Building Sustainable Urban Futures: Inclusion and Action for Resilient Cities

How can cities achieve sustainable development while responding to the growing challenges of climate change, economic development, and social inequality? In this exclusive interview, Associate Professor Wijitbusaba Marome of the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University and director
of The Urban Futures & Policy Research Unit, shares her perspectives on the role of research and urban policy in shaping Thailand’s sustainable urban future. Drawing on her work with the Research Unit in Urban Future and Policy, she highlights four essential dimensions of effective urban policy: evidence-based information, social acceptance, cost-effectiveness, and implementation. Together, these dimensions provide a framework for understanding how cities can move beyond policy formulation towards practical and sustainable transformation.

SDSN Thailand : As a leader in urban development policies, what do you think is your crucial role in the development of sustainability in Thailand?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : My department is the Research Unit in Urban Future and Policy, or in full, the Thammasat University Research Unit in Urban Future and Policy. We are under Thammasat University. I personally teach at the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning. Thammasat aims for its faculty members to have a clear role in serving society, so there is a policy encouraging professors to establish research units.

When it comes to our role, the first thing we considered when setting up was that we didn’t want to duplicate existing work. We had to look at where the gaps are in society, especially in Thai society, because our work must serve Thailand first. Of course, serving Thailand in urban matters means it’s not just about Thailand; cities are inherently connected internationally in every aspect of development. So, we have to link with both society and the global context.

In terms of urban development in Thailand, there are mainly two academic roles: analysis and research. The first is in urban planning, which involves land use planning—essentially, responding to the need for comprehensive plans and various types of plans under urban planning laws and policies. The second common area is urban design at the project level—how the city will look, how development and construction will proceed according to local or provincial theories and policies.

However, what is often missing in Thailand’s urban development is the overall perspective and the formulation of policies that consider where cities are heading in the future. Are we heading toward new problems? The first two approaches tend to focus on the present and may not anticipate future challenges or sustainability issues. That’s where our unit, Urban Future, comes in to fill this gap, which is crucial both socially and internationally. We focus on policy work, filling that gap.

Urban policy development is not straightforward; it poses challenges in every aspect of our role. First, there must be clear evidence to inform policy decisions—it can’t just be one person’s opinion. This is where the technical aspect comes in: we need enough data to determine the direction from past to present, and to forecast the future—what challenges our cities might face, what sustainability means, and which areas we should address. All of this requires data, so our academic role is to produce evidence-based policy.

Second, for a policy to lead to sustainable urban development, it must gain social acceptance. It’s not enough to say, “The data says this, so we must do that”—that’s rarely feasible in practice. We need buy-in from society, so we have to engage with various stakeholders, whether by area or by issue, regardless of their decision-making level.

Third, how do we know if it’s worthwhile to develop in a certain direction? This is a big issue because it concerns the future. Urban development often doesn’t consider all aspects of cost-effectiveness. For example, building new roads may ease traffic, but have we considered if we could build better roads that are also environmentally friendly, support public transit, or use renewable energy? There are many stages to consider, so we have to think about these trade-offs.

Finally, the last point—which is always relevant—is whether policies can actually be implemented. Laws, regulations, and authority—who will do what? Urban issues are never the responsibility of just one agency. For example, in planning, the Department of Public Works may oversee certain aspects in detail. We don’t replace them; we fill gaps by creating policies that use their planning tools and see how they can be implemented. We look at the big picture through the first three steps, and then, in the fourth step, how to implement: where does the funding come from, who will do it, is it legal? Our research unit also works to unlock these issues for agencies, especially government agencies.

So, these are the four main areas—not just our mandate, but what I see as the roles in urban policy creation. Making urban policy isn’t easy or a solo effort; there are at least four areas where we fill the gaps.

SDSN Thailand : What strategies do you believe are essential for integrating sustainability into your mission as well as over university operations?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : The most important strategy, I think, is implementation: who will actually carry it out, where will the funding come from, and are there legal or regulatory obstacles? This is the bitter pill for everyone. There are experts in each area—evidence-based work, social acceptance, and cost-effectiveness—but when it comes to implementation, you have to look at the big picture. You’re forced to see the overall picture. In fact, to reach the fourth aspect—implementation—you have to consider the big picture from the start: whose data is being used, what are the roles, and is it credible?

Finally, what often prevents us from seeing real urban development in practice is this: most people see that we have this and that, but when it comes to actual implementation, nothing really happens. The fourth aspect is implementation. Now, I don’t have the money or the authority.

Making policy is difficult—yes, it’s hard, not easy at all. It’s even more challenging than other technical work because, at the very least, it has to address four aspects: being evidence-based, gaining social acceptance, ensuring cost-effectiveness, and actual implementation. Any policy—whether it’s water policy, urban development policy, or policies to reduce inequality—is tough. I’ve found that, at the very least, there are these four components, and I see those as the areas where our research work gets involved.

