Master Program on International Urban Development

Master Thesis

URBAN SUSTAINABILITY

VISIONS & PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

A Case Study of HCMC

Superv isor: Prof. Kosta Mathey

Written by student: Thuy Duong Pham

Ho Chi Minh City, July 2011

2

Abstract

The future of our world is the future of cities. Therefore, building a holistic

guiding framework for urban sustainability, which can be used in urban governance,

decision-making, capacity building, education and public awareness raising is a critical

key for a sustainable future. The thesis uses visionary and holistic approach in dealing

with urban issues. What makes a livable and sustainable city? How do people perceive

urban sustainability? How do people envision their dream cities? Among many aspects of

urban development, what matter most to them? What are public perceptions on current

urban development in HCMC? This thesis seeks to find answers for these questions, from

suggestions of experts and think tanks, to people’s opinions, their hopes and dreams.

Beside the international document research and the global online survey, the case of public

perception in Ho Chi Minh City was also investigated with both online and offline

questionnaires and interviews of people in some slum areas.

Findings from experts bring out that sustainability associates with balance and equity in a

comprehensive approach, which acknowledges the interrelationships among various

dimensions of life and our interconnectedness with each other and with natural systems.

Urban sustainability strives for ecological balance, low-carbon economic development,

social inclusion and cultural vitality. Among these dimensions, good governance which is

accountable, transparent, democratic, efficient, plays a vital role as inclusive decision

making processes toward sustainability.

A series of concepts and features for urban sustainability such as sense of place, green,

human friendliness, renewable energy, waste recycling, bicycle friendly and walkable

neighborhoods, rainwater harvesting, affordable housing, inclusiveness, e-governance…

has been developed in the questionnaire to test responses from public perception on their

desirable city. Most of these ideas were well received by respondents; this proves that a

sustainable city can also be a desirable and lovable city. On the other hand, findings from

survey of public perception on HCMC’s urban performance as well as field study in some

slum areas in the city present quite a gloomy picture. Poverty alleviation, education,

empowerment, capacity building and public awareness raising are recommended for

bringing about social change toward a sustainable urban future.

3

Acknowledgments

from Daisy with love

First of all, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our supervisor, Prof. Kosta Mathey,

for his kind guidance and for giving me a chance to join this wonderful UDP course.

I am greatly grateful to our course coordinators, Dr. Harry Storch and Prof. Karl Klügel,

for their kind helps and careful advices.

I am especially grateful to my dear friend Nigel Downes, who introduced me to this

course, for his supporting as always.

I would like to express a huge thanks to all Professors for their lectures and inspiration,

many thanks to the staffs at VGU for their assistance. Thank you all my friends at VGU

for our memories during these last two years together!

I am also greatly thankful to Dr. Bui Van Nam Son, the respected philosopher for his

patience, kindness and his precious time for my consultation.

This study cannot be done without the consideration and responses from more than two

hundreds people all over the world. I would like to thank you all, each and everyone! It

was such an honor and pleasure for me to read some really thoughtful sharing of people

that I have even never met from far away lands. Thank you very much too, my friends,

who had helped promote the survey through their blogs, sites and social networks.

My sympathy goes out to the interviewees in slum areas that I have talked to during the

field study in May. It was a unique and transformative experience that touched my heart. I

really hope that life will be better for you all.

Finally, I would like to take this chance to express my deepest gratitude and love from my

heart to my parents and beloved ones for their endless support and care. I know no words

would be enough...

Thuy Duong Pham

HCMC, July 2011

4

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………5 1.1 Rationale.……………………………………………………………………………………………...5 1.2 Research aims………………………………………………………………………………………..8

2. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………9

2.1 Backcasting and systems approach................................................................................ 9

2.2 Research methodology ................................................................................................. 12

3. URBAN SUSTAINABILITY VISIONS…………………………………………………………15

Principles for Sustainability ................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Ecological balance........................................................................................................ 21

City as a regenerative and symbiosis system................................................................... 21

Urban ecology and integrated land use ..................................................................... 24

Urban agriculture.......................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Economic development ................................................................................................ 27

Towards a low-carbon economy..................................................................................... 27

Energy conservation and renewable energy .............................................................. 29

ICT for low-carbon urban development ...................................................................... 31

3.3 Social connectedness and cultural vitality .................................................................... 33

Social sustainability .......................................................................................................... 35

Cultural sustainability ....................................................................................................... 36

Spiritual values .............................................................................................................. 38

3.4 Good governance......................................................................................................... 39

4. URBAN SUSTAINABILITY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION……………………………………….44

4.1 Results from global online survey ................................................................................... 43

4.2 Results from surveys in HCMC ......................................................................................... 57

4.2.1 Results from online and offline questionnaires ......................................................... 57

4.2.1 Results from interviews in slum areas........................................................................ 63

5. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………….…………………………………….66

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………69

APPENDIX I Sample of Global Online Survey ....................................................................... 73

APPENDIX II Sample of Survey in HCMC............................................................................... 77

APPENDIX III Semi-structure Interviews in Slum Areas of HCMC ........................................... 84

5

1. Introduction

“If sustainable development does not start in the cities, it simply will not go.

Cities have to lead the way.” (Maurice Strong)1

1.1 Rationale

It is since 2008, for the first time in human history, more than half of the world’s

population now lives in cities. As urbanization continues to grow worldwide, to some

extent, we can say that the future of our world is the future of cities.

Urbanization has brought to us many benefits, especially in terms of economic and job

opportunities. As centers of communication, education, science, religion, commerce, and

political power, cities are hubs of innovations and great places for cultural and social

exchange. In terms of environment, the concentration of people and resources provides us

the advantages of energy efficiency and convenience in transportation, goods and services

delivering, as well as helps preserve biodiversity by reducing the stress on wildlife habitats

(G. Tyler Miller 2004).

As cradles of civilization, cities’ influences on culture and society have gone far beyond

their proportion of the total population (Cunningham, Cunningham and Saigo 2003). In

earlier time, there was just a small percentage of population lived in urban areas, up to

only 3% in 1800 and 13% in 1900 (Bugliarello 2008). Then, together with population

booming after World War II, industrialization has rapidly boosted urban expansion around

the globe. However, most of these urbanizations, particularly those in developing

countries, are more on quantity rather than quality. In the international Sustainability

Survey2 conducted by SustainAbility and GlobalScan (2011), most of the experts think

that urbanization is a positive for global business, but a negative for society.

1 Chair of the Rio Summit, 1992, quoted in “Urban Sustainability in New Zealand: An Information Resource for Urban Practitioners” (Hargreaves and Davies 2003) 2 (SustainAbility, GlobalScan 2011) The Sustainability Survey uses research-driven, expert insights to explore solutions to the biggest sustainabil ity challenges, through ongoing engagement with mor e than 700 thought leaders from across 70+ countries and a variety of sectors.

6

In fact, while cities bring many advantages, they are also the cause of many environmental

and social problems. Most of cities are not self-sustaining but must rely heavily on

external sources such as food from farms, timbers from forests, minerals from mines,

water from watersheds. Cities are big consuming clusters of materials and energy.

Although city dwellers occupy only about 2% of the Earth’s land area, they consume

about 75% of the Earth’s resources (G. Tyler Miller 2004).

The amount of waste outputs is even greater than the materials inputs because materials

combine with air or water in the process of being used. Current urban systems are typical

examples of the degenerative throughput pattern characterized by linear flows (Lyle

1994). Ultimately, while resources are being depleted, sinks become overloaded with huge

wastes far beyond their capacity to assimilate. This one-way throughput system, like most

man-made processes but unlike nature’s cycle flows, results in the twin consequences of

resource depletion and environmental degradation.

Under population and housing demand pressures, unplanned and uncontrolled

“urbanization” spontaneously occurs. In many of the cases, it is merely urban sprawl or

urban spreading into suburban areas, where it does not properly and fully function as

genuine urbanization, lacking of public services, causing loss of landscape, loss of

CITY

Food

Energy

Water

Goods

Materials

Waste

Pollution

Heat

Noise

INPUT (Sources) THROUGHPUT (Processes) OUTPUT (Sinks)

Figure 1.1 City as an open, linear and unsustainable system

7

farmlands. Sometimes, it is characterized by low density development, which is not energy

efficient in general, particularly in terms of transportation. And in other times, it is

characterized by too high density. Where physical (hard) and social (soft) infrastructure

developments do not keep pace with urban expansion and become overloaded, where

cities can not manage the excess unskilled labors, urbanization can create more slums,

shantytowns, unemployment, poverty, urban segregation.

On the other hand, man-made concrete buildings and asphalt roads absorb more heat,

altering microclimate and natural hydrological cycle, limiting rainwater infiltration which

can result in more urban flooding. The lack of nature in urban environment, lack of space

and stressful city life can cause negative impact to human psychology. Sometimes, the

hidden social problems related to industrialization and urbanization can be quite serious as

the linkages within communities and between tradition and culture have broken down.

Social alienation, lack of public life, isolation, ultimately results in increased crime and

fear (Goldsmith 2000).

Since our economies and societies depend so much on fossil fuel, particularly oil, in the

context of peak oil 3 and climate change, many urban issues such as energy consumption,

green house gas emission, urban flooding, transportation… become more complex and

inextricable. Particularly, cities which stretch over flood plains or coast lines, are getting

more vulnerable to natural disasters as sea level rising.

So, nowadays, cities are facing many challenges on the path towards sustainability, given

that sustainability is an honor goal to pursuit, characterized by livability in a

comprehensive view. Urban development patterns can not be sustainable if in themselves

there are potential risks of breakdown and collapse due to any ecological imbalance,

inequitable distribution or social injustice. Unsustainable urban development, by default,

means that it can not go far and continue in the long run.

3 The label for the problem of energy resource depletion, the day that oil production reaches a maximum and will subsequently begin to decline.

8

1.2 Research aims

“The fate of our cities is the fate of the Earth” (Callenbach 1992). Unfortunately, most of

our urban development patterns nowadays are not sustainable. Hence, for our future to be

possible, we need creative visions of urban sustainability which must be very different

with current reality.

