ESCAP, 2010). Dahiya (2012a)
and UN‐Habitat (2012) found that both South and Southeast Asian cities were facing similar kind of
challenges along with the degradation of urban and peri‐urban ecosystems, inappropriate resource
management, and high levels of inequality and unemployment; this underscores the importance of
these issues and the need for creating more equitable, environmentally sustainable, and more liveable
urban spaces for all inhabitants within the Asian cities. Several studies show that without managing
population pressure, environmental protection, and good governance, the growth of the Southeast
Asian cities may not be sustainable and beneficial for the urban poor (Dahiya, 2014; Marshall, 2005;
UN, 2014; UN‐Habitat, 2009; Yuen & Kong, 2009). In this connection, this study attempts to gener-
ate a fresh perspective to look into the available data and information on population growth, land use
pattern, and environmental health of a few Southeast Asian cities and the prospects of regional urban
management through joint initiatives and robust co‐operation in Southeast Asia.
To achieve this goal, we review the recent trends in population growth, land use change patterns,
and the situation of environmental health from the sustainability lens and provide specific suggestions
for planning and policy adjustment. In doing so, we collected the relevant data on population growth,
land use change, and environmental health of the selected countries of the Southeast Asia region and
analysed it for supporting country‐specific, multilateral, and regional planning and policymaking.
As population pressure is one of the major challenges in development pathways, and land is a lim-
ited resource compared to the ever‐growing demand for urban settlements and economic activities,
a sustainable and futuristic land use plan and population management are highly important for the
Southeast Asia region. Since the existing development initiatives and economic activities appear to be
substantially detrimental for the environmental health and urban sustainability, environmental issues
deserve much attention when it comes to tackling urban issues through development plans and pol-
icies. Similar to the Talanoa Dialogue, this study seeks the answer for the following three questions
with regard to sustainable and inclusive urban development in the Southeast Asia region.

1. Where are we? What is the present status of the population growth, land use change, and
environmental health in the Southeast Asia region?
2. Where we want to go? What is the sustainable urban development agenda of the Southeast Asia
region?
3. How do we get there? How the Southeast Asian economies can get there by maintaining and im-
proving environmental and social protection in the region?

3  |  M ATE R IA L S A N D ME T HODS

This study has examined the urban sustainability situation of selected Southeast Asian economies and
Bangladesh as a partner country through multidisciplinary methods and techniques, including analysis
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
|
   5

of socio‐economic and environmental data, use of an environmental indices—such as the Environmental

Performance Index (YCELP et al., 2014), and the Asian Green City Index (Economist Intelligence Unit,
2011), data visualization, and the adoption of Geographic Information System maps. Secondary data
are used in the study to carry out the overall review and assessment. Different sets of secondary data,
such as that on population, urbanization, urban ecosystems, and environmental health, are collected
from the reports and published documents of United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO), the
World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Further, water quality and air pollution informa-
tion of Dhaka city has been sourced from Bangladesh Water Development Board and Department of
Environment (DoE), under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of
Bangladesh. Other relevant data and information have been collected from the think tanks (Yale Center
for Environmental Law & Policy, and Siemens), national statistical reports, and scientific peer‐reviewed
articles.
With a focus on a few selected cities in Southeast Asia, in this study, the authors conducted an
assessment of the urban health data of an “environmentally critical city” as a case analysis. Here, an
“environmentally critical city” is defined based on its pollution level and environmental risk exposure
(ERE). Obtained from Environmental Performance Index, ERE refers to the level of risk of water and
air pollution to human health. Data on ERE was collected from Environmental Performance Index
compiled by Yale University (YCELP et al., 2014). The authors analysed ERE data in this study for
the selected countries: Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet
Nam. In the present context, the term “urban environmental sustainability” connotes the growth of
cities and their socio‐economic development that does not obliterate or degrade the local and regional
environment and its quality; instead, the city’s natural capital is conserved for the sake of sustainable
urbanization, for now and in the future.

4  |   R E S U LTS
Economic productivity depends on healthy and happy citizens who need affordable access to educa-
tion, healthcare, security, food, water, transport, electricity, and clean and green environment. Asian
cities are considered as the drivers of national economies and have lifted millions out of poverty
(Dahiya, 2012a, 2012b; Hammer, Kamal‐Chaoui, Robert, & Plouin, 2011). Moreover, Asian cities
have been growing rapidly. A large population often puts pressure on the socio‐economic systems,
urban resilience, living environment, and natural resources (Angel, Parent, Civco, & Blei, 2011).
Thus, there is a clear nexus between population growth, land use change, and environmental health
in urban areas. Proper management of such issues can ensure sustainable urban development and
vice versa (Corcoran et al., 2010). But this seems to be challenging because there is a huge deficit in
infrastructure investment in Asian cities, particularly in environmental infrastructure, to the tune of
US $100 billion per annum (ADB, 2012). The following sub‐sections in this Section discuss the situ-
ation of population growth, land use change pattern, and urban environmental health in the selected
Southeast Asian countries, and underline the necessary policy implications with regard to managing
the nexus effectively for larger urban socio‐economic and environmental prosperity.