It depends on the project—some projects require a lot of data, some move directly to implementation, some focus on trade-offs, and others look at social acceptance or cost-effectiveness. It varies.

SDSN Thailand : What are some of the most impactful research projects or tools developed by Urban Environmental Planning and Development at Thammasat University that promote sustainability?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : Actually, this is something we’re already doing. I feel that it’s a job that really covers all four aspects: this project is evidence-based, has already gained social acceptance, is cost-effective, and is being implemented.

Sometimes people see urban policy as just a slogan. If it were that easy, that would be great, but policy has its own technicalities. Many people think policy isn’t a big deal, but those who work in the field know that policy is extremely difficult—the hardest part, really.

The project I consider to be significant and one that has had a major impact on society is one where we cover all four aspects. It’s a large-scale project, and the one we are currently working on is called the Urban Act project, which stands for Urban Climate Action Follow Carbon and Resilient City. The goal is to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in this case, we’re achieving six SDGs: 1, 11, 13, as well as SDGs 7, 9, and 17. SDG 7 is about clean energy, 9 is about infrastructure, and 17 is about partnership, and we have international partners as well.

As for the agencies involved, we have the Ministry of Interior, the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning, the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, and the Meteorological Department. In fact, there are four ministries involved. The province we’re working in is Phuket, and we also have UNESCAP involved. It’s a regional project, including China and India, but my focus is on Phuket—because other places do things differently. So, that’s the SDG part.

SDSN Thailand : In your opinion, how effectively is your department aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and can you provide examples of specific initiatives or projects that directly contribute to achieving these goals?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : Creating evidence-based data is very important for the issues we work on, which are making cities low-carbon and resilient—that is, able to adapt to climate change, recover quickly, and develop sustainably. This relates to the six SDGs I mentioned earlier.

When we talk about evidence-based data here, we collect comprehensive information. First, we look at the climate change risks the city will face, such as flooding, drought, heat, and greenhouse gas reduction targets. We consider both adaptation and mitigation. The challenge with evidence-based data is that each aspect has different goals. For mitigation, we already have Thailand’s greenhouse gas emission targets: aiming for net zero by 2050 and carbon neutrality by 2570 (Buddhist calendar), or similar targets. Then the question is, what should provinces do?

Second, adaptation is more difficult because it doesn’t have a clear target like mitigation, which is measured by a percentage reduction in CO2 emissions leading to low carbon. Adaptation means managing the city to reduce risks—that is, reducing the city’s vulnerability to hazards such as flooding, drought, and heat caused by climate change. So, we need to gather data from every angle.

In evidence-based work, we must also project into the future. We need to know the baseline—what the current situation is regarding making the city low carbon. For example, we look at the transportation sector because we work with the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning under the Ministry of Transport. We focus on low carbon in transportation.

For urban adaptation to reduce risks of flooding, drought, and heat, we also look at transportation. We examine urban development by analyzing past and present land use within the city to understand what risks it has faced. Looking ahead, we consider two future scenarios to see how the city might face risks of flooding, drought, and heat.

Regarding transportation, we explore how to achieve low carbon by transitioning vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs) and shifting energy use to renewable sources, estimating how much emissions can be reduced. Each of these involves different time frames, sectors, scales, and calculation methods.

Therefore, we produce clear data. Our role is to create scenario-based data that illustrates the city’s future risks and how to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Overall, regarding the four issues—flooding, drought, heat, and greenhouse gas reduction—we need to gather data and create a comprehensive picture of the entire city. This evidence-based approach is very important. We look at scenarios.

Regarding social acceptance, our society is not only at the provincial level like Phuket. There are also central agencies from four ministries, and that doesn’t even include international organizations like the UN. These four ministries have different missions, so we need to look at their main responsibilities and see how they align. We connect the evidence to show how they can help push the city toward sustainability in terms of low carbon and resilience. We also need to understand their policies, master plans, and projects they have in hand because ultimately, they are the implementers. This integration happens at the central agency level.

At the local agency level, it’s even harder because local agencies don’t have as broad a view as central agencies. They might not be aware of all the policies related to their area. So, our job is to connect the dots for them—to show how sustainable development relates to their policies. Usually, they are already doing things, but in ways they understand. When we talk about localizing sustainability and the SDGs, they might say, “A sustainable city means having public parks.” That’s not wrong, but it can be much more than that. It can be done in dimensions that interest them, like building roads, which can also contribute to the SDGs.