Although urbanization causes many problems, urban densities also have in themselves

great potential for socio-economic innovation and opportunities, for compact and energy-

efficient development. Moreover, the dark sides of urbanization do not always have to

manifest, but rather they are often exacerbated by bad planning and governance 4, low

public environmental and social awareness. Since awareness involves creating a shared

understanding of sustainability and a common sense of purpose among teams, institutions

and organizations, it is essential that everyone, especially those participates in the planning

process, has a common understanding of what sustainability is and why our current system

is not sustainable (Baxter, et al. 2009). Therefore, building a holistic guiding framework

for urban sustainability, which can be used in urban governance, decision-making,

capacity building, education and public awareness raising is a critical key for a sustainable

future.

What makes a livable and sustainable city? How do people perceive urban sustainability?

How do people envision their dream cities? What matters the most for them? This thesis

seeks to find answers for these questions, from suggestions of experts, and by listening to

people’s voices, their hopes and dreams. Beside the international document research and

the global online survey, the case of public perception in Ho Chi Minh City was also

investigated.

4 Findings from the international Sustainability Survey (SustainAbility, GlobalScan 2011) suggest that, poor city management, plus corruption are the greatest barriers to addressing urban issues.

9

2. Approach & Methodology

“Success requires an understanding of the complex forces at work, a vision of

the future and a strategy for making the vision a reality.” (Edwards 2005)

2.1 Backcasting and systems approach

This thesis uses visionary (backcasting5) and holistic (systems6) approach in dealing with

urban challenges and building the framework for sustainability. The concept of

“backcasting” is a way of planning which begins with the vision of what we want in the

future, and then goes back to the present, figures out what we have to do to get there.

Having first a desirable vision in mind is a powerful step to manifest it in reality. As

visions provide inspiration and guidance for decision-making towards sustainability, they

allow us to ensure that our actions and strategies aligned with the direction we want to

head and as efficiently as possible.

Since backcasting starts with the final end, the image of the desired outcome, it usually

refers to long time frames, where there is great uncertainty and less control over what may

happen. Hence, the future vision may usefully be defined using principles rather than

specifics (Outhwaite 2009). Backcasting does not describe for measurable and fixed

targets and goals, but rather for flexible, evolutionary and continuously re-created visions.

“Backcasting is an opportunity to let go of the current reality for a moment and freely

imagine what might be possible” (Outhwaite 2009). As forecasting mostly based on

current trend, it tends to present a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity

and new possibilities, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future.

“When we start with problems, often the vision is limited to having fewer problems, or

solving an isolated problem; it does not necessarily encompass how we can satisfy one’s

needs more effectively, or how we can live rich and meaningful lives” (Hallsmith 2003).

As Albert Einstein once said “the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the

same level of thinking we were at when we created them”, backcasting is particularly

5 The Natural Steps – Backcasting: http://www.naturalstep.org/backcasting 6 More on Systems Approach (2008) http://sustainable.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Systems_Thinking-2008

10

useful when current trends are part of the problems that we are trying to tackle. Thus,

though forecasting is very effective if we are happy with current situation, if what we want

is a very different future than the one we are headed toward, that is when we need to

backcast (Baxter, et al. 2009).

In brief, backcasting is looking at the current situation from a future perspective, which

allows complex problems to be approached by let us first simply focus on outcomes, then

think backwards to identify numerous potential pathways to reach the desired outcomes. In

turn, exploring many alternatives makes it easier to find solutions that best fit and optimize

all of the parts and relationships within the system toward achieving these outcomes

(Haines, Aller-Stead and McKinlay 2005). Therefore, backcasting is a helpful

methodology in planning for urban sustainability because of the complexity of urban

challenges and the need to develop new ways of doing things to address them.

Backward thinking is the core of where to start in systems thinking, a systems view and

comprehensive approach that can help us to design smart and enduring solutions to

Backcasting

Next Steps

Forecasting

Scenario Planning

Past Present Short-term Middle-term Long-term

TIME

Figure 2.1 Backcasting and other different perspectives used in planning (adapted from Outhwaite 2009)

11

problems. Systems thinking is a holistic approach which encourages us to see the “whole”

- the bigger picture, so that we can structure more effective, efficient and creative system

solutions.

The systems view looks at the world in terms of relationships and integration, recognizing

the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena – physical, biological,

psychological, social, and cultural (Capra 1988). “In order to understand what’s behind

our sustainability challenges, we need to step back and look at the big picture, see the

connections, identify the root causes of our problems and find the leverage points for

change” (Baxter, et al. 2009).

Systems approach attempts to widen the circle of understanding in order to comprehend

the connections that exist between all things in the web of life. It is a continuing process

that involves honoring the past, being present, looking ahead, and keeping future

generations in mind (Newman and Jennings 2008). Identifying cause – and – effect

relationships requires us to see not only bigger but deeper, farther in all dimensions of

space and time. The following quote by Grazia is a beautiful metaphor on contemplation

through longer time frames to recognize patterns: “Imagine you want to shoot an arrow.

The farther back you pull the bowstring, the farther the arrow flies. The same is true for

our own understanding and vision. The farther back we look into history, the farther we

can see into our future” (Grazia 2009).

The holistic approach towards sustainable urban development is a strategic thinking to

address the complex challenges of our urban issues. Thus, urban sustainability visions

should encompass an integrated and interdisciplinary framework in which cities are

considered as parts of larger natural ecosystems and socio-economic communities.

12

2.2 Research methodology

Three research methods were used in this thesis: document research, questionnaire (online

and offline), and semi-structure interviews. The thesis starts first with international

document research to seek for experts’ views and ideas on urban sustainability, the

principles and ingredients of a sustainable city, as well as some suggested models and

good practices. The materials came from variety resources: books, specialists’ websites,

articles, and experts’ blogs.

The results from this document research stage are summarized in chapter 3. Some main

ideas from the experts’ visions on urban sustainability were used to design the

questionnaires for the surveys of public perceptions. Samples of these questionnaires are

Figure 2.2 Thesis methodology flowchart

13

attached in the annex (appendix I, II and III). Results from these surveys are presented and

discussed in chapter 4.

The purposes of these questionnaires are assessment of public perceptions/awareness on

some aspects of urban sustainability, as well as testing public’s responses on some

sustainable urban development models. Then, the results from these surveys can be

considered in making public awareness raising programs, as well as public opinions can be

integrated in the framework for urban sustainability.

Table 2.1 Research questions & methodology

Main Research Questions

Methodology

Document Research

Questionnaire Interview Online

Survey Offline Survey

How do experts envision a sustainable city?

What make a sustainable city?

How do people envision their desirable cities?

What are their perceptions on urban sustainability?

Among many aspects of urban development, what matter most to them?

Global

HCMC

HCMC’s

slum

dwellers

What are public perceptions on current urban development in HCMC?

HCMC

The surveys of public perceptions on urban sustainability were conducted online globally

(in English), and both online and offline for citizens in Ho Chi Minh City (in Vietnamese).

The free Google Docs’ Form was used in designing the online surveys.

The global online survey in English was launched in May of 2011 at this link:

• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey

Then, it has been promoted by posting on websites, social networks, blogs and mail groups

such as Wiser Earth, Facebook, LinkIn, YES Alumni, ERM, Scribd…

14

Also in late May of 2011, the other survey with target groups of Ho Chi Minh City

citizens was launched both online and offline (distributed in papers) in Vietnamese. The

translated English version of this survey for Ho Chi Minh City is available in the website

as well as in the appendix:

• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-

hcmc/vietnamese-version (Vietnamese origin)

• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-hcmc

(English, translated version)

In addition, the fieldwork study in some slum areas, especially those along the polluted

canals in district 4 and district 8 of Ho Chi Minh City, with observations and interviews of

slum dwellers, had been conducted in May 2011. Since most of slum dwellers are

powerless and poor, their voices are often left unheard while they are the most vulnerable

with the disadvantages of urbanization. The questions asked to people in slum areas must

be modified to be appropriate in their specific contexts and situations (appendix III).

Mostly, the main purpose of this fieldwork is to get the real picture of the urban poor lives,

and to listen to their wishes.

Figure 2.3 Locations of the fieldwork study at slum areas in Ho Chi Minh City

15

3. Urban Sustainability Visions

“Vision is seeing the potential purpose hidden in the chaos of the moment, but

which could bring to birth new possibilities for a person, a company or a nation.

Vision is seeing what life could be like while dealing with life as it is.

Vision deals with those deeper human intangibles that alone give ultimate purpose to

life. In the end, vision must always deal with life’s qualities, not with its quantities.”

(Van Duisen Wilhard)7

Principles for Sustainability

Sustainability literally means the capacity to endure over time. Symbolically, it refers to

what is of true values, what is good, genuine and resilient, which can stand the test of time.

Sustainability associates with balance and equity in a comprehensive approach, which

acknowledges our dependence on the health of natural systems for our survival and well-

being, the limit carrying capacity of the Earth and the detrimental impact of unchecked

human activities (Edwards 2005). Thus, sustainability strives for balance among the

interconnected ecological, economic and social systems. As implied from the most popular

definition of sustainable development 8 (the Brundtland report 1987), sustainability

requires a long term, intergenerational perspective. Equity should be maintained, not only

across communities within generation but also between generations.

The Earth Charter is a global consensus, a product of a decade- long, worldwide, cross-

cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. As “a vision of hope and a call to

action”, it provides us with inspiration and guidance to a sustainable future. In October

2003, UNESCO adopted a resolution recognizing the Earth Charter as an important ethical

framework for sustainability (ECI Secretariat 2011). Main principles of the Earth Charter

are summarized in the following box 3.1.

7 Quoted in “Beyond You and Me - Inspirations and Wisdom for Building Community”, Robin Alfred & Kosha Anja Joubert (Ed.), Gaia Education - Permanent Publications 2007 8 “Our Common Future”, the report by World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987): “Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

16

Box 3.1 The Earth Charter - values and principles for a sustainable future9

THE EARTH CHARTER’S PRINCIPLES

Respect and Care for the Community of Life:

To respect Earth and life in all its diversity;

To care for the community of life with understanding, compassion and love;

To build democratic societies that are just, sustainable, participatory and peaceful; and

To secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:

Ecological Integrity

Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.

Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired. Social and Economic Justice

Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace

Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.

9 Full version of the Earth Charter and more at www.earthcharterinaction.org

17

The spirit of the Earth Charter is beautifully highlighted in the core principle of Respect

and Care for the Community of Life: respect Earth and life in all its diversity, care for the

community of life with understanding, compassion and love. It helps us to recognize what

is deeply and fundamentally important to us – our connection with each other and with the

natural world. That holistic worldview leads us to do no harm and cooperate with nature,

with all other humans and other living beings in the web of life.