4.1  |  Population growth

High rates of population growth are a cause of concern for cities around the world. Managing popula-
tion growth is hence essential to maintain overall urban sustainability and ensure optimum social well-
being for each urban inhabitant. In October 2018, David Attenborough, a famed natural historian, made
 |
6       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

news when he said, “[i]n the long run, population growth has to come to an end” (BBC Newsnight,
2018; World Economic Forum, 2018; Population Matters, 2018). This underscores the fact that human
population on planet Earth in general and, in cities in particular, cannot grow incessantly. In 2015, with
a growth rate of 1.2%, the world population stood at 7.4 billion, which was only 4.4 billion in 1980
with a growth rate of 1.8% (United Nations, 2014). It is estimated that in 2080, the population of the
world would be 10.8 billion, with a reduced growth rate of 0.2% (World Bank, 2016).
South Asia is experiencing higher population growth than East Asia and the Pacific sub‐region
and the world; the population growth of South Asia was above 2%, 1.8%, and 1.3% correspondingly
in 1990, 2000, and 2015 (Figure 1). The population growth for entire East Asia and the Pacific was
nearly the same but much lower than the world. Presently, nearly half of the world population is living
in the cities, and by 2050, 66% of the world population will be living in the cities (UNDESA, 2014).
In 2000, 16% people of Cambodia, 42% in Indonesia, 62% in Malaysia, 48% in the Philippines, 100%
in Singapore, 31% in Thailand, and less than 30% in Vietnam, Myanmar, and Bangladesh lived in the
urban areas (ADB, 2017). In 2015, after 15 years, the population pressure increased rapidly in those
countries: 20.7% people in Cambodia, 53.7% in Indonesia, 74.3% in Malaysia, 48% in the Philippines,
100% in Singapore, 31% in Thailand, 33.9% in Vietnam, 29.2% in Myanmar, and 54.2% in Bangladesh
lived in urban areas (ADB, 2017). Limited availability of financial resources impedes the public expen-
diture in health care, education, electrification, housing, and social security in urban areas in most of
the Southeast Asian economies as well as in Bangladesh; this hampers the wellbeing of a majority of
rural and urban citizens. In 2015, Cambodia spent 1.5%, Malaysia spent 2.0%, Singapore spent 1.8%,
Thailand 1.2%, and the Philippines and Bangladesh spent less than 1% of their GDP in health care sec-
tor; this was relatively higher than 2010 (World Bank, 2016). For education, these figures in 2015 stood
at 5% of GDP in Malaysia, 3%–4% in the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, and 2% in Bangladesh.
In social security, these countries spend between 1% and 2% of their GDP (World Bank, 2016).

Ϯ͘ϱ
ϭϵϵϬ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϬϭϬ ϮϬϭϱ

ϭ͘ϱ

Ϭ͘ϱ

Ϭ
^ŽƵƚŚƐŝĂ ĂƐƚƐŝĂΘWĂĐŝĮĐ ĂƐƚƐŝĂŶΘWĂĐŝĮĐ tŽƌůĚ
;ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐŚŝŐŚ
ŝŶĐŽŵĞĐŽƵŶƚƌŝĞƐͿ

F I G U R E 1   Population growth in world and Asia‐Pacific sub‐regions

Source. World Bank (2016).
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
   7
|
Due to rural–urban migration and abject poverty, a large number of people live in the urban slums
the Southeast Asia region. Table 1 shows the urban poverty rate and percentage of people living in urban
slums. In Myanmar, Cambodia, and Bangladesh, over 40% of urban population lives in slums; these
figures range between 20% and 40% in Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
Urban poverty is found to be comparatively higher in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Lao PDR, which is
21.3%, 13%, and 10%, respectively. With 0.3% urban poverty  rate, Malaysia is ranked highest in poverty
reduction among these countries. Further, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand have moderate
poverty rates that lie between 3%–9%. It appears though Cambodia and Bangladesh both have the same
proportion of slum population, the poverty rate is over threefold higher in Bangladesh than Cambodia.
Both slum population and urban poverty percentages are nearly the same in Myanmar and Philippines. In
providing electricity to their urban areas, all the mentioned countries are doing relatively well (Table 1);
the access to electricity is 100% in Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam, Malaysia, and Singapore.
Except for Myanmar, access to electricity in urban areas is 94% or above in other countries.

4.2  |  Land use change

Growing urbanization leads to rapid changes in the land use pattern. The landscape has been changing
as economy is expanding and population is growing where less attention is given to the living environ-
ment. Figure 2 illustrates the land use change pattern in East and Southeast Asia from 2000 to 2010.
It appears that cities in China have undergone massive urban expansion compared to those in the
Southeast Asian countries. It also appears that the Southeast Asian urban areas that expanded during
2000–2010 included Manila, Ha Noi, and Jakarta. Spatial expansion of urban land use was extensive
in Manila, Jakarta, and Hanoi; this indicates high levels of land consumption and more decentralized
form of urbanization. In contrast, urban expansion in Kuala Lumpur, Tokyo, Seoul, and Bangkok
seem to portray a scattered pattern during this period.
In 2000, the total built‐up area in Dhaka, Jakarta, Kathmandu, Manila, Seoul, Tehran, Bamako, and
Nairobi was less than 10% of the total urban landscape (Figure 3a). By 2014, the total built‐up area
in Jakarta, Manila, Seoul, and Tehran increased by over 10% of the total urban landscape. Compared
to these, the total built‐up area in Bangkok, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur, and Taipei was above 10% of the

T A B L E 1   Slum population, access to electricity and urban poverty in Southeast Asian cities

Slum population, Access to electricity, Urban poverty,

Country 2014 (%) 2016 (%) 2010 (%)
Cambodia 55.1 100 6.4
Indonesia 21.8 100 8.3
Lao PDR 31.4 97.4 10.0
Myanmar 41.0 89.5 9.0
Philippines 38.3 96.9 13.0
Thailand 25.0 99.9 7.7
Viet Nam 27.2 100 3.8
Bangladesh 55.1 94.0 21.3
Malaysia – 100 0.3
Singapore – 100 –
Source. Data on slum population is sourced from UN‐Habitat (2016), and that for access to electricity, and urban poverty from the
World Bank (2016).
 |
8       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

F I G U R E 2   Land use change pattern in East and Southeast Asia, 2000–2010

Source. Schneider et al. (2015).

