SEE2204

Principle of Sustainability
Semester B 2020-21
9:00-11:50, Monday

Lecture-12: Quality of life and pro-

environmental behavior: translating
environmental studies into everyday life
!DONG Liang (董亮）
School of Energy and Environment,
and Department of Public Policy
City University of Hong Kong
liadong@cityu.edu.hk

1
Contents

• Quality of Life (QOL) and Sustainable urban planning---

sustainability issues in urban planning
• Pro-environmental behavior
• Interpretation on ASM 5 and 6: good examples
• Q&A for exam

2
Quality of Life (QOL) and Sustainable
urban planning

3
Review: Built environment and livability

•Health
•Employment
•Income
•Education
•Housing
Livability •Leisure
•Mobility
Resource •Community
Input
Desired outputs
•Land
Process
•Water
•Food •Construction activities
•Energy •Transport system Waste
•Construction materials •Economic system
•Other resources
Outputs
•Social system
•Solid waste
•Liquid waste
•Air pollutants
•Heat
•Noise Un-Desired outputs
4
Review: Transport Strategy-Techno/Policy Instruments
Strategy
Avoid Shift Improve
Reduce emissions per
Reduce traffic demand Reduce emissions per unit
kilometer
transported
Instruments

• LEV, EV
• Pedestrian • Integrated Public Transport
• Alternative Energy
Technology • Bicycle System
• Advanced Infra- Tech
• Transit • Highly Competitive Railway
• Logistic Efficiency

• TDM • Bus/Tram Priorities • Emission Standard

Regulation • Parking Regulation • Non-MT • Top Runner Program
• Compact/Mix Land Use • Smarter Modal Evolution • Eco-Drive

• ICT • Knowledgebase
• Telework • ITS
Information • Awareness Campaign
• Smart Choices for Workplace • Labeling of Vehicle
and Schools Performance

• Fuel Tax
• Fuel Tax
• Road Pricing • Fuel Tax
Economic • Road Pricing
• Car Charge / Fee • LEV Preferential Tax
• Car Charge / Fee
• Location Subsidy
5
Incorporate sustainable urban mobility
into urban planning: Transit oriented
development (TOD)

6
How to Build a City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6v5byyCyW4

7
8
Example: The Roman settlement of Londinium, c. AD 200, which
developed into the modern metropolis of London

9
Better urban planning for better urban mobility
e.g., traffic jam in cities, some behind and in-depth thinking

Osaka Shanghai

a b

San Francisco Chicago

10
c d
What Is TOD?
以公共交通為導向的開發
• TOD is a synergism between land use and transit :
① Compact Mixture of Uses;
② Pedestrian Friendly and Walkable; and
③ Provides access to a full range of transportation options.
Benefits of TOD

• Increase transit ridership and reduce number of automobile trips generated;

• Improve air quality;
• Provide opportunities for neighborhood connections;
• Increase sense of community;
• Reduce household fuel costs associated with heavy auto use;
• Promote attractive, safe, walkable mixed-use neighborhoods;
• Increase value and income for property owners (increase of land value).
TOD along Rail
Corridor, Kowloon
Station, Hong Kong

• 90% of trips are made by

public transport in Hong
Kong as car ownership is
very low.
• Railway is backbone of
passenger transport
system.
• TOD = Rail + Property
Development Model

13
• Rail + Property
(R+P) Design
Concept

• Example: Osaka,
Japan

1
4
15
Quality of life

16
Quality of life (QoL)

• Life is lived privately, publicly and secretly.

• The lives we lead reflect the choices we make within the bounds of
constraints and information.
• Our genes and income contribute to the opportunities we have.
• Our families, community and place of birth all influence our views about
what is important in defining a quality life.
• Our individual and collective memories and histories play major roles in
determining our opinions as to the quality of our lives.

Quality of life is rather subjective indicator

17
Scale and appropriateness of scale
Quality of life (QoL) indicators

• QoL (Quality of Life) can be recognized as general well-being and happiness of

individuals and societies
• Multiplying the objective indicators with the weights of the indicators reflecting the
values of local residents, and the total score of the quality of life in the area is obtained.

𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒（QoL） = / 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠×𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡（𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠）

Indicator; economy, life Indicator: env Indicator: disaster protection

Economy & Culture Comfort & Environment Safe & Relief

Accessibility of:
• Education and cultural
facilities;
• Health and medical facilities;
• Shopping and service
facilities;
• Quality of living space
(housing)
• Comfort of surrounding
natural environment
• Local environmental load
(noise, heat, etc.)
• Risk of disasters such as
earthquakes and floods
• Risk of encountering a traffic
accident
• Risk of encountering a crime
19
Socio-economic and environmental issues

Socioeconomic Environmental
• Spatial mismatch of employment • Noise
• Job opportunities • Pollution
• Social polarisation, exclusion • Water quality
• Community cohesion • Loss of open space
• Costs of infrastructure provision • Congestion
• Infrastructure accessibility
• Opportunity
 【Goal】 Higher ＱＯＬ

Economy Ecology

A. Economic B. Living & Cultural D. Safety E. Burden on

C. Amenity
Opportunity Opportunity & Security Environment
• Opportunity for • Service • Housing • Risk of Natural • Burden from
• District disaster Industry
Income • Education/Culture
Landscape • Risk of Building / • Burden from
• Accessibility to • Health/Medical Facility disaster Domestic
• Nature of Region
Agglomeration of Care • Risk of Chemical • Burden from
• Identity of
Industries/Populatio Region Pollution Transport
• Shopping/Service
n • Comfortability / • Risk of Traffic • Heat Island
• Amusement/Travel Punctuality of Accident • Noise
travel • Resource
• Time for Preservation
leisure/cultural life • Criminal Rate

21
Qol in a mega city-Nanjing in YRD

22
Insights of Nanjing

Transport mode share in Nanjing (2004-2013)

100%

90% 2.5
0 3 2.6
0.7 4.3 5 6.9 7.9 8.1 10.5 11.4
0 2.2 2.6 2.8 5.1
80% 4.5 5.6
18.6 6.7 Others
24.3 22.6 19.3 19
70% 19.1 17.6 18.3
19.7 Campany Car
20.1
60% Motocycle
Taxi
50% 42.7 40.1 39 Private Car
40.6 41.1 37.6 36.8 35.7 31.3
40% 30.1 Subway

30% Bus
Bike
20%
Walk
23.5 24.1 26.8 26.3 25.8 25.4 25.8 26.6 26.7 25.8
10%

0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

23
QoL indicators

Levels (Nanjing)
Categories Indicators Criteria
Better Worse
Working Opportunity Commute time 15 min 45 min
Economic
Economic Activity Number of shops in walking distance 20 5
Opportunity
(EO) Financial Activity Travel time to banks 15 min 45 min
Housing Cost House price/rental increment 5% 15%
Medical Care Opportunity Travel time to hospitals 15 min 45 min
Living Education Opportunity Travel time to schools 15 min 45 min
Opportunity
Travel time to community center - -
(LO) Communication Opportunity
Travel time to local food market 15 min 45 min
Surroundings Intimacy Existence of bike-path & pedestrian Way yes no
Amenity Comfortable Surroundings Travel time to green and parks 15 min 45 min
Opportunity Existent of recreation places within walking
(AO) Recreation Opportunity yes no
distance
Security Criminal rate Lower Higher
Safety & Security Avoidance of Man-made Disaster Travel time to dengue location - -
(SS) Flash flood <10cm >30cm
Natural Disaster Resilience
Death rate in an earthquake 1/10,000 1/100
PSI level - -
Environmental Air Pollution
AQI level <100 >200
Burden
Noise Pollution Traffic noise 60dB 85dB
(EB)
Environment Protection Existent of NIMBY facilities No Yes

24
Example of responses
Nanjing citizens' preference various in income level
EO Housing Cost
EB Environment Protection 3.50 EO Working Opportunity Nanjing
3.00
EB Traffic Noise 2.50 EO Economic Activity
2.00
EB Air Quality 1.50 EO Financial Activity
1.00
0.50
LO Medical Care
SS Flood Resilience 0.00
Opportunity

SS Earthquake Resilience LO Education Opportunity

LO Community
SS Security Opportunity
Opportunity
AM Recreation
AM Surroundings Intimacy
Opportunity
AM Surroundings
Comfortable
Low Income Middle Income High Income

25
Planning and sustainability

26
Emergent Properties of Complex Urban System

Social Economic Environmental Built Environment

• Quality of life • Gross domestic • Water • Land use

• Social equity product consumption • Accessibility
• Economic • Energy intensity • Mobility
• Social
structure • Material intensity • Congestion
segregation
• Toxic emissions • Fractal
• Economic
resilience • Pollutant
emissions
• Green gas
emissions

Reference: Schwarz, et al, 200227

Renovation or recession

Time Square in the 50s Time Square today

Produced Poor Quality Cars, Fought CAFE Standards
and the Use of Catalytic Converters

Detroit in the 50s Detroit today

Inner City Social Problems

• Underclass-inner city residents who are trapped in an unending

cycle of economic and social problems.
• Lack of job skills
• Homeless
• Poverty
• Crime
• Racial Segregation
• Annexation- legally adding land to the city
Example of Racial and class Segregation