One Planet Living10 is a global initiative developed by BioRegional11 and WWF12.

While the Earth Charter is an ethical framework, the One Planet Living’s sustainable city

concepts are more of a practical vision that helps us to focus on how we can take action

for a sustainable future.

Box 3.2 The Ten Principles of One Planet Living (BioRegional and WWF 2011)

10 One Planet Living: http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html 11 BioRegional – Solutions for Sustainability: http://www.bioregional.com 12 World Wildlife Fund: http://www.wwf.org

18

The Philips Center’s framework for Livable Cities - In the urban context, sustainability

can be perceived as visions of livable and lovable cities (The Philips Center for Health &

Wellbeing 2010). Experts from the Philips Center have identified three important and

interlinked ingredients of a livable city: resilience, inclusiveness and authenticity (fig. 3.1

and box 3.3).

In their conceptual framework for urban sustainability, think tank of the Philips Center

pointed out that these three essential attributes of a livable city should present in all

dimensions of sustainability (social, cultural, economic, technical and environmental).

So, a livable city should be a resilient city, environmentally, socially and economically;

this is particularly true in the growing context of climate change, as resilience is about

Figure 3.1 The Philips Center’s Visualization Framework for Livable Cities (adapted from The Philips Center for Health & Well-being 2010)

ECOSYSTEM (environmental dimension)

SOCIETY (socio-cultural, economic & technical dimensions)

19

adaptability, flexibility, the ability of a city to balance continuity with change. A resilient

city is a “strong” city which has inner strength to help it remain stable through shocks and

stresses. A livable city is also an inclusive city, which cherishes social integration and

cohesion. Moreover, a livable as well as lovable city usually has its own unique identity.

Box 3.3 Three important and interlinked ingredients of a livable city13

VISION OF A LIVABLE & LOVABLE CITY

(The Philips Center 2010)

Resilience

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems for local environmental quality Energy, food, water, materials at low global ecological footprint

Green areas and water as environmental mitigation factors, parks as “lungs” of a city Cultural diversity, multiple lifestyle, continuity and change, tradition and innovation Adaptability, regeneration, transformation, interdependency, systems view Economic diversity, local entrepreneurship, job creation… Inclusiveness

Public green areas as outdoor gyms, recreational spaces, social bridges…

Empowerment, justice and freedom Equitable access to resources, rights to public goods and services Social participation, economic inclusion Cultural diversity and integration, tolerance Sense of ownership, security and safety

Authenticity

Local ecosystem for local identity, native species as uniqueness of a place Natural heritage as collective memory Connection between people and nature Historical heritage and identity

Valuable local knowledge and culture Appropriate innovation and choices of change Cultural and technological rootedness Sense of place, belonging and pride Connection between people and people, people and land

13 First edition of the Insight Series on Livable Cities (The Philips Center, 2010) http://www.philips-thecenter.org/livable-cities/recent-activity/2011/Insight-1-on-Livable-Cities/

20

Ecocity - Figure 3.2 features main characteristics of an ecocity model envisioned by

experts of Ecocity Builders 14, using integrated, whole systems approach for city design,

building, and operations in relation to the surrounding environment and natural resources

of the region (Ecocity Builders 2010).

Figure 3.2 Principal features of an ecocity (adapted from Ecocity Builders)

The following parts of this chapter will discuss briefly more concepts and models for

urban sustainability, in terms of its interrelated dimensions, ecological balance, economic

development, social cohesion, cultural vitality and good governance for sustainable urban

development. 14 Ecocity Buillders: http://www.ecocitybuilders.org

City of qualified density

City of sustainable

lifestyle

City of human scales and urbanity

City for strong local economy

City of cultural identity and

social diversity

City with new balance of

concentration and decentralization

City of health, safety and well-being

City of concentrating development at

suitable sites

City integrated in global

communication networks

City as network of

urban quarters

City built and managed with the inhabitants

City integrated into

the surrounding region

City as power station

of renewable energies

City of balanced mixed use

City of short

distances

City of minimized energy

consumption

City of minimized land

consumption

City contributing to closed water

cycle

City for pedestrians, cyclists,

public transport

City of reduction, reuse, recycle of

waste

City of accessibility for

everyone

City of bioclimatic

comfort

City with public space for daily life

City in balance

with nature

City with integrated

green areas

ECOCITY

21

3.1 Ecological balance

“Cities can become more sustainable by modeling urban processes on ecological

principles of form and function, by which natural ecosystems operate. The

characteristics of natural ecosystems include diversity, adaptiveness,

interconnectedness, resilience, regenerative capacity, and symbiosis.” (Newman and

Jennings 2008)

City as a regenerative and symbiosis system

The core philosophy of sustainability lies in the appreciation of nature as the symbol of

integrity, stability and beauty. Sustainability deals much with creative designs and

planning in harmony with nature. From the perspective of sustainability, nature’s design

and technologies are far superior to human science and technology (Sterry 2010).

Figure 3.3 City as a regenerative system with circular metabolism

INPUT (Sources)

Reduced Consumption and

Increased Efficiency

THROUGHPUT

(Processes)

OUTPUT (Sinks)

Reduced Pollution & Waste

Renewable Resources

Renewable

Energy

Regenerative

Water

Waste

Pollution CITY

Recycle organic wastes

Recycled materials, water

22

In nature, nothing is useless, nothing is waste but everything is resource for other process

in the sophisticatedly interconnected web of life, where circular metabolism is the

principle of ongoing self-renewal system. Thus, a sustainable system is a regenerative

system that mimics nature’s circular patterns, replacing the present linear flows (fig.1.1)

with cyclical flows (fig.3.3).

On a predominantly urban planet, cities will need to adopt circular metabolic systems to

assure their own long-term viability as well as that of the rural environments on which

they depend; outputs will need to become inputs into the local and regional production

system (Girardet 2010). Most importantly, it is crucial to return organic waste into plant

nutrients, for assuring farmland’s long-term fertility. By recycling wastes back into the

system, it also minimizes pollution. Sustainably using renewable resources, instead of

fossil fuels and chemicals is also more resource-conserving, healthy and less

environmentally damaging.

On the other hand, creating a circular urban metabolism can create resilient cities and

create many new local businesses and jobs (Girardet 2010). About resilience, Melissa

Sterry is developing the model of Bionic City15, which embraces nature’s approach to

building complex infrastructures: “Whereas a conventional city is a mass of static,

disconnected and inert structures operating independently and irrespective of one another

and their environment, the Bionic City operates as an interconnected and intelligent

ecosystem in which every entity is engaged in an ongoing symbiotic relationship with all

others, from the molecular to the metropolitan in scale. Beyond preventing the problems

traditionally associated with flooding, the Bionic City will also feature the means to utilise

excessive quantities of water, including hydropower and water harvesting technologies.”

According to Melissa Sterry, the sensitivity the city has with its surroundings is key to its

ability to predict and prepare for environmental changes.

One essential characteristic of nature systems that helps maintaining stability in constantly

changing conditions is diversity (Holmgren 2002). Multiple associations nurture each life

form, thereby increasing the stability and resilience of the whole system. In natural

system, everything is connected to everything else, each important function is supported

by many elements, and each element performs many functions. Thus, this provides the

15 “Bionic City”- article on Earth 2.0 magazine: http://earth2channel.com/magazine/article/22

23

thinking of multiple pathways to achieve one goal as well as a common solution to

disparate problems (Lyle 1994). For instance, rainwater infiltration with thoughtful design

can replenish groundwater, create landscape, as well as reduce urban flooding…

The idea of solving problems simultaneously is also the main theme of SymbioCity16, an

urban sustainability approach by Sweden. Symbiosis means the integration of two or more

organisms in a mutually beneficial union. Looking at the city as a whole, we find benefits

through synergies in urban functions such as combination of industrial waste heat with the

municipal energy plant, combination of architecture and landscape planning…

“It takes more than one petal to make a flower”. SymbioCity means urban resource

efficiency – across and between different urban technological systems, letting nothing go

to waste; combining energy, waste management, water supply and sanitation, traffic and

transport, landscape planning, architecture and urban functions for new and better

solutions as well as a more efficient use of natural resource (SymbioCity 2009).

16 More on SymbioCity: http://www.symbiocity.org

Figure 3.4 Building blocks of SymbioCity – a holistic and integrated approach for sustainable urban development

Urban functions (housing, industries, services)

Waste management

Energy

Landscape planning

Architecture & master planning

Traffic & transport

Water supply & sanitation

SymbioCity

24

There are many ways to make an urban function effective, but focusing on them

individually may let us miss out the synergies between them, which can only be found

with a holistic approach. Therefore, an integrated planning approach is key to unlocking

hidden synergies in the city. Instead of managing urban sectors one by one, SymbioCity

combine them, saving valuable city resources and creating new values (SymbioCity 2009).

Urban ecology and integrated land use

As the spirit of sustainability lies in the heart of nature, protecting and restoring ecology

within urban areas, bringing nature back into city is an essential theme in urban

sustainability. Green spaces in cities offer us a lot of benefits. They provide shading,

filtering the air, enriching urban biodiversity, reducing urban heat island effect, thus

simultaneously making bioclimate comfort and lowering energy use for cooling. “Urban

ecology uses climate- and region-appropriate plants, xeriscaping 17 to minimize the need

for fertilizer and water, and uses land for multiple functions such as food production,

wildlife habitat, recreation and beautification” (Roseland 2005). Urban ecology also

acknowledges the role of water and urban aquatic systems – streams, ponds, rivers in

revitalizing cities. Besides those ecological advantages, thoughtful urban designs in

concert with nature and embracing culture of a place also have many aesthetic values,

social and psychological healing benefits. Green public spaces can enhance community

connection and interaction, providing places to contemplate, play, relax and meditate.

Since land use permeates nearly all urban aspects, appropriate land use is a decisive factor

for a sustainable city. In order to be sustainable, city should minimize land consumption,

integrating green spaces and preserving farm land for food security as well as for other

ecological functions. It is not always easy as land is a limited resource and the cost of real

estates is often too high, while cities have to balance among conflicts of urbanization,

development, population pressure with environmental and social goals. Therefore,

symbiosis integrating planning or whole systems design18 for multi-purpose use can help

afford this balance. Many examples illustrate this concept (Roseland 2005): green roof,

solar photovoltaic panel on rooftop (no extra space needed); parks, urban gardening as

17 Xeriscaping refers to landscaping and gardening in ways that reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental water from irrigation (Wikipedia). 18 Whole systems design concept for sustainabil ity: http://www.wholesystemsdesign.com

25

both recreation areas and edible landscaping; constructed wetlands as sewage treatment

facility, natural habitats, recreation areas, drainage for rainwater run off…

Urban agriculture

Urban agriculture or urban farming can be understood as farming within and around cities.