(a) dŽƚĂůďƵŝůƚͲƵƉсƵƌďĂŶĚĞƐŶƐĞнƵƌďĂŶƐƉĂƌƐĞ (b) WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨƚŽƚĂůďƵŝůƚͲƵƉ;ϮϬϬϬͲϮϬϭϰͿ

й ŽĨ ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ ;ϭϬϬ Ŭŵ dž ϭϬϬ ŬŵͿ

ϲϬ ϯϬϬ
ϱϬ ϮϱϬ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚ;йͿ

ϰϬ ϮϬϬ
ϯϬ ϭϱϬ
ϮϬ ϭϬϬ
ϭϬ ϱϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
ĂŶŐŬŽŬ

ŚĂŬĂ
,ĂŶŽŝ
:ĂŬĂƌƚĂ
ĞŝũŝŶŐ

<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ
DĂŶŝůĂ
<ĂƚŚŵĂŶĚƵ

^ĞŽƵů
dĂŝƉĞŝ
dĞŚƌĂŶ
ĂŵĂŬŽ
EĂŝƌŽďŝ

ĂŶŐŬŽŬ

ŚĂŬĂ

ĂŵĂŬŽ
,ĂŶŽŝ
:ĂŬĂƌƚĂ
<ĂƚŚŵĂŶĚƵ
<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ
DĂŶŝůĂ
ĞŝũŝŶŐ

^ĞŽƵů
dĂŝƉĞŝ
dĞŚƌĂŶ

EĂŝƌŽďŝ

dŽƚĂůďƵŝůƚͲƵƉϮϬϬϬ dŽƚĂůďƵŝůƚͲƵƉϮϬϭϰ

F I G U R E 3   (a–b) Change in Built‐up Area in Asian Cities, 2000–2014

Source. Murayama, Estoque, Subasinghe, Hou, and Gong (2015).

total urban landscape in 2000; this increased to more than 20% of the total urban landscape in 2014.
In Beijing, the total urban built‐up area increased from 33% in 2000 to 49% in 2014; this is relatively
higher among the above‐mentioned cities. Further, in 2014, among the Southeast Asian cities, Kuala
Lumpur had the highest built‐up area of 28% of its total urban landscape whilst Manila had the lowest
urban built‐up area (15.4%) of its total urban landscape. Further to land use change, Figure 3b shows
the increase in urban built‐up area of a few selected cities. The increase in built‐up area indicates not
only population increase but also the economic growth dynamics of an urban area. During 2000–2014,
the growth of built‐up area in Dhaka was 251.21%, which owes to the massive population growth
pressure. Dhaka’s urban spatial growth is very high compared to cities in other developing countries
in Southeast Asia, such as Ha Noi, Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila. Whilst Jakarta experienced highest
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
|
   9

80.49% increase of total built‐up among the Southeast Asian cities during 2000–2014, the increase in
built‐up area in other Southeast cities of this region ranged from 77.47% in Manila to 40.49% in Ha
Noi. What is most striking is that except Ha Noi, the built‐up area almost doubled in other Southeast
Asian cities (Figure 3b).

4.3  |  Urban environmental health

One of the major challenges for the current urbanization process is to manage its heavy dependence
on ecosystem services. Cities’ heavy dependence on ecosystem services results in the depletion of
natural resources, reduced ecosystem services flow, loss in biodiversity, and the growth in efforts
needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, whilst prioritizing public health and quality of life
(Arfanuzzaman, Mamnun, Islam, Dilshad, & Syed, 2016; Marshall, 2005; Science for Environment
Policy, 2015; WHO, 2016). A sustainable city can only be the one for which the inflow of material and
energy resources, and the outflow of wastes, do not exceed the capacity of the city’s surrounding envi-
ronment (Kennedy, Cuddihy, & Engel‐Yan, 2007). Table 2 lists a few important urban environmental
indicators of selected cities; it shows that Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok feature the highest
CO2 emission per capita measured at 7.4, 7.2, and 6.7 tonnes, respectively. Compared to these higher
figures, Dhaka has the lowest CO2 emission per capita of 0.63 tonnes; this confirms that its contribu-
tion to global warming is lowest among the set of cities compared here. With regard to the coverage
of advanced public transport (km2), Kuala Lumpur and Singapore rank highest with the figures of 0.27
and 0.21 km2, respectively. Other cities have negligible advanced public transport; further, Dhaka and
Hanoi have no such transport coverage.
The availability of green space per capita is highest in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur with figures
of 66.2 and 43.9 m2, respectively; in other urban centres, green space per capita is low, and in Dhaka it
is nearly zero. Table 2 further shows that Singapore is the only city that collected and disposed 100%
its solid waste; the waste collection figures stood at 95.2% for Hanoi, 76.9% for Manila, 62.9% for
Bangkok, 45.0% for Dhaka, and the lowest 35.0% for Jakarta. With regard to per capita water con-
sumption, Dhaka (108.0 L), Jakarta (77.6 L), and Hanoi (55.0 L) rank the lowest against the average
of 278 L but lies above the WHO minimum standard (50 L per capita/day). Other cities have over
300 L of water consumption per capita except Manila that has moderate water consumption of 154.8 L
per capita. Water system leakage is an important indicator of water resource management and water
supply system in a city. The statistics from the Asian Green City Index (Economist Intelligence Unit,
2011) shows that water system leakage was lowest in Singapore (4.6%), modest in Dhaka (26.0%),
and highest in Jakarta (50.2%). Kuala Lumpur (70.0%), Jakarta (67.0%), and Dhaka (61.0%) feature
moderate levels of access to sanitation, especially compared to Hanoi (40.0%) and Manila (12.0%).
Further, with regard to wastewater treatment, Dhaka, Bangkok, Hanoi, and Jakarta fair poorly with
dismal figures of 13.0%, 12.2%, 10.0%, and 1.0% respectively; these cities, along with Manila, would
do well to improve wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. Singapore, with 100% figures
for waste collection and disposal, sanitation, and wastewater treatment, provides a good example of
improved urban environmental management in Southeast Asia.