I see SDGs not as something separate to do, but as something they are already doing that we expand to fit a framework that is friendlier to society and the environment in the future. So, we tell them, “Okay, the policies you already have—building roads, reservoirs, developing new areas—we can link these to the SDGs.” Central agencies see all the fragmented policies that each organization is responsible for, and we provide the connections. Local agencies then see how their projects contribute to the bigger picture. This is immediately beneficial because they might not realize that just expanding a road and adding more green space along it already fits into the SDGs framework. This connection helps them meet national and international SDG goals, not just by creating public spaces.

This is how social acceptance works.

At the community scale, the small players who are not yet part of formal decision-making—the central and local agencies are in formal decision-making but may not see the connections across multiple policies that require a big-picture view. At the grassroots level, acceptance means something else.

People at the community level might not see climate change or low carbon resilience as important in their daily lives—they focus on their livelihoods, which is understandable. We have to connect the dots for them: if they do this, their livelihoods will improve. Sustainable social development isn’t just about gathering everyone in a room and voting; it’s about understanding how policies connect across scales and how they benefit each agency and sector.

One of the key points I emphasize is evidence. We know what data fits whom and who needs to exchange information with whom. This leads to holistic development.

Next is trade-offs—how to make sustainability worthwhile in the long term. It’s not just about the villagers; local people also want quick results, which is understandable. They might see long-term sustainability as a pipe dream if they don’t understand it. So, sustainability can feel like a “poor child” that has to be pushed onto the villagers. They are already doing things but may not be able to connect the dots.

Trade-offs are crucial because, say, we know the evidence and the areas that will be affected, and how they align with international targets. Then comes acceptance—formal and informal decision-making—and policy alignment with what people want. After that, trade-offs must be considered.

When looking at the big picture, it’s hard to please everyone. Some projects might be accepted by the villagers but may not lead to the future we want—sustainability or climate change goals. Without seeing the big picture, there’s no exchange of ideas.

For example, flooding: many government agencies are responsible for this and can handle it in much more detail than our team. But they might not see the big picture or trade-offs—like if we stop flooding in one area, does it increase flooding elsewhere? This isn’t their fault; it’s because the city is expanding, people move out, and other factors like land prices make living in the city center expensive, pushing people to suburbs where infrastructure investment is not a priority.

If we don’t consider trade-offs from the start and see the big picture, development will have winners and losers. We end up chasing problems—building flood barriers after floods happen—but it’s not sustainable. Unlike some other countries that consider trade-offs from the beginning.

Trade-offs mean discussing upfront: “This area will have more drainage, this area will dry faster,” etc. Academics connect these dots, but the detailed knowledge lies with relevant government agencies, local authorities, or private sectors. We try to link these perspectives: “You gain this, but you lose that; you gain here, but lose there,” and provide conditions in economic and social terms—not just money, but investments that may not have immediate visible results.

For example, raising roads to avoid floods or immediate use of electric trains and EVs, which not everyone can access, but there are shared benefits—better livability, more shade, energy savings, less traffic congestion. People need to see this bigger picture.

Trade-offs mean you might not eliminate flooding 100%, but you gain other benefits. Or you avoid flooding 100%, but you must invest and adapt. The trade-offs must be understood in terms of social and economic cost-effectiveness.

SDSN Thailand : Could you elaborate on the importance of involving local communities in building urban resilience thus enhancing urban sustainability in rapidly growing Thai cities?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : We localize the SDGs, resilience, and low carbon strategies down to the neighborhood level. This means looking at smaller, more detailed areas and localizing the strategies accordingly. The life strategies have to be adapted to the local context. For example, SCG’s low carbon initiatives also need to be tailored to the specific context.

Besides gaining social acceptance, it’s important to understand that communities don’t see climate change as a life goal. They focus on their daily living conditions. Even ordinary people think this way. We have to recognize that they are already adapting, but it’s a gradual process. They may not see the future clearly or realize they have to adapt quickly. So, working at the community level means understanding what adaptations they are already making and, importantly, how we can support and strengthen those adaptations to be effective under potentially more severe climate change in the future.

For example, if I build a house, I might raise it on stilts because I know roughly how high floods can get and how strong the water can be. I might store water in jars or tanks. Speaking in everyday terms: “I’ll check my water supply, I need to save money, and not spend too much on outside purchases right now.”

If I were a hotel owner, I might think, “I need to store water now, and during peak season, I’ll charge higher room rates to recover costs.” But if droughts last longer or floods get worse, the hotel might have to close. For small hotels, it’s even harder—unless you’re a five-star global chain. So, we have to make sure that solutions are sustainable. If flooding happens frequently, tourists won’t come. Tourism is a business sector very sensitive to climate change.