“Urban agriculture is a dynamic concept that comprises of a variety of farming systems,

ranging from subsistence production and processing at household level to fully

commercialized agriculture” (Zeeuw, et al. n.d.).

In response to serious problems of poverty, food insecurity, and environmental

degradation, there is a growing attention and promotion of urban farming all over the

world, along with the movement of resilient, self-sustaining and low carbon cities.

Increasingly, urban farming has been seen as part of sustainable urban development.

Urban Farming

SocialFood secure & inclusive city

Food security & nutrition

Poverty alleviation

Social inclusion

Community building

EconomicProductive city

Income generation

Local economic development

Emloyment generation

EcologicalEnvironmental healthy city

Greening urban landscape

Urban biodiversity

Improved microclimate

Reduced ecological footprint

Waste recycling

Recreation & leisure

Figure 3.5 Urban agriculture as a tool for sustainable urban development (adapted from Zeeuw)

26

Urban farming can contribute to a food secure and inclusive city, a productive and

environmentally healthy city (fig. 3.5). Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the links

between urban agriculture and various policy target areas, such as the alleviation of

poverty, economic development, or environmental protection, in order to justify the

inclusion and mainstreaming of urban agriculture into municipal policies and public

support programmes (Zeeuw, et al. n.d.).

The most striking feature of urban farming, which distinguishes it from rural agriculture, is

its integration into the urban economic and ecological system (RUAF)19. Urban farms and

gardens complement rural agriculture in local food systems and can also become an

important income supplement for households. Since food production is close to home and

market, it helps reduce energy for transportation and packaging costs. This is also helpful

in situations when supply chains from rural areas have been interrupted and cities are

unable to receive food imports (Worldwatch 2011). Another essential benefit of urban

agriculture is that it can contribute to waste management and nutrient recycling by turning

urban wastes into a productive resource, thus reducing the use of expensive chemical

fertilizers and improving local soil fertility (Veenhuizen and Danso 2007).

In his theory of Food Urbanism (2009), Jason Grimm showed that urban food system of

production, processing, distribution, marketing, consumption and waste management can

become infrastructure that transforms urban experience by thoughtful sensitive design and

planning. According to Grimm, food production can be integrated into the daily activities

of community residents through recreation and communal gatherings. Community gardens

can also provide beautiful and pleasing spaces, helping improve the air quality in urban

areas. And through cooperative market outlets, a larger series of food access points can be

developed, supplying healthy fresh and affordable food.

19 RUAF – Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security: What is urban agriculture? http://www.ruaf.org/node/512

27

3.2 Economic development

“To break dependence on oil, stop contributing to global warming, and build

resilient cities that can thrive in the new urban age of energy and climate uncertainty,

the bottom line for local governments is this: Reduce consumption, and produce

locally.” (Lerch 2009)

Towards a low-carbon economy

We are in the time of Peak Oil20, and the time of cheap oil will end soon21. Many experts

have been warning about the end of our civilization as we know it is today22, the end of oil

age with its catastrophic consequences 23. The world economy heavily depended on high-

carbon fossil fuel is eventually coming into crisis as these fuels go exhausted. Moreover,

the problem is not only the depletion of oil, but also many environmental, political and

socio-economic issues related, especially the green house effect that leads to global

climate change. Thus, we need a thoughtful vision, a shift to new models of development

that are more sustainable, a green economy based on climate friendly low-carbon energy.

The concept of “Zero carbon”, one of the One Planet Living’s ten principles (box 3.2)

which aims at making building more energy efficient and delivering all energy with

renewable technologies, is being developed at the Masdar initiative24. The European

Union25 is making real efforts to reduce green gas emissions with their “Roadmap for

moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050.” More and more, there is a growing trend of

transition to low-carbon city or post carbon city26 – “city on a path of resilience for a

world of energy and climate uncertainty”.

20 Peak oil (Wikipedia): the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. 21 Peak oil - The end of oil (Kuhlman 2007) http://www.oildecline.com 22 Life after the oil crash (Savinar 2009) http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/Articles/LifeAfterOilCrash.htm 23 The Olduvai theory and catastrophic consequences (Leigh 2008) http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45518 24 Zero carbon city – Masdar initiative: http://www.masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx 25 EU, March 2011: “Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050” http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm 26 Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty (Lerch 2009): http://postcarboncities.net

28

The Japanese Ministry of Environment has pointed out three principles for a low-carbon

society: (1) Carbon minimization in all sectors, (2) Shifting from mass consumption

society toward simpler lifestyles that realize richer quality of life, (3) Coexistence with

Nature - maintaining and restoring natural environment that essential for low-carbon

society (Ministry of Environment - Japan 2007). Thus, building a low-carbon city requires

the efforts and active involvement of whole social system.

Figure 3.6 Benefits of a low-carbon transport system (based on the CATCH27 factsheet series)

*ITS: Intelligent Transport System, applied ITC as smart logistics

Though Peak Oil can conceive quite catastrophic potential, it also opens some hopeful

possibilities, a chance to address many underlying social problems, and the opportunity to

return to simpler, healthier and more community oriented lifestyle (Kuhlman 2007). The

example of Cuba can serve as a positive and instructive model for a world facing Peak

Oil28. Cuba is the only country that has faced such a crisis – the massive reduction of

27 CATCH (Carbon Aware Travel Choice) is an EU project with the ultimate aim to reduce CO2 emissions of the urban transport sector by encouraging carbon-friendly travel choices. http://www.carbonaware.eu 28 See more: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (Documentary), Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solutions (2006): http://www.communitysolution.org

More lively urban neighborhoods

Better neighborhood accessibility

More efficient in terms of energy/cost/time

Higher security

More social interaction

Social equity

Better health

Safer roads

Less congestion

More walking & cycling

More public transport

Use of ITS*

Less private vehicles

Less noise & air pollution

Low-carbon Transport System

29

fossil fuels, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990. Cuba's transition to a low-energy

society has taken place by creating cycling culture, sharing public transportation and

turning from a mechanized, industrial agricultural system to one using organic methods of

farming and local, urban gardens. Lesson from Cuba’s survival gives us hope in the power

of community, and the effectiveness of their strategies, which can be summarize in three

words: curtailment, conservation and cooperation29 .

The guidance for low-carbon city development focuses on three key sectors of

transportation & urban structure, energy and greenery (Kamata 2011). As discussed in the

previous part, conservation of green spaces, farmland and urban greenery is essential as

carbon sinks for the city. Besides, shifting from urban sprawl and diffusive urban structure

to compact urban development is encouraged. Compact city in harmony with nature is an

urban model that consists of station-centered communities with a mix of houses, stores,

offices, and convenient facilities accessible mainly by public transportation, on foot, or by

bicycle (City of Nagoya 2009). Many benefits of a low-carbon transport system are

illustrated in figure 3.6.

Public transportation is key for low-carbon city; together with policies to support local

consumption of goods produced locally (Ecologist 2008). Many policies available to

alleviate energy insecurity can also help to mitigate local pollution and climate change, as

a “triple-win” outcome (IEA 2007). For examples, development in public transportation

does not only conserve energy, but also relieve congestion, improve air quality, provide

access for all (APTA 2008).

Energy conservation and renewable energy

In dealing with the energy issue, the first and foremost available strategy is energy

conservation, through reducing energy waste and increasing energy efficiency. We should

recognize the fact that in the mean time alternative energies can not replace fossil fuels at

the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them. Moreover, the

deepest roots of our current energy crisis lie on the patterns of wasteful production and

consumption (Capra 1988). Therefore, what truly matters is profound change in our

29 See more: Peak Moment TV program (2006) Learning from Cuba response to Peak Oil, interviewing Megan Quinn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7i6roVB5MI

30

values, attitudes and lifestyle. Energy conservation is our short-term key energy source

and will always be a good solution in the long run too.

Energy conservation brings many benefits. It is low cost and available at all levels. Using

less energy resource also means reducing pollution and environmental degradation, while

prolong fossil fuel supplies and buying time to phase in renewable energy. Saving energy

can start just right at each individual’s lifestyle. For examples: buy and use energy-

efficient devices, look for electronics that are rechargeable, walk or cycle for short trips,

consider car-pooling or take public transport for longer ones, eat lower on the food chains,

buy regionally and seasonally produced organic food whenever possible30… The list goes

on, and every bit can help.

Many measures can also be done on the technical sphere, where there is a lot of space for

creative innovations. In housing, remarkable energy-saving can be achieved by improved

heat insulation or green building design which takes advantages of natural elements like

sun, wind, plants, trees, green-roofs… instead of using air conditioning. Many intelligent

lighting systems with energy-saving sensors have become widely used for hotels, official

buildings. In transportation, energy-saving techniques can be attained through increasing

fuel efficiency. In industry, the idea of co-generation, producing both heat and electricity

from one energy source can be well applied.

Eventually, we will use up non-renewable energy resources. From a long-term point of

view, renewable ones are what we should rely on. The Sun shines for all of us, and the

wind blows, free of charge. Although the equipments to collect solar and wind energy,

such as solar panels and wind turbines cost money, when considering that the resource is

taking for free, the overall cost of using solar and wind energy can make them smart

choices. Renewable technology cost trends typically show a steep decline during last

decades (NREL 2002), and that trends will continue to reach reasonable levels in the

future as their market’s expansion. Moreover, renewable energy are often clean, such as

wind and sunshine, they do not emit smoke or create pollution. Others, such as biomass,

almost always cause less pollution than fossil or nuclear alternatives.

30 See more in the article on The Ecologist Magazine: 30 steps to an oil free world http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/360427/30_steps_to_an_oilfree_world.html

31

Renewable energies would bring a number of benefits to the economy. First, they help

increase the diversity of energy supplies, and thus lower the dependency on imported

fossil fuels and improve the security of energy supplies. Second, they help make use of

local resources to provide a cost-effective energy supply while reducing regional and

global greenhouse gas emissions. Since they are often flexible, small-scale designs, which

take the advantages of local conditions, they can be located close to the demand. Then,

transmission and distribution costs are reduced, as well as losses. Finally, from the social

point of view, renewable energies can create more domestic employment. Such benefits

have created a strong motivation for pursuing renewable energies. The investment costs of

renewable technologies have been reduced remarkably today and this makes renewable

energies more attractive, quickly developed and expanded (Nguyen 2005).