4.3.1  |  Environmental degradation in selected Southeast Asian cities and Dhaka

In Asia and the Pacific region, 32 out of 36 economies with available data have air pollution levels
exceeding the maximum recommended air pollution thresholds set by the World Health Organization
(ADB, 2017; Arfanuzzaman, 2016). The daily levels of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur
dioxide, and suspended particulate matter are alarmingly higher in Dhaka (Figure 4). Every day,
 |
10      

T A B L E 2   Environmental soundness indicators in different Southeast Asian cities

  Average Bangkok Hanoi Jakarta Kuala Lumpur Manila Singapore Dhaka

CO2 emission per capita (tons) 4.6 6.7 1.9 1.2 7.2 1.6 7.4 0.63
Advanced public transport 0.17 0.04 0.0 0.19 0.27 0.05 0.21 0.0
(km2
Green space per capita (m2) 38.6 3.3 11.2 2.3 43.9 4.5 66.2 0.03
Waste collected and disposed 82.8 62.9 95.2 35.0 57.5 76.9 100 45.0
(%)
Water consumption per capita 277.6 340.2 53.1 77.6 497.2 154.8 308.5 108.0
(litres)
Water system leakage (%) 22.2 35.0 45.0 50.2 37.0 35.9 4.6 26.0
Access to sanitation (%) 70.1 51.0 40.0 67.0 70.0 12.0 100 61.0
Wastewater treated (%) 59.9 12.2 10.0 1.0 N/A 21.0 100 13.0
Note. Average figure refers to the performance of a particular indicator in the East and South Asian region. An advanced public transport network, covering trams, light rail, subway, and BRT.
N/A = Data not available.
Source. Economist Intelligence Unit (2011); Data for Dhaka is sourced from Dhaka Water Supply & Sewerage Authority [DWASA] (2014), and World Bank (2018).
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
   11
|
Dhaka megacity discharges nearly 150 milligram per cubic metre (or µg/m3) of nitrogen dioxide,
500 µg/m3 of sulphur dioxide, and 1,500 µg/m3 of suspended particulate matter; such high level of
pollution of urban spaces and living environment has a severe impact on the health of city dwellers.
Compared to Dhaka, urban centres in Southeast Asia—such as Singapore, Bangkok, Hanoi, Jakarta,
Kuala Lumpur, and Manila––feature much lower levels of pollutants. It was recorded that in cities
other than Dhaka, the average daily levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and suspended par-
ticulate matter are at ug/m3 45, 40, and 100, respectively.

4.3.2  |  Environmental risk exposure, 2014

The ERE indicates the overall extent of risk of water and air pollution to human health. Higher ERE
signifies higher risk and vulnerability of human health to pollution and vice versa; it ranges between
the lowest figure of zero (“0”) and the highest figure of one (“1”). Bangladesh and Myanmar recorded
the uppermost ERE level in 2014, which was nearly twofold compared to most other Southeast Asian
countries (Figure 5). The lowest ERE level of 0.32 was measured for Malaysia indicating the lower
risk level in the urban area of water and air pollution to human health.
As evident from the data presented above, the ERE index, pollution levels, and most of the urban
sustainability indicators are worst in the Dhaka compared to selected Southeast Asian cities. Therefore,
we need to take a deeper look into the urban social‐ecological systems and environmental quality of
Dhaka in order to develop a more enhanced understanding. Table 3 shows the pollution level of three
major rivers that flow through/around Dhaka megacity against the standard set by the DoE under the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bangladesh. It appears that
except the pH level, all indicators of river health perform poorly, and their readings are far above the
DoE standard. The range of dissolved oxygen ranges from 0.45 to 3.8 milligrams per litre (mg/L) for
Turag, Buriganga, and Shitalakshya rivers. Further, the biological oxygen demand of these rivers lies
between 44 and 179 mg/L, which signifies the worst pollution situation and unsupportive ecosystem
conditions for the life under water.
This has happened due to the discharge of huge volumes of toxic waste, industrial effluents, and
solid waste into Turag, Buriganga, and Shitalakshya rivers. Every day, over 60,000 m3 of toxic waste

ϲϬϬ
ϭϲϬϬ
ϭϮϬ
ϱϬϬ ϭϰϬϬ
ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬϬ
ϰϬϬ
ϴϬ ϭϬϬϬ
ϯϬϬ ϴϬϬ
ϲϬ
ϮϬϬ ϲϬϬ
ϰϬ ϰϬϬ
ϭϬϬ
ϮϬ ϮϬϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ
ǀĞƌĂŐĞ
ĂŶŐŬŽŬ

ŚĂŬĂ
,ĂŶŽŝ
:ĂŬĂƌƚĂ

DĂŶŝůĂ
<ƵĂůĂůĂŵƉƵƌ

^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĐŝƚLJ

ǀĞƌĂŐĞ
ĂŶŐŬŽŬ

:ĂŬĂƌƚĂ
,ĂŶŽŝ

DĂŶŝůĂ
^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĐŝƚLJ
ŚĂŬĂ
<ƵĂůĂůĂŵƉƵƌ
ǀĞƌĂŐĞ
ĂŶŐŬŽŬ

:ĂŬĂƌƚĂ
,ĂŶŽŝ

<ƵĂůĂůĂŵƉƵƌ
DĂŶŝůĂ
^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĐŝƚLJ
ŚĂŬĂ

ĂŝůLJŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶĚŝŽdžŝĚĞůĞǀĞůƐ ĂŝůLJƐƵůƉŚƵƌĚŝŽdžŝĚĞůĞǀĞůƐ ĂŝůLJƐƵƐƉĞŶĚĞĚƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƚĞ

;ƵŐͬŵϯͿ ;ƵŐͬŵϯͿ ŵĂƩĞƌůĞǀĞůƐ;ƵŐͬŵϯͿ

F I G U R E 4   Air pollution level in different cities, 2014

Source. WHO (2014).
 |
12       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

ĂŶŐůĂĚĞƐŚ
Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϳϴ

Ϭ͘ϲ
DĂůĂLJƐŝĂ dŚĂŝůĂŶĚ
Ϭ͘ϯϮ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ

Ϭ͘Ϯ

^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ DLJĂŶŵĂƌ

Ϭ͘ϯϲ Ϭ͘ϳϲ

sŝĞƚEĂŵ WŚŝůŝƉƉŝŶĞƐ
Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ

F I G U R E 5   Environmental risk exposure in different Southeast Asian Countries and Bangladesh

Source. YCELP et al. (2014).