Durban Ho Chi Minh

Bangkok
Other sustainability concerns for Urbanization

• Sprawl-outlying areas farther out

• Loss of soil- farmland lost. USA 1 million acres/year
• Land use- less land more pavement
• Pollution- air, water and soil
• Waste- garbage, sewage
• Consumer habits- use more energy, food
Ex: Urban planning to reduce urban pollution
Urban GHG emissions (tCO2e/capita)
• Denver 21.5
• New York 7.9
• Paris (Ile de France) 5.2

Denver NY

Paris 32
33
Ex: Urban planning to reduce crime

Keeping a place well

maintained and
looking friendly can
make people feel
safe （Seoul, Korea）

Train car for

women, Japan

34
Case: Hong Kong 2030
planning vision (FYI after class)

35
36
37
38
translating environmental studies into
everyday life: Pro-environmental
behavior

39
Signs of global water scarcity

Cotton for export

Former Aral Sea, Central Asia 40

e.g., Production chain: cotton

0.16 1.07 Cotton seed oil,

Cotton seed oil
0.47 1.00 refined

Hulling/ 0.51 Cotton seed

Cotton seed
extraction 0.33 cake

0.63
0.18 0.10
0.20
Cotton linters
Harvesting
Cotton plant Seed-cotton Ginning
0.05
0.35 0.10
Garnetted stock
0.82

1.00 Cotton, not Carding/

Cotton lint 1.00 carded or combed Spinning

0.95 Cotton, carded or

0.99 combed (yarn)

Knitting/
weaving
0.95 0.05
0.99 0.10

Grey fabric Yarn waste

Wet processing

1.00
1.00

Fabric
Legend
Finishing

0 .35 Product fraction 1.00

1.00

0 .82 Value fraction Final textile

41
Life cycle thinking for products and
consumptions

42
Take Action from daily life!

• How many of you, when you go to a store, get a bag for your
purchases, even if you have only one or two small items to
carry?

• Making paper and plastic bags uses energy and resources. The
bags add to our litter and waste problems, and plastic is not
biodegradable. Recycling is not the best answer because
collecting and recycling materials requires energy. Instead,
carry a reusable cloth bag or a knapsack with you
 Blowing Up Your World
How many of you eat fresh vegetables instead of
canned or frozen?

Fresh vegetables cook more quickly and are usually

more nutritious than frozen or canned foods. Canned
and frozen vegetables are often over-processed, contain
additives, contribute to air pollution (transport and
packaging) and add to our waste problem. 4 pts u
• How many of you use handkerchiefs instead of
tissues and use cloth towels instead of paper
towels?

• Paper comes from trees. The more of it we use, the

more trees that are cut down
Our behavior 46
How people THINK will influence their behavior

47
Therefore we need systematic approach to “guide”
their behavior
• PULL approaches
information and feedback (INFORMTION);
group discussions & forums (PEER PRESSURE);
rewards (INCENTIVES); understand nature (SENSIBILISE)
• PUSH approaches
change defaults(EASIER CHOICES);
regulate to internalise environmental costs
• MUNICIPAL ROLE IN FOSTERING PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR
Walk the walk – lead by example!
Enable – make it happen!
Communicate – talk about it!

48
Value-Belief-Norm Theory (Stern, 2000)

• Human values can be classified into three categories, namely biospheric, altruistic
and egoistic values.
• People with a predominantly biospheric orientation ‘judge environmental issues on
the basis of costs or benefits to ecosystems’;
• people with a predominantly altruistic orientation ‘judge environmental issues on
the basis of costs and benefits to a human group’;
• people with a predominantly egoistic orientation judge environmental issues on the
basis of costs or benefits to themselves

49
Environmental behavior change
1. Social obligation: We must confront that individuals promote self interest – or the
interest of their kin – over others.
• One solution is to motivate individuals to do so is by creating a social obligation, e.g.,
various environmental charges revealing the externality.
2. Social recognition: humans strive to achieve relative (though not absolute) status. This
means that humans want a certain level of wealth, power or fame in relation to those
around them.
• consumption is not the only way to display relative status.
• drive eco-friendly actions more broadly with consumers.
3. Social influence: humans unconsciously emulate the behavior of others.
• the challenge is to redirect the behavior by holding up pro-environmental behavior to
emulate.

50
Pro-environmental behavior

• as behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of

one's actions on the natural and built world”, can be adopted in
workplaces committed to effective workplace sustainability programs.
• To generate an atmosphere of environmental friendly in our
society for humans to emulate.

51
52
Social system, Trash bin in Japan

53
Social system, electronic wastes recovery
facility in Shenzhen, China

54
Social system, change behavior via
environmental education
Various means of environmental governance

Source: Li, 2007 56

ASM 5 and 6
Open topic;
Some good examples

57
THANKS
for your attention

58