Future will belong to the age of Renewable Sources. It is also the scenario described in the

Energy [R]evolution report, by the European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace

(2007). The vision would be made by optimized integration of renewable energy,

developing smart consumption, generation and distribution systems and maximizing the

efficiency of building through better insulation. Solar façade would be a decorative

element on office and apartment buildings. Rooftop wind and solar would be placed so

that energy is generated close to the consumer. Clean electricity would also come from

offshore wind parks or solar power station in deserts. Electricity would be much more

prominent and become the principal source of energy for transportation, replacing gasoline

and diesel fuels. Hydrogen can become a way of back-up to store solar, wind energy to use

at night or during cloudy days (EREC & Green Peace 2007).

Shifting to low-carbon economy means shifting to more diversified systems which

maximize the use of locally available, environmental friendly resources. “It is encouraging

to know that we now have the technologies to build a new energy economy, one that is not

climate-disruptive, that does not pollute air and that can last as long as the sun itself”

(Brown 2008).

ICT for low-carbon urban development

From mobile phone, computer, software to internet, information and communications

technology (ICT) has become integrated in our everyday life and remarkably influenced

our society in many levels. Recently, ICT’s enormous potential in contributing towards a

32

low-carbon society has been recognized and getting more and more attention. Using high

technology, optical fiber, ultra-high speed, ultra- low power consumption network, nearly

the most energy-efficient infrastructure, ICT can lead to smarter ways of doing and

significantly reduce carbon footprint in cities (Yamakawa 2008). Efficiency of production

and consumption can be improved. Movement of people and things can be reduced

through online shopping, e-service, online media, teleworking, virtual meeting. ICT can

also support smart and integrated city planning, environmental management, urban

monitoring.

Figure 3.7 ICT applications for a low-carbon city

ICT can play crucial role in helping to improve energy efficiency in power transmission

and distribution (smart grids), in smart buildings and factories, and in the use of

transportation to deliver goods (smart logistics). They can also help in dematerialization31

and shifting to a circular economy, where resources are efficiently used (WWF & Ericsson

2009).

31 Dematerialisation can be applied to a range of current everyday practices and ultimately reduce the number of material objects that need to be produced. For example, online billing, online media replace paper and CDs, thus reduce the emissions associated with their manufacture and distribution (GeSI 2008).

SMART &

CONNECTED CITY

E-GovernmentE-Commerce

E-Health

E-Services

Online Media

Smart LogisticsSmart

Buildings

Smart Grids

Teleworking

Paperless office

E-learning

33

3.3 Social connectedness and cultural vitality

“When you are connected to yourself, you live with integrity – you act on your

values and you are committed to truth and honesty. When you are connected to others,

you commit to living in community, to caring for the common good, and to working for

equality, justice and democracy. You commit to living joyfully with family, friends and

the wider community. When you are connected to the planet, you try to live more

sustainably, not using up or destroying nature.” (Andrews 2006)

Figure 3.8 Max-Neef’s fundamental human needs

“If the definition of a sustainable society involves meeting human needs, it is worth asking

what human needs are, and whether or not the system we are designing meets real human

needs in a synergistic and positively reinforcing way” (Holocene 2004). Figure 3.8 shows

the 9 human needs that have been identified by Manfred Max-Neef, a German-Chilean

economist and environmentalist, mainly known for his human development model based

on this theory. These fundamental human needs are understood as an interrelated and

Max-Neef's Fundamental Human

Needs

Creation

Leisure

Freedom

Affection

ProtectionSubsistence

Understanding

Identity

Participation

34

interactive system, not as a hierarchy (once the basic need for subsistence has been met) as

postulated by Maslow32. According to this model, we can see that most of our needs are

related to the social (protection, affection, understanding, participation) and cultural

(recreation, creation, identity) aspects of life. It was also reflected in the core principle of

the Earth Charter “Respect and Care for the community of life: to care for the community

of life with understanding, compassion and love; to build democratic societies that are just,

sustainable, participatory and peaceful”.

Figure 3.9 Social and cultural intertwined dimensions of urban sustainability

Social and cultural sustainability has been considered as soft infrastructure which is vital

for a healthy community. The social and cultural intertwined dimensions of urban

sustainability embrace vision of a humane society, where compassion, mutual respect and

32 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Cultural Capital

Traditions Ethics

Arts & Creativity Recreation

History & heritage Custom & lifestyle

Spiritual values Sense of Place

Social Capital Equity Social networks Inclusiveness Shared knowledge Diversity & Tolerance Understandings Compassion & Love Mutual trust Care & Supporting Connectedness Sharing Social cohesion Peace & Security Solidarity Democracy Sense of Community Sense of Belonging

PUBLIC SPACES Communication

Participation Interaction

Empowerment

Adequate & affordable housing Health & child care

Volunteerism Community gardens

Life-long education Common houses

Festivals Community celebration

35

care are nurtured, where sharing33 and cooperation become a celebrated social priority34.

“Where social capital is strong, communities exhibit high rates of volunteerism and citizen

involvement as well as greater inclusion of all sectors of society in the social and cultural

fabric. Also, a community that is rich in social capital provides a wealth of intelligence,

sensitivity, and wisdom that will underpin and support appropriate ecological, economic,

and social sustainability strategies” (Kingston 2010).

Social sustainability

According to the WACOSS’s model, socially sustainable communities are equitable,

diverse, connected, democratic and provide a good quality of life (Hodgson 2008). So, a

sustainable city is a just and inclusive city, where benefits of development would be

distributed fairly across society. It is a city for all, regardless of their status, gender, race,

ethnicity or religion. “An inclusive city provides the opportunities and support that enables

all residents to develop fully and allow them access to decent housing, transport,

education, recreation, communication, employment and the judiciary, as well as cultural

and religious expression. In an inclusive city, residents take part in decision-making that

ranges from the political to issues of daily life. Such participation injects a sense of

belonging, identity, place into residents, and guarantees them a stake in the benefits of

urban development” (UN-HABITAT 2010).

In an inclusive city, diversity is respected; people are tolerant of differences, and are open-

minded. This creates condition for true communication can develop. Communication leads

to trust, trust to sharing, sharing to co-operation and thus community solidarity is

strengthened.

As human beings, we all need meaningful relationships with others, the sense of

community, the sense of connectedness, knowing that another person cares, supports and

looks out for us. This corresponds with Maslow’s need for love/belonging and Max-Neef’s

need for affection and participation. People with a strong sense of community are more

likely to report being in good health and less likely to feel isolated than those that have a

weak sense of community (Jochmann 2010). 33 10 ways our wolrd is becoming more shareable (Gorenflo & Smith 2010) http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/10-ways-our-world-is-becoming-more-shareable 34 Earth 2.0 – Sharing as one of the four chief operating principles of the Earth 2.0 upgrade http://earth2channel.com/blog/post/28

36

Research has shown that communities where there are high levels of volunteerism and

many opportunities for people to have contact with others outside of work or school have

more consensus and are more resilient (Hallsmith 2003). Thus, public spaces in city are

very important for communication, interaction and exchange to build sense of community.

Jan Gehl35 once said, “a sustainable city would be a very people-friendly city. It would be

a city with good public spaces and a city that is rather compact. It would be a city that

really invites people to walk and bicycle as much as possible.” Research also confirmed

that individuals in more walkable neighborhoods tended to have higher levels of trust and

community involvement, and also reported being in good health and happy more often

than those in the less walkable neighborhoods (Williams 2011).

Cultural sustainability

UNESCO (1995) defined the cultural dimension of community development 36 as being

“the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features

that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts and letters, but also

modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and

beliefs.” The basic role of art, culture, and heritage has long been to bring beauty, depth

and meaning into our daily lives, they also nurture individual and community identity,

promote social cohesion, and contribute to the creation of social capital (Kingston 2010).

More and more, culture has been recognized as an essential dimension with the potential

to transform communities and individuals in positive and meaningful ways over the long

term.

Jon Hawkes (2001) wrote “The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in

Public Planning", recognizing that a community’s vitality and quality of life is closely

related to the vitality and quality of its cultural engagement, expression, dialogue, and

celebration37. Current main themes of cultural sustainability are summarized in box 3.4.

35 Jan Gelh Interview (2008): Making healthy cities http://sustainablecities.dk/en/actions/interviews/jan-gehl-making-healthy-cities 36 Sustainable Future - Culture and Knowledge Workshop http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/significant_projects/planning_studies/sustainable_future/workshop_two/issues_brief 37 Models of sustainability incorporating culture: http://www.creativecity.ca/se-newsletters/special-edition-4/models-sustainability.html

37

Box 3.4 Key themes of cultural sustainability38

10 KEY THEMES OF CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

(Creative City Network, Canada 2007)

1. The culture of sustainability

Changing people’s behavior and consumption patterns, and adapting to a more sustainability-conscious lifestyle. 2. Globalization & cultural identity

Protecting local culture from globalization and market forces. 3. Heritage conservation

Recognize the history of a place and its tangible and intangible attributes. Revitalizing and re-using heritage buildings for cultural facilities. 4. Sense of place

Building sense of place through intimate connection with our natural environment and history. The importance of heritage and symbols, and the role of the arts in raising community awareness and interest in sustainability are recognized. 5. Indigenous knowledge & traditional practices

Recovery and protection of cultural health, history, and the culture of indigenous knowledge in society. Storytelling is a tool to keep memories alive and celebrate history. 6. Community cultural development

Using arts and culture as community-building tools to promote sense of place, empowerment, and public participation. Creative collaboration fosters social development and change.

7. Arts, education & youth

The arts are seen as both development and communicative tools in communities and schools, as they increase the effectiveness of teaching, research, policy, and actions toward cultural sustainability and development. 8. Sustainable design

Sustainable design is seen as a component of cultural sustainability. Supporting cultural identity can ensure the past is part of the present and will benefit the future. 9. Planning

A cultural lens is needed in city planning and design. This requires community culture-based planning strategies that address civic identity, youth, multiculturalism, and other aspects of communities. 10. Cultural policy & local government

The multidisciplinary nature of sustainable development requires that policies for sustainability transcend boundaries and integrate cultural aspects.