T A B L E 3   Water quality of three major rivers flowing through/around Dhaka megacity, 2012

Turag Buriganga Shitalakshya

Water quality
parameter DoE standard Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
pH 6–9 7.9 6.9–9.1 8 7.1–9.8 7.7 6.5–8.3
EC (µS/cm) 1,200 1807 790–2,850 1,209 830–1990 1,150 720–1920
TDS (mg/L) 2,100 1,003 650–1510 999 620–1,260 820 475–1,180
DO (mg/L) ≥4.5–8 1.2 0.45–3.2 1.7 0.45–3.5 2.1 0.6–3.8
BOD (mg/L) 50 110 56–179 93.7 41–151 86.7 44,146
COD (mg/L) 200 97.7 5–177 100 17–185 87 14–172
Note. pH = potential of Hydrogen; EC = electrical conductivity; TDS = total dissolved solids; DO = dissolved oxygen; BOD = bio-
logical oxygen demand; COD = chemical oxygen demand; µS/cm = microSiemens/cm; mg/L = milligrams per litre.
Source. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bangladesh.

and 7,000 tons of solid waste are dumped in the river basin by different industries and city dwellers.
The textiles industries of Dhaka megacity discharge nearly 60 million tonnes of waste annually, and
tanneries discharge 88 million tonnes of solid waste in these rivers, which severely pollute the water
resources and degrade river health to a great extent (Arfanuzzaman & Rahman, 2017). In addition,
human settlement development in the river basin is also destroying the riverine ecosystem in and
around Dhaka megacity.
Table 4 presents the levels of different pollutants considered harmful to public health and the envi-
ronment in three busy areas of Dhaka megacity: Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar, Firmgate, and Darus‐Salam. In
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
|
   13

January 2019, in all three areas, the concentration of sulphur dioxide (SO2) ranged between 2.64 and
16.8 parts per billion (ppb), and the concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) between 63.3 ppb and
141 ppb. The permissible or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO2 and NO2 is
140 ppb and 53 ppb, respectively. In all three areas, the SO2 level was far lower than the NAAQS stan-
dard, which indicates a satisfactory level of SO2 in the outdoor air; the lowest SO2 level was recorded
in Firmgate (2.64 ppb) compared to Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar (6.32 ppb) and Darus‐Salam (16.8 ppb).
Compared to NAAQS standard, the Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) level was exceedingly higher in the out-
door air in Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar, Firmgate, and Darus‐Salam; in Firmgate and Darus‐Salam, the NO2
level was nearly three times and two times higher than the NAAQS, respectively. NO2 is a harmful air
pollutant because it contributes to the formation of photochemical smog, which can have significant im-
pacts on human health especially by reducing immunity to lung infections. Besides, the levels of carbon
monoxide (CO) in Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar and Firmgate were found at 3.38 parts per billion (ppm) and
0.65 ppm. High levels of carbon monoxide are poisonous to human health. The natural concentration of
carbon monoxide in air is around 0.2 ppm, and that amount is safe to human beings. The recorded CO
for Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar and Firmgate was higher than the natural level but far below than the NAAQS.
The particulate matter (PM2.5) varies between 65 and 149 µm in these three locations of Dhaka meg-
acity. Here, PM2.5 indicates the atmospheric PM that has a diameter of less than 2.5  µm. As the PM2.5 is
tiny and light, it tends to stay longer in the air than other heavier particles. This increases the chances of
human beings and animals inhaling them into their bodies. Owing to their minute size, particles smaller
than 2.5 µm are able to bypass the nose and throat, and penetrate deep into the lungs; some of them may
even enter the circulatory system. Studies have found a close link between exposure to fine particles
and premature death from heart and lung disease. PM2.5 also causes chronic diseases, such as asthma,
heart attack, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems. The highest PM2.5 level was recorded in Darus‐
Salam (205 µg/m3) and lowest level in Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar (131 µg/m3), and both were much higher
than the acceptance level of NAAQS. In Dhaka megacity, except SO2 and CO, the NO2, and PM2.5 were
found at a perilously high level in different locations compared to the acceptance level.
The land use change map (Figure 6) of the Dhaka megacity shows that from 1989 to 1999 the
total built‐up area expanded twofold, which resulted in reduction of surface area for water bodies,
vegetation, and other open surface. After a decade, in 2009, the built‐up urban area replaced most of
the areas with water bodies and vegetation. This land use change situation clearly shows the haphaz-
ard, environmentally detrimental, and unsustainable urbanization pattern, which is like to result in
long‐term ecological disturbance in Dhaka megacity. If this type of land use pattern continues in the

T A B L E 4   Pollutants in the air at different locations of Dhaka City, January 2019

National Ambient Air

Pollutants Unit Quality Standard Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar Firmgate Darus‐Salam
Sulphur dioxide ppb 140 6.32 2.64 16.8
(SO2) 24 hr
Nitrogen dioxide ppb 53 63.3 141 93.2
(NO2) 24 hr
Carbon monoxide ppm 9 3.38 0.65 ‐
(CO) 8 hr
Particulate matter2.5 µg/m3 65 131 149 205
24 hr
Note. ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = milligram per cubic metre.
Source. Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bangladesh.
 |
14       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

F I G U R E 6   Land use change pattern in Dhaka City

Source. Ahmed et al. (2013).

present and next decade, no water body and vegetation area would be left in Bangladesh’s capital city.
In addition, Figure 7 illustrates the severity of groundwater depletion in different corners of Dhaka.
It appears that groundwater level went down by 75 m in the significant portion of central Dhaka; this
process has driven this area towards an ecologically critical situation characterized by potential water
scarcity. It is evident that nearly half of Dhaka megacity is now facing the groundwater depletion
problem; any further change in the groundwater level in this area—where groundwater level exists
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
|
   15

F I G U R E 7   Groundwater depletion in Dhaka City

Source. Arfanuzzaman and Rahman (2017).

between 60–75 m––can result in catastrophe and abrupt and destructive soil slide (Hoque, Hoque, &
Ahmed, 2007; Khan et al., 2016).