Therefore, we have to work with them so they understand. For example, regarding low carbon, some six-star hotels in Phuket say, “How much can we earn per night? We don’t want solar cells because they look ugly.” They say, “If we install solar panels like that, how can we sell rooms for 50,000 baht a night? We have to embed them into the walls. The technology has to be advanced enough so it doesn’t look unattractive.” It’s not like in other countries where solar cells are integrated into the building’s skin. We need that kind of innovation.

Here, solar panels are still just stuck on rooftops. If a disaster happens and the solar panels collapse, that’s a problem. Cities are about more than just installing solar panels, but they resist changes like this. If we just say, “Hey, install solar cells!” without considering their adaptation needs, it won’t work.

At the business level, it’s also about green spaces and other values that have business benefits. Energy reduction has to be broader than just solar panels because solar cells are not a one-size-fits-all solution.

SDSN Thailand : What are the challenges in the work you do?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : The challenges we face come from both personal and academic perspectives. In the Urban Act project, we are doing in Phuket, regarding implementation, we work with four ministries, local sectors, and the community. When it comes to actual implementation, we have to look at the regulations and laws of each agency. We examine who is working on low carbon and resilience in Phuket under existing laws, without needing to propose new legislation immediately. We break it down to see which agency is responsible under what regulations, and if something can’t be done, we help unlock the issue by identifying who needs to be talked to or whether additional measures are needed—such as urban planning measures, financial incentives, or legal measures. This is a very important part of the work.

The second part is about funding. Regarding climate change, there are various global climate funds. International organizations play a role here and have experience knowing which countries or cities can apply. Currently, the global community is discussing financial mechanisms. What we have done in steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 supports the creation of proposals so that local governments or relevant agencies can apply for international funding. Of course, some funding may also come from Thailand’s national budget. We have to explain the pathways clearly.

Personally, the main challenge I see is sustainability. Sustainability is essential in our work, but people still see it as a distant issue. Because they see it as distant, they think they don’t have to do anything; they leave it to government agencies and just follow along. However, not everyone thinks this way. Some business sectors in the city recognize that sustainability is not distant anymore. This is the challenge I see—they acknowledge it must be done, but there is no clear government policy. They wonder if their efforts will actually work.

When government policies are unclear, the private sector doesn’t know if their efforts will be worthwhile. They hesitate to create measures within their organizations that align with government goals. This is especially true for climate change.

But mainly, people still see sustainability as a distant issue. So, we have to connect the dots. The challenge is how to integrate more than one agency because the private sector can already do their part, but urban issues require integration. Therefore, creating dialogue, communication, and having data that everyone accepts is very difficult. When working on this, I spend most of my time on this part because we have to have a clear picture before talking to others. Otherwise, everyone just works separately, and there’s no coordination. We have to connect them.

SDSN Thailand : Looking ahead, what do you envision as the future of urban development in Thailand, particularly in balancing growth with sustainability and inclusivity?

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wijitbusaba : If we go back to those four aspects—evidence-based information, social acceptance, implementation, and cost-effectiveness—of course, implementation itself is difficult. But the hardest part is social acceptance. Sustainability doesn’t have a single formula. When we envision it, the word “people” has a broad meaning. It’s not just about vulnerable groups; it’s about everyone living well. So, it’s a broad concept that touches on both the economy and the environment.

When we talk about climate change, we’re not just talking about the environment. We always emphasize that people have to adapt and accept it. So, envisioning means putting people at the center of the problem. In the urban sector, there are many stakeholders—businesses, the economy, and vulnerable groups. How can we achieve acceptance across these sectors in the smaller urban context? To balance growth and create sustainable urban development, we have to focus on people.

For example, the business sector might say it’s okay to have a three-month water shortage. Taking the climate change project I’m working on in Phuket as an example: if hotels lack water for three months, it might be okay because during peak season, hotels can still break even. The business sector might have the money to buy water from outside Phuket, buy tap water, or convert seawater to freshwater—they know it’s cost-effective. But what about the people? Their expenses rise, and their debt increases.

So, if we don’t put the social sector at the center and ask whether the sustainability concept is truly feasible for each sector, I think it won’t be sustainable. It will just be a concept that can’t be fully realized. For example, converting seawater to freshwater is somewhat sustainable, but is it really for the city? That’s questionable because it serves the business sector, but is it for the city as a whole? Probably not.

We also can’t focus only on vulnerable groups because the city is an economic driver. Economic development must consider the business sector as well. Our city can’t be sustainable if we just tell everyone to live in traditional stilt houses. For ordinary people like us, living in a traditional stilt house would probably cost at least 100 million baht.

The city is the engine of growth. In other countries that are leaders in sustainability, they don’t expect people to live in huts. They invest in clear development, and there are people who can pay for it. But the issue is that our investments don’t serve the public good—they don’t fully consider all social sectors.