38 Creative City Network, Canada 2007: Ten key themes of cultural sustainability http://www.creativecity.ca/se-newsletters/special-edition-4/ten-key-themes-of-cultural-sustainability.html

38

Hawkes’ model demonstrates that the contribution of culture to building lively cities and

communities plays a major role in supporting social and economic health (Duxbury and

Gillette 2007). According to him, the key to cultural sustainability is fostering

partnerships, exchange, and respect between different streams of government, business,

and arts organizations.

Spiritual values

“We need a spiritual compass to find our direction in life. A spiritual compass can help us

to navigate our path through confusion and crises, through the suffocating allure of

materialism, and through delusion and despair” (Kumar 2007).

Spiritual values are essential as an inner guiding light which helps us to develop our

worldview, to seek wisdom of truth and wholeness, to find meaning of our existence and

to connect with a greater transcendent reality.

“Justice and compassion spring from the hearts of people who recognize our profound

interdependence and interrelatedness with one another and the Earth” (Lamborn 2010).

Spiritual connection is the basis for love, compassion and community. Our desire to

deeply connect can be the most powerful force for good (Jones, Haenfler and Johnson

2007). People with compassion have deep concern for social equality and justice; they

want to see that all people and other existences are treated with dignity and love; they

become more tolerant, more embracing, always ready to reach out to help, to support, and

glorify others (Lin 2006).

The virtues of justice, humility, service and compassion can motivate us to address our

social and environmental challenges and to build a world of peace and harmony (Jones,

Haenfler and Johnson 2007). Therefore, creating a culture of sustainability which

cherishes those values of tolerance, love, care, respect… is essential in empowering and

transforming community towards a sustainable future.

39

3.4 Good governance

“Good governance must be built from the ground up. It cannot be imposed,

either by national authorities, or by international agencies. Good governance is the fruit

of true dedication, selfless leadership, and a politics of integrity.” (Annan 1997)

Good governance plays a decisive role in urban management, planning and operating

towards sustainability. While government is an entity (an official governing organization),

governance refers to the process of decision making and the process by which decisions

are implemented (UNESCAP). These governing processes involve not only the state

(government), but also the private sector and the whole civil society.

Figure 3.10 Three interrelated actors of governance

All three interconnected actors are critical for urban sustainability. Government creates a

conducive political and legal environment; the private sector generates jobs and income;

and civil society facilitates political and social interaction - mobilizing groups to

participate in economic, social and political activities (UNDP 1997). Since each part has

weaknesses and strengths, it is important for good governance to promote constructive

interaction, partnership, cooperation and coherence among all three.

Box 3.5 describes an ideal image of good governance, adapted from UNESCAP and

UNDP. Main attributes of good governance are long term vision, openness - transparency,

responsibility - accountability, equity - inclusiveness, democratic participation - citizen

involvement, effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of the people.

State (Government)

Civil Society (NGOs, Community

groups)

Private Sector (Businesses)

GOVERNANCE

40

Box 3.5 Characteristics of good governance (UNESCAP39 & UNDP40)

KEY ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

(UNESCAP & UNDP)

Participation

All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively. Rule of law

Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially.

Transparency

Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them. Responsiveness

Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe. Consensus oriented

Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. Equity and inclusiveness

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency

Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources. Accountability

Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organisations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. Strategic vision

Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and sustainable development. There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social complexities in which that perspective is grounded.

39 UNESCAP, Good governance: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp 40 Governance for sustainable human development (UNDP 1997): http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy

41

These features assure that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities and the needs

of future generations are taken into account, and the voices of the most vulnerable in

society are heard in decision-making. Good governance also contributes to peace and

security because it gives societies sound structures for inclusive, equitable economic and

social development. “In post-conflict settings, good governance can promote

reconciliation and offer a path for consolidating peace” (Annan 1997).

Good governance demands the consent and the participation of the governed and the full

and lasting involvement of all citizens (Annan 1997). Key strategies for cultivating good

governance include developing more decentralized state, active civic organizations, and

responsible private sectors (Wheeler, Wheeler and Church 2005).

Decentralization is an important strategy to attain citizen involvement and government

responsiveness. Since power and decisions are closer to local people, decentralized

government is more knowledgeable and accessible. It can respond faster, more effectively

to people’s needs, with more accountability and transparency. Resource use would be

more equitable and the gap between the rich and the poor would be narrowed (Wheeler,

Wheeler and Church 2005).

As Kofi Annan once said (1997), good governance has to begin with the will of the

people. The will of the people must be the basis of governmental authority. That is the

foundation of democracy. Democratization is definitely vital in building good governance,

but it requires mature civic awareness, ongoing education, the development of government

structures, institutions, and time. “Once established, democracies need to be tended

carefully in order to stay healthy and provide good governance for the people” (Wheeler,

Wheeler and Church 2005).

Nowadays, the development of ICTs promises a huge potential of facilitating governance

processes. Core components of e-governance include e-participation, e-administration and

e-service delivery41. E-governance can enhance government and public institution

efficiency, transparency and accountability by providing better public service and

information delivery to citizens and others. Moreover, e-governance fosters greater

interaction between authorities and citizens, thus encouraging more public participation

and involvement. Various online tools can be used, such as RSS feeds, tag clouds, 41 Governance assessment portal: http://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/e-governance

42

interactive map, webcasts for information; blogs, online polls for consultation; e-petitions,

wikis, forum and virtual worlds for participation (WEF 2011). Social networks also

support e-governance with more equity, decentralization and democratization.

On the other hand, e-governance can make a significant positive impact on reducing

carbon dioxide emissions through the dematerialization of public service delivery. Many

paper-based services can be digitalized and situations where face-to-face interaction has

been previously required (to prove identity) can be done virtually (GeSI 2008).

43

4. Urban Sustainability & Public Perceptions

“If you want to build sustainable cities you have to take into consideration the

thoughts and values of the city´s inhabitants.” (Paul Sinclair)42

4.1 Results from global online survey

The global online survey was launched on 10th of May, 2011 at the link below and since

then it has been promoted through social networks, blogs and mail groups such as Wiser

Earth, Facebook, LinkIn, YES Alumni, ERM, Scribd…

• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey

Sample of the questionnaire from this global online survey is attached in the appendix I.

The last respondent was recorded on 13th June, 2011.

Profile of respondents

Total: 175 respondents

Figure 4.1 Profile of respondents by gender and age

42 Professor of African and Comparative Archaeology at Uppsala University, mentioned in Mistra article on the Urban Mind research, “The evolution of cities — a mental process”.

Female65%

Male35%

2%

58%

29%

7%3% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

< 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

44

There are 175 responses in total from all over the world (table 4.1), in which 61

respondents (35%) are male and 114 respondents (65%) are female. Most of the

respondents are from Asia and Europe (fig. 4.2).

Table 4.1 Respondents’ distribution by country

Asia Europe North America Bangladesh 1 Albania 3 Canada 5 India 6 Austria 3 USA 20 Indonesia 1 Belgium 2 Japan 5 Czech 1 Latin America Jordan 1 Denmark 1 Brazil 2 Kazakhstan 1 Estonia 1 Costa Rica 1 Kuwait 1 Finland 4 Ecuador 1 Malaysia 1 France 1 Mexico 2 Myanmar 1 Germany 34 Philippines 1 Ireland 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Italy 1 Singapore 2 Kosovo 2 Thailand 3 Netherlands 3 Vietnam 44 Romania 2 Russia 2 Africa Spain 1 Zimbabwe 1 Sweden 1 Switzerland 2 Australia Ukraine 1 Australia 6

Figure 4.2 Distribution of respondents by region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Asia Europe Africa North America

Latin America

Australia

39.43% 37.71%

0.57%

14.29%

3.43% 3.43%

45

Figure 4.3 Profile of respondents by professional sector

The respondents come from diverse professional sectors as displayed in fig. 4.3, in which

the highest share is environment/conservation (nearly 30%).

Respondents’ perception on a dream city

City size - Population

Figure 4.4 Respondents’ choice on the population of their dream city

1.14%

1.14%

1.71%

2.29%

2.86%

4.57%

6.29%

7.43%

11.43%

13.71%

17.71%

29.71%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Media

Services - Entertainment

Banking - Finance

Agriculture - Forestry

Medical - Health care

Government

ICTs

Non-profit, NGOs

Engineering - Industry

Education - Academic

Other

Environment - Conservation

17.71%

24.57%

19.43%

16.00%

17.71%

2.86%

1.71%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

< 10,000

10,000-100,000

100,000-500,000

500,000- 1 million

1 - 5 millions

5 - 10 millions

> 10 millions

46

Results of respondents’ perception on the size of their dream city in terms of population

are shown in fig. 4.4. The responses are various, with the highest share (24.57%) for cities

with population of 10,000 – 100,000 inhabitants. It is interesting to note that nearly one-

fifth of the respondents (17%) even chose the smallest size available (cities with less than

10,000 inhabitants). Only few respondents chose cities with more than 5 millions

inhabitants to megacities and mostly people who chose these options also come from cities

with large population (Mexico, Madrid, Almedabad, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh).

A city with sense of place

Figure 4.5 shows respondents’ perception on sense of place with nearly all features listed

received ticks from more than 50% respondents, among that, local nature and urban

designs get the highest rates of around 70%. It is sense of belonging that make people feel

emotional attached to a place and the identity that make one city different from the others.

Many factors contribute to sense of a place, such as its people (sense of community), its

culture, tradition, customs and history, its nature, its architectures…

Figure 4.5 Respondents’ perception on sense of place

Respondents perceive variously on sense of place. Some likes a quiet and ancient city (M,

18-30, HCMC)43, some likes a “simple and less complicated” one (F, 18-30, Amman),

some likes a more international one (F, 31-40, Helsinki), and another prefers a city with

good sense of humor and fun (F, >60, Eugene). One respondent (F, 18-30, Brisbane)

43 Note: content in the blankets gives briefly reference to the respondent quoted (gender, range of age, city/ country)

51.43%

62.29%

63.43%

69.71%

71.43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Local food and tradition

Sense of community

Culture and historic preservation

Urban designs

Local biodiversity and natural landscape

47

associates sense of place with “high levels of creativity and encouragement of exploration

and development of creative and spiritual life”, others (F, 18-30, New York) with “well

integrated living, entertainment and business districts” or “strong sense of safety and trust,

no fear of violence” (F, 18-30, Berkeley).