5  |   D IS C U S SION
This paper has presented data and statistics on population growth, land use change, and urban environ-
mental health, including environmental degradation in selected Southeast Asian cities and Dhaka, and
the ERE indices. All of this shows that the urbanization process in the region is taking place mostly in
unplanned and haphazard manner. With little concern for nature, life‐supporting ecological systems
and the environment, urban spatial growth continues unabated. The data surveyed and discussed in
this paper show that the current style of urbanization in Southeast Asia can best be called unsustain-
able. The various data and graphs indicate that the general wellbeing and welfare of the current and
 |
16       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

future generations is at risk. These findings from a number of cities provide local‐level evidence that
city‐based activities, in their own unique way, are contributing to breaching the planetary boundaries
that have been discussed by Rockström et al. (2009) and Steffen et al. (2015).
Findings here presented indicate that high population, urban‐centric economic growth and activi-
ties, and socio‐economic opportunities are the major drivers of rapid urbanization in Southeast Asia
in particular and in Asia more generally. Evidence from the previous decade (2000–2010) shows that
urban spatial growth was less expansive in certain cities, such as Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Tokyo,
compared to other Asian cities like Ha Noi, Jakarta, and Manila. To some extent, this points to higher
level of economic expansion and population growth taking place in some cities that are undergoing
transition towards higher economic growth and prosperity. Further, the findings show that urban spa-
tial growth is being more concentrated in larger cities of Southeast Asia, as the total built‐up increased
remarkably (over 60%) during 2000–2014 in most of these cities. Further, the total built‐up urban
area is considerably higher in Dhaka—compared to the larger Southeast Asian cities discussed here,
because of its high population density and limited urban space compared to growing demand for it.
Based on the findings, on one hand, it can be argued that the economically well‐off cities perform
poorly in relation to CO2 emissions and consumption of natural resources. For example, the econom-
ically richer Southeast Asian cities, such as Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, emit higher level of per
capita CO2 emissions, and featured higher per capita water consumption. On the contrary, the eco-
nomically less well‐off cities score better on these indicators. For instance, per capita water consump-
tion is much lower Southeast Asian cities, such as Hanoi, Jakarta, Manila, and Dhaka; this indicates
that the existing growth and development pathways of the richer cities in Southeast Asia—such as
Singapore and Kuala Lumpur––are less environment friendly and resource efficient.
On the other hand, it can be further argued that richer cities are able to provide better urban environ-
mental services. For instance, with regard to providing access to sanitation and wastewater treatment
services, Singapore is in top‐notch position among the Southeast Asian cities. Further, the question
arises why some cities, which are economically not‐so‐well‐off as Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, are
unable to provide improved urban environmental services? It goes without saying that the economi-
cally poorer or lesser well‐off cities would be unable to afford the costs of providing improved urban
environmental services, such as sanitation and wastewater treatment; this could be because such cities
are able to make comparatively lower levels of investments in urban environmental infrastructure
and related (modern) technological improvements. Further, as it has been argued elsewhere, Asian
countries feature poor implementation of urban environmental legislation, regulations and policies:
“All countries in the [Asia‐Pacific] region have environmental legislation and policies … but their en-
forcement in lesser developed countries is far from satisfactory, and polluters often go unpunished. In
many cities, local communities are unaware or dismissive of the regulations” (Dahiya, 2012b, p. S54).
Moreover, it is found that the ERE and pollution level in Dhaka is exceptionally higher compared to
other cities. The overall findings from the perspective of urban growth pattern, resource use, carrying
capacity, ecological sustainability, and public welfare suggests that Dhaka is an “environmentally
critical city”, among the others. For this reason, it can be stated about Dhaka—Bangladesh’s main
economic growth centre––that urbanization occurs here at the cost of environmental degradation and
massive pollution, which deserve immediate attention and abatement.
The findings in this paper underline the fact that the current urbanization pattern especially with
regard to population growth, land use changes, and urban environmental health tend to be unsustain-
able in the Southeast Asian region. Urban hotspots, such as the large cities studied here, are treated
as “economic growth centres” where environmental protection is far from satisfactory. The “Kuala
Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030”, made at the Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum, held
for the first time in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region in February 2018,
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
|
   17

seeks to facilitate governments, sub‐national, and local governments, and other stakeholders to attain
sustainable urban development. It provides for means of implementation, follow‐up, monitoring, and
reporting on the New Urban Agenda of this region. In support of the ASEAN Vision and the ASEAN
2025: Forging Ahead Together, the “Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030” focuses on future col-
laboration of cities and local governments. If the Southeast Asian countries intend to achieve sustain-
able urbanization as well as implement the New Urban Agenda (United Nations, 2017), they would
do well to change the environmentally harmful urban practices, reform their environmental policies,
improve their enforcement, and take necessary steps to ensure ecosystem sustainability with regard
to each issue related to urbanization. In this regard, as a proactive and forward‐looking policy, cities
should be treated as “living spaces”, and not only simply as “economic growth hubs.” For the well-
being of present and future generations, of all living beings on planet earth, the urbanization process
should be steered in a sustainable manner, with focus on protecting ecosystem health, managing popu-
lation growth, improving land use pattern as well as living environment. In order to make urbanization
process more sustainable, the Southeast Asian countries could extend and strengthen their mutual co-
operation, make strong(er) political commitments, and tackle the common urban environmental chal-
lenges together. Strategic and priority based collaboration and the development and implementation
of collaborative solutions could be a common gift with regard to shared urban prosperity, improved
social welfare, and enhanced environmental sustainability for not only the higher income cities of
Southeast Asia but also for the lesser developed cities in the region.

6  |  CO NC LUSION A N D R E COM M ENDATIONS

Continuing urbanization underpins more economic activity, which leads to a higher national income.
Historically, the relationship between urbanization and economic growth has been positive. As each
urban area plays the role of an economic growth centre, people move to such dynamic places to obtain
their share of economic growth. But when the population exceeds the magnitude of socio‐economic
prosperity and the carrying capacity of the urban environment is breached, sustainability in all dimen-
sions negatively affected. Hence, in order to obtain optimum benefits of the urbanization process, and
distribute the advantage of urban‐based economic growth equally among all residents, an integrated
and environment‐friendly urban planning is required that can address the various challenges of sus-
tainability. The Southeast Asian region is one the fastest growing regions from the perspective of
social development, and economic and population growth. Some countries of this region present an
example of a dynamic economy that are working towards achieving sustainability, including in urban
development.
As Southeast Asia moves towards economic integration, the advancement of sustainable urban
development among the ASEAN region and partner countries—such as Bangladesh––could boost
regional socio‐economic gains through strategic planning and management of population, land use
pattern, and environmental health. Sustainable urbanization can be one of the priority areas of robust
collaboration in this region. In order to enjoy the economic, social, and environmental benefits of
sustainable urban development in the Southeast Asian region, the following recommendations could
be considered: (a) Promote integrated and sustainable land use plan, which should last in the long run.
(b) In urban policies, and the urban planning and management process, climate change, future pop-
ulation pressure, natural resource depletion, environmental degradation, and the provision of urban
services must be considered with the aim of preserving and conserving the natural conditions of the
ecology and environment. (c) It is time to decentralize the urban growth centres to ensure the oppor-
tunity for all citizens from different corners of a country. This would reduce overall spatio‐economic
 |
18       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

and environmental burden on the largest or primate city. (d) Reduce corruption, and establish law and
order as well as good urban governance. (e) Identify common indicators that are good measures of
urban wellbeing and sustainability in the Southeast Asian region. (f) Environmentally critical cities
must reorient their policies to pursue sustainable urbanization pathways, so as to avoid past mishaps
that led to unsustainable resource utilization, environmental degradation, and poor public wellbeing.
(g) Engage the private sector in the sustainable urban development process and management. (h)
Promote policy dialogue, and exchanges of good experiences, modern technology, and promotion of
best practices among the Southeast Asian cities, and with cities in partner countries. (i) Establish a
knowledge sharing and management platform for researchers, policy makers, local governments, and
other relevant stakeholders, which would support learning from successful experiences, and capacity
development. (j) Set priority areas for international and regional co‐operation and joint investment in
sustainable urban development, including environmental protection and management, social welfare
and economic prosperity.

DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Thammasat University,
Thailand.

ENDNOTES
1
See: https://talanoadialogue.com.
2
See Miller (2019). Also see: Helliwell et al (2018) for some discussions on happiness and migration, including rural‐urban
migration.
3
Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030, available online at: http://wuf9.org/kuala-lumpur-declaration/.
4
ASEAN Vision 2020, available online at: https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-vision-2020.
5
ASEAN2025:ForgingAheadTogether,availableonlineat:https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-2025-forging-ahead-together.

ORCID
Md. Arfanuzzaman  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-4367
Bharat Dahiya  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5641-8244