A human friendly city

Openness and friendliness are very important factors of a desirable city. A respondent

from Berlin (F, 18-30) perceives this attribute as “a social spirit to remove negative

thoughts/feelings and actions”, and another respondent from Brisbane (F, 31-40)

associates it with “assumption of genuine respect for all”.

Even a nearly perfect city in terms of environmental quality and economics may be

undesirable if it is not human friendly.

This attribute is strongly confirmed from the results illustrated in fig. 4.6, with all listed

features of a human friendly city received ticks from more than 70% respondents. In

which “embracing cultural diversity, welcoming to people of diverse cultures and

backgrounds” has the highest record of nearly 90%.

I love cities where people give you hospitality, synergies... Cities, where people shows love and optimism on their faces... I also love to have big or very big green spaces in city. It’s so kind to see people of different ages and different social classes, all together. Because it doesn't matter if you are a poor or a rich one, life is a miracle and everyone have the full right to enjoy it.....

(F, 18-30, Tirana, Albania)

I do live in Trento which could be even considered a perfect city BUT people are not really friendly and open. Besides that, although the CITY is very nice, it's inside a country and a context. The country has several problems which end up to influence it as well. In an even more idealistic consideration, although Trento could be a perfect city I suppose it's also from the human nature to miss what you don't have... especially considering relationships with friends and family (who lives in a very imperfect city, in the other side of the world...)

(F, 31-40, Trento, Italy)

48

Figure 4.6 Respondents’ perception on a human friendly city

This attribute does not only manifest through the characteristics of the people (open-

minded and helpful) but also from well and thoughtful urban designs of public spaces,

which encourage social interaction and cultural exchange. Respondents suggested for a

human friendly city included “technology and housing design that forces people to

interact, affordable housing that prevents the rich living in one area and the poor in

another - mixed income housing” (F, 18-30, New York), “affordable living and living

wages available to all, free (government funded) access to basic services” (F, 31-40,

Berkeley). A human friendly is also a city of tolerance, with “dedication to helping those

in economic need or otherwise suffering, creative ways of handling conflict” (F, 31-40,

Philadelphia).

A green city

It seems that a green city needs no explanation. “Green”, nature and environmental quality

is one core pillar of sustainability. It is also desirable by most of us.

71.43%

72.00%

86.86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Open-minded and helpful people

Having great public spaces

Embracing cultural diversity

I had a chance to live one year in Cottbus in Brandenburg and I loved it, for many reasons. People travelling by bike, amazing surrounding of the city, many cultural events organized by University and/or the city itself. The development is to be seen in there...many green areas, many quiet areas. The impact of the university is very visible. I would love to live in such a city.

(F, 18-30, Prague, Czech)

49

Figure 4.7 Respondents’ perception on a green city

Figure 4.7 shows high agreement on that. The models of urban garden, green roofs are

also highly welcomed (86%). Respondents added some more models such as “abundant

local food crops grown commonly in public spaces” (F, 31-40, Berkeley), “buildings that

are covered in greenery – green façade, vertical gardens and fly-over gardens” (F, 18-30,

New York).

A regenerative city

It is quite encouraging to see that nearly all sustainable listed features for a regenerative

city received high rates of ticks (more than 70%), in which the two most equally

concerned are waste recycling and renewable energies (82%).

Figure 4.8 Respondents’ perception on a regenerative city

72.57%

86.29%

87.43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fresh air and clean water

Urban gardens, plant pots on balconies, green roofs

Many parks in the city, lots of trees on the streets

72.00%

74.86%

75.43%

82.29%

82.29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rainwater harvesting

Energy conservation and energy efficiency

Green buildings using local, renewable materials

Renewable energies

Separating and recycling/composting wastes

50

One respondent from New York (M, 31-40) recommended his favorite Hammarby

Model44, a district project in Stockholm, Sweden which attempts at a balanced, “closed-

loop urban metabolism”, considering the unified infrastructure of energy, water and waste.

A smart and connected city

Figure 4.9 shows results of public perceptions on a smart and connected city with models

of using ICTs such as E-governance, to improve public services and interactions between

citizens and government, making government more accountable, transparent and effective;

and applications of ICTs in urban management such as transportation.

Figure 4.9 Respondents’ perception on a smart and connected city

It turned out that the most concerned was given to the feature of “active citizen

participation in decision making” (72%), followed by e-governance (67%). Though the

44 A Hammarby Project, Stockholm, Sweden: In addition to the Hammarby Model infrastructure, the presence of urban-scaled density, access to multiple modes of transit with an emphasis on reduced car commuting, preservation and restoration of existing natural systems, and progressive construction and housing policies make Hammarby Sjostad an effective demonstration that ecological and urban go together by means of comprehensive planning. http://www.aeg7.com/assets/publications/hammarby%20sjostad.pdf

54.86%

67.43%

72.57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Use of ICT, GPS in traffic management, lighting systems…

E-governance

Active citizen participation in decision -making

Waste treatment is one of the most important issues nowadays and it should be applied in every city. As an incentive to separate the waste, Germany got it with the system of "pfand": a small charge when you buy bottles of glass or plastic and you get the money back when you give back the bottles. It can alienate poverty a little, it encourages the waste separation and millions of bottles are reused (for plastic bottles, it's a rare thing!!).

(F, 18-30, Cottbus, Germany)

51

applications of ICTs in urban management promise high potential, this idea was interested

to only more than half of the respondents.

A bicycle friendly city with walkable neighborhoods

Again, like in the case of a regenerative city, nearly all main features of a bicycle friendly

city with walkable neighborhoods are highly welcomed (more than 70%), with the most

agreed was attributed to a diverse and efficient public transportation (87%).

Figure 4.10 Respondents’ perception on sustainable urban mobility

This model also received many comments from respondents, mostly expressing their

supporting. Some respondents expected their dream city with no cars (M, 18-30, Vienna),

or with bicycles even for long distances (M, 41-50, Stockholm), or suggested road designs

that enable people to walk/use bicycles (F, 31-40, Tampere).

51.43%

69.71%

72.57%

75.43%

87.43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Car sharing or car rental models

Pedestrianised downtown

Bicycles for short distances

Services, transport stations in walkable distances

Diverse and efficient public transit

Less cars and more green spaces! Social, cultural, leisure infrastructure for everybody, not only in the city center! (M, 31-40,

Bremen, Germany)

I would love to visit Curitiba in Brazil. They learned the hard way how to live in community and take care of their city because it belongs to everyone. Jobs are close people's homes so the distance that they walk or take a bike ride is minimum.

(F, 18-30, Guayaquil, Ecuador)

52

An interesting city

A desirable city would be an interesting city with diverse activities of services,

entertainment and recreation, a city where community arts, music, dance and celebrations

are fostered, a city encourages innovations and creativity. The results from figure 4.11

shows that high percentages of respondents share these ideas.

Figure 4.11 Respondents’ perception on an interesting city

Respondents suggested city to have its own libraries and museums (M, 18-30, HCMC),

arts and creativity education and training (M, 31-40, New York), putting universities in the

centre to encourage young people into the city (F, 18-30, New York).

A just and inclusive city

65.14%

74.29%

76.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

A city of innovations and creativity

Lively urban life

Community arts, music, dance and celebrations are fostered

A city that enables (young) people to start their small and medium sized enterprises or projects - small shops, local products, local art productions...

(M, 18-30, Bern, Switzerland)

Well I guess better cities is where people are treated the same and have equal opportunities. It is the city where justice is not in the hand of a particular person, it is where a law goes over everyone no matter who he is or from where he comes from.

(F, 18-30, Amman, Jordan)

53

A desirable city would be not only human friendly but also humane; an inclusive city

which embraces all its people, regardless of their race, gender, age, or social and economic

status. Figure 4.12 shows a high agreement of respondents on features of an inclusive city,

with the highest interested was attributed to education and job opportunities for all, special

assistance for people with disability (88%), followed by good quality, affordable housing

available for the poor (75%) and good health care and public services accessible to all

(74%).

Figure 4.12 Respondents’ perception on a just and inclusive city

Respondents’ suggestions for an inclusive city included encouraging citizens in

collaboration, in taking parts of planning the local education, health-care and politic

activities (F, 18-30, Chiang Mai), public transport suitable for people with disability (F,

31-40, Tampere), high salaries for socially concentrated jobs (F, 18-30, Berlin) and an

efficient social work system (M, 18-30, HCMC).

More respondents’ ideas on their desirable city

73.71%

74.86%

88.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Good health care and public services are accessible to all

Good quality, affordable housing available for the poor.

Education and job opportunities for all. Assistance for people with disability.

No cars/only public transport (generated by renewable energies), cradle to grave - management concerning products, general environmental awareness among citizens, urban gardening all along city (everyone responsible for own food)

(F, 18-30, Berlin, Germany)

Minimize home sizes. Reduce consumerism. Take a step back and have jobs that pertain to local growth, development and prosperity.

(F, 31-40,

Sacramento, USA)

54

I'm a public librarian. I think places like public libraries are vital to healthy cities. We grant people of diverse ages, social and economic backgrounds the opportunity a shared space for cultural enrichment, educational advancement and the evolution of community.

(F, 18-30, Philadelphia, USA)

I am living in Hanoi. I want our city to be greener by fewer motorbikes & cars, instead, more bicycles should be used. Moreover, there should be more trees on the streets, more public parks and our city should keep the lakes as they are specialty of Hanoi. Better governance via less corruption & better management systems are required for traffic, health care, etc.

(F, 18-30, Hanoi, Vietnam)

Decentralization: Local government is fully and independently responsible for governing and managing local city with meaningful participation of its own people.

(F, 18-30, Chiang Mai, Thailand)

55

Respondents’ perception on the significance of urban aspects

What aspect of a city that makes people love to live there? What matters most to them?

Figure 4.13 presents the average results of respondents rating the significance of some

main urban aspects on the scale of 1-5 (1: least important, 5: most important). The results

show that all aspects listed are important to people, according to respondents’ perception

(all average points > 3.3). What matters most to people does vary. However, on average,

good public services, health care, education, nature & green, good governance and sense

of community weight the higher points.

Figure 4.13 Respondents’ perception on the significance of various urban aspects [Scale of 1 (least important) - 5 (most important)]

Besides those factors rated, some respondents also gave more comments on the features of

a city that they like and what matters most to them.

3.379

3.444

3.740

3.753

3.844

3.846

4.145

4.349

0 1 2 3 4 5

History and culture

Urban design

Lively urban life

Economic opportunities

Sense of community

Good governance

Nature and green

Good public services, health care, education

Safety and good governance, equity, and job opportunities are of great importance to me. (F, 31-40,

Mexico City)

56

Unfortunately nothing else matters when deciding in which city I live than a job :/ But naturally if I would not need to think of a job, the other matters would become more important.

(F, 31-40, Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica)

For me, the people in the community are taking charge of their own spiritual and material development and are contributing to the process of decision making, change etc.

(F, 18-30, Melaka, Malaysia)

I've lived in several cities. Munich was the best life, but the weather was crappy and the culture could have been better. Plus, it lacked inclusiveness and community. But for transport, health, economy, design, greenness, parks, and resource care it was far better than Buenos Aires, NYC, San Jose, Costa Rica, and Washington DC. NYC is the best by far for culture, design, and neighborhoodiness, economy is generally great too, green stuff is so-so. Buenos Aires was not so good apart from design, economy (when I was there), and culture is great. San Jose is not so good but at least has the basics covered with health and water quality, but people are friendly and the lifestyle is laid back. Economy is so so.

A combination of parts of all those cities could be included in my ideal city.

(M, 31-40, New York, USA)

A city where I want to live the most is close to my family, relatives and friends. It should close to the beach, or mountain, or fountain, forest, the field, farm...

(F, 18-30, Bien Hoa, Vietnam)

57

4.2 Results from surveys in HCMC

4.2.1 Results from online and offline questionnaires

The questionnaire in Vietnamese exclusively prepared for residents of HCMC was

launched both online (link below) and offline (distributed in papers for people writing

their opinions and then collected) on 28th of May 2011.

• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-

hcmc/vietnamese-version

The last online respondent was recorded on 16th of June, 2011.

Sample of the questionnaire from this survey for HCMC is attached in the appendix II.

Profile of respondents

Total: 78 responses, in which 26 online and 52 offline respondents 45, (39 male and 39

female). Respondents’ ages range from 19 to 66 years old (fig. 4.14), in which most of

them are in the age range of 18-40.

Figure 4.14 Profile of respondents by gender and age

45 The number of offl ine respondents was higher than 52. However, because some responses were not appropriate (lack of respondents’ information or only few questions were answered), these have to be left aside.

Female 50%

Male 50%

32.05%35.90%

8.97%

16.67%

6.41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

58

Figure 4.15 Profile of respondents by professional sector

Respondents’ professions are varied as illustrated in figure 4.15.

Respondents’ perception on a desirable city

City size - Population

Figure 4.16 Respondents’ choice on the population of their desirable city

Results of respondents’ perception on the population of their desirable city are shown in

fig. 4.16 with the most favorite attributed to 500,000 – 1 million inhabitants (61.54%).

Only 9% of respondents prefer small city with less than 500,000 inhabitants.

Architect9%

Business9%

Education21%

Engineering29%

Office14%

Other14%

Services4%

8.97%

61.54%

29.49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

< 500,000

500,000 - 1 million

> 1 million

59

Table 4.2 presents people’s responses on 19 features of a desirable city with 5 options: like

very much, like, don’t care, don’t know and don’t like.

Table 4.2 People’s responses on characteristics of a desirable city

Characteristics of a desirable city Like very

much

Like

Don’t care

Don’t know

(?)

Don’t like

1. Many gardens, parks, trees on the streets

86% 14%

2. Urban designs are harmonious with natural landscape and surroundings.

65% 35%

3. Urban heritages are well preserved.

56% 33% 9%

4. Original, having identity.

63% 32% 5%

5. Sense of place, sense of belonging (landscape, people, gastronomy, culture…)

55% 40% 4% 1%

6. Strong community sense, supporting and loving community

71% 28% 1%

7. Friendly and open-minded people. Diversity and differences are respected.

58% 35% 8%

8. Many public spaces for community activities, cultural and social exchanges…

49% 47% 4%

9. Interesting urban life, many entertainment and recreational areas, theatres, restaurants…

42% 49% 6% 1%

10. Slumless. City has good quality social housing program. Everybody has a decent place to live.

51% 41% 6%

60

Characteristics of a desirable city Like very

much

Like

Don’t care

Don’t know

(?)

Don’t like

11. Social justice: Every citizen is respected and treated equally. Inclusive city which cares for the marginal groups and has policies to assist the poor, people with disability, especially in terms of accessibility to education, health care and job opportunities…

65% 33% 1%

12. A humane economy: social responsible enterprises which have safe working conditions for labors, reasonable working time, holidays and decent wages

54% 37% 6% 1%

13. A green economy: green business with environmental consciousness, energy and resource saving, using renewable energies, local and natural materials.

51% 38% 6% 4%

14. E-governance: more transparent, effective and responsive, increasing interaction between citizens and decision-makers. Public and administrative services are made quickly by internet.

47% 40% 9% 3% 1%

15. Wastes are classified, then go for composting or recycling

59% 36% 1% 1%

16. Urban designs encourage rainwater infiltration to replenish groundwater and mitigate urban flood. Rainwater harvesting can also be done at household scales.

64% 22% 6% 8%

17. Diverse, developed and convenient public transportation system.

69% 29% 1%

18. Pedestrianized downtown. Encouraging bicycling culture (healthy, environmental friendly, energy saving, less traffic).

58% 29% 12% 1%

19. Urbanization is controlled. Good urban planning, preserving farm land, green spaces for microclimate regulation.

49% 42% 5% 4%

61

Results from table 4.2 show that, most of the ideas for a sustainable city are desirable,

especially these features of greening in the city, urban design that are harmonious with

natural landscape and the surrounding (100%), social justice (98%), sense of community

(99%), waste recycling (95%) and convenient public transport (98%).

However, there are still respondents with no interest (don’t care), though in small

percentages, particularly in issues of urban heritage preservation (9%), openness,

friendliness, tolerance of differences and embracing cultural diversity (8%), e-governance

(9%), bicycling culture and walkable downtown (12%).

The features that some people still have no ideas (don’t know) are rainwater infiltration

(8%), green economy (4%), control of urbanization (4%) and e-governance (3%).

More comments from respondents

Most of respondents dream of a city that is green, clean, beautiful, safe, slumless, no more

traffic jam and flooding, convenient public transit, a city with high level of public

awareness, diverse play grounds for children, democratization in community…

Respondents’ perception on Saigon - Ho Chi Minh city

What people like best about Saigon - What people like best about Saigon do vary. For

some respondents, it is just because Saigon is their hometown where their family and

friends are living, their birthplace with memories from childhood. For some other

respondents, it is Saigon’s people, those open-minded and friendly Saigoneses that they

like the best. Some respondents expressed their nostalgia of an old Saigon, with graceful

colonial buildings, old big trees along old green streets, while others prefer a modern,

dynamic Saigon. In general, people love Saigon because of its interesting and diverse

urban life and services, its promising opportunities for jobs, education, and recreation.

What people do not like most about Saigon - What people do not like most about Saigon

is quite united, with high consensus of opinions on problems of traffic jam, pollution and

flooding. Most of respondents shared the same disappointment on the city too much

crowded and overloaded infrastructure, bad transport system. Noise, wastes, lack of green,

bad planning and low public awareness were also mentioned.

62

Respondents’ perception on HCMC’s urban performance

With the scale of 1 (bad) to 10 (excellent), people were asked to give their assessment on

HCMC’s performance in various urban aspects. The results of this evaluation are

illustrated in figure 4.17 below.

Figure 4.17 Evaluation HCMC’s performance on various urban aspects

[Scale of 1 (bad) - 10 (excellent)]

Figure 4.17 shows that, in general, HCMC got quite low scores on its functioning,

particularly in environmental quality, transportation, urban management and

infrastructure. Job opportunities and economic development is the only aspect which was

perceived as good.

3.99

4.16

4.53

4.97

5.07

5.21

5.30

5.56

5.90

5.95

6.44

6.45

6.53

8.23

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Environmental quality

Transportation

Urban management

Infrastructure

Social justice

Green and public spaces

Urban heritage conservation

Identity

Architecture, designs, landscape

Sense of community, supporting and caring

Health care

Education

Openness and friendliness

Job opportunities, economic development

63

4.2.1 Results from interviews in slum areas

The fieldwork study at some slum areas in Ho Chi Minh City, interviews of slum dwellers,

had been conducted from 11th to 22nd of May 2011. The questions are flexible to be

appropriate in their specific contexts and situations (semi-structure), the main outline of

question sample is attached in appendix III.

Profile of interviewees

Total: 57 interviewees (43 female and 14 male).

Profile of respondents by gender, age and occupation is illustrated in figure 4.18 and

figure 4.19. Their ages range from 16 to 81 years old. Some photos from the interviews are

shown in figure 4.20.

Figure 4.18 Profile of respondents by gender and age

Figure 4.19 Profile of respondents by occupation

Female75.44%

Male 24.56%

15.79%14.04%

22.81%

26.32%

21.05%

0%

10%

20%

30%

16-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

15.79%

19.30%

31.58%

33.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Hired labors, workers

Small business (informal sector, street vendors, tailors…)

Housewives

Other (jobless, retired…)

64

Figure 4.20 Photos from interviews in the slum areas (HCMC, May 2011)

65

Slum-dwellers and the urban aspects that matter most to them

When asked what their dream in life is, many interviewees referred to a decent house, or

even a small shelter on their own land, a more stable life, earning enough money to sustain

their living.

Figure 4.21 Interviewees’ priorities on top 3 of urban aspects matter most to them

[Sum of points on priority, top 1st = 3 points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point]

Interviewees were asked to give their priorities on top 3 of the aspects of a living place

that matter most to them. The factors listed are as the same as the list in figure 4.13 for

global online survey with 2 more additions (safety, security and no flooding) suggested by

the slum-dwellers themselves. Their responses were converted into points (top 1st = 3

points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point) and then sum of all the points for each aspect was

calculated and presents in figure 4.21. Results from figure 4.21 show that interviewees put

the highest weight on economic opportunities (jobs), followed by safety and security, and

sense of community. Observation from fieldstudy in these slum areas also showed that

nearly most of the interviewees have to struggle in life with very low condition of living.

Therefore, this implies