R E F E R E NC E S
Ahmed, B., Kamruzzaman, M., Zhu, X., Rahman, M., & Choi, K. (2013). Simulating land cover changes and their
impacts on land surface temperature in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Remote Sensing, 5(11), 5969–5998. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs5115969
Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. (2009). Location strategies for agglomeration economies, Pittsburgh, PA: AEA Publications.
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D., & Blei, A. (2011). Making room for a planet of cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy.
Arfanuzzaman, M. (2016). Impact of CO2 emission, per capita income and HDI on environmental performance index:
Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. International Journal of Green Economics, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.0.5.224/
IJGE.2016.10002856
Arfanuzzaman, M., Mamnun, N., Islam, M. S., Dilshad, T., & Syed, M. A. (2016). Evaluation of adaptation practices
in the agriculture sector of Bangladesh: An ecosystem based assessment. Climate, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/
cli4010011
ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA   
   19
|
Arfanuzzaman, M., & Rahman, A. A. (2017). Sustainable water demand management in the face of rapid urbanization
and ground water depletion for the social‐ecological resilience building. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10,
9–22. https://10.10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.005
Asian Development Bank. (2012). Urban development series: Green cities. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Author.
Asian Development Bank. (2014). Key indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Author.
Asian Development Bank (2015). Key indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Author.
Asian Development Bank (2016). Key indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Author.
Asian Development Bank. (2017). Statistical database. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Author. Retrieved from https://
sdbs.adb.org/sdbs/index.jsp
BBC Newsnight. (2018). Sir David Attenborough: ‘Population growth has to come to an end’. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.
com/news/av/science-environment-45741482/sir-david-attenborough-population-growth-has-to-come-to-an-end
Corcoran, E. C., Nellemann, C., Baker, E., Bos, R., Osborn, D., & Savelli, H. (2010). Sick water? The central role of
wastewater management in sustainable development. A rapid response assessment. United 260 Green Cities Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), UN‐HABITAT, GRID‐Arendal, Norway.
Dahiya, B. (2012a). 21st century Asian cities: Unique transformation, unprecedented challenges. Global Asia, 7, No. 1
(Spring), 96–104.
Dahiya, B. (2012b). Asian cities in the 21st century. East Asia Forum, Australian National University. Retrieved from
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/26/asian-cities-in-the-21st-century/
Dahiya, B. (2012c). Cities in Asia, 2012: Demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities, 29,
S44–S61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.013
Dahiya, B. (2014). Southeast Asia and sustainable urbanization. Global Asia, 9(3), 84–91.
Dahiya, B. (2015). How will the AEC affect ASEAN Urbanisation? East Asia Forum, Australian National University.
Retrieved from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/11/27/how-will-the-aec-affect-asean-urbanisation/
Dahiya, B. (2016). ASEAN economic integration and sustainable urbanization. Journal of Urban Culture Research, 12,
8–14. https://doi.org/10.14456/jucr.2016.10
Dhaka Water Supply & Sewerage Authority. (2014). Annual report. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Karwan Bazar.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011). Asian Green City Index: Assessing the environmental performance of Asia’s major
cities. Munich, Germany: Siemens AG.
Follman, A. (2015). Urban mega‐projects for a ‘World‐Class’ riverfront—The interplay of informality, flexibility and
exceptionality along the Yamuna in Delhi, India. Habitat International, 45(3), 213–222.
Gadenne, L., & Singhal, M. (2013). Decentralization in Developing Economies. Annual Review of Economics, 3,
581–604. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19402
George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Haase, D., Guneralp, B., Dahiya, B., Bai, X., & Elmqvist, T. (2018). Global urbanization: Perspectives and trends. In
T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero‐Lankao, D.
Simon, & M. Watkins (Eds.) Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 19–44). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316647554.003
Hammer, S., Kamal‐Chaoui, L., Robert, A., & Plouin, M. (2011). Cities and green growth: A conceptual framework
(OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2011/08). OECD Publishing, Paris.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2018). World happiness report 2018. New York, NY: Sustainable Development
Solutions Network.
Hoque, M. A., Hoque, M. M., & Ahmed, K. M. (2007). Declining groundwater level and aquifer dewatering in Dhaka
metropolitan area, Bangladesh: Causes and quantification. Hydrogeology Journal, 15, 1523–1534. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10040-007-0226-5
Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental Pollution, 151, 362–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel‐Yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
11(2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/jie.2007.1107
Khan, M. R., Koneshloo, M., Knappett, P. S. K., Ahmed, K. M., Bostick, B. C., Mailloux, B. J., … Michael, H. A.
(2016). Megacity pumping and preferential flow threaten groundwater quality. Nature Communications, 7, 12833.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12833
Marshall, J. (2005). Megacity, mega mess…. Nature, 437, 312–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/437312a
 |
20       ARFANUZZAMAN and DAHIYA

Population Matters. (2018). Sir David Attenborough: We must act on population. Retrieved from https://populationmat-
ters.org/news/2018/10/05/sir-david-attenborough-we-must-act-population
Miller, Henry S. (2019). Why happiness matters. Creations Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.creationsmagazine.
com/articles/C156/Miller.html
Murayama, Y., Estoque, R. C., Subasinghe, S., Hou, H., & Gong, H. (2015). Land‐use/land‐cover changes in major
Asian and African Cities (Vol. 92). Annual report on the multi use social and economic data bank. Tsukuba:
University of Tsukuba.
Parilla, J., Leal, J. T., Berube, A., & Ran, T. (2015). Global MetroMonitor 2014: An uncertain recovery. Brookings:
The Brookings Institution.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E., … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary bound-
aries:exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.
Schneider, A., Mertes, C. m., Tatem, A. j., Tan, B., Sulla‐Menashe, D., Graves, S. j., … Dastur, A. (2015). A new
urban landscape in East‐Southeast Asia, 2000–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 10(3), 2000–2010. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034002
Science for Environment Policy. (2015). Indicators for sustainable cities. In‐depth Report 12. Produced for the European
Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol, UK.
Sen, A., & Nagendra, H. (2019). Mumbai’s blinkered vision of development: Sacrificing ecology for infrastructure.
Economic and Political Weekly, 54(9), 20–23.
Steffen, W. R., Katherine, R., Johan, C., Sarah, E. F., Ingo, B., Elena, M. B., … Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Toly, N., & Tabory, S. (2016). 100 top economies: Urban influence and the position of cities in an evolving world order
the changing metabolism of cities. Chicago, IL: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
UN‐Habitat. (2009). Global report on human settlements 2009: Planning sustainable cities. London, UK: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat. (2010). Annual Report 2010. Nairobi: Kenya.
UN‐Habitat. (2012). Sustainable urbanization in Asia: A sourcebook for local governments. Kenya: Author.
UN‐Habitat. (2016). World cities report 2016 – Urbanization and development: Emerging futures. Nairobi, Kenya:
Author.
UN‐Habitat and UN‐ESCAP. (2010). The state of Asian cities 2010/11. Fukuoka, Japan: Author.
United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. New York, NY: Author.
United Nations. (2017). The new urban agenda, A/RES/71/256. New York, NY: Habitat III and United Nations.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision.
New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
World Bank. (2015a). East Asia’s Changing urban landscape: Measuring a decade of spatial growth. Urban develop-
ment. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21159
World Bank. (2015b). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2016). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2018). Open data portal. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/
World Economic Forum. (2018). David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/david-attenborough-warns-planet-cant-cope-with-overpopulation/
World Health Organization. (2016). Comparison of cities using the Urban Health Index: An analysis of demographic
and health survey data from 2003–2013. Geneva: Author
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information
Network, Columbia University, and World Economic Forum. (2014). 2014 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).
Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H4416V05
Yuen, B., & Kong, L. (2009). Climate change and urban planning in Southeast Asia. Cities and Climate Change, 2,
1–12.

How to cite this article: Arfanuzzaman M, Dahiya B. Sustainable urbanization in Southeast

Asia and beyond: Challenges of population growth, land use change, and environmental
health. Growth and Change. 2019;00:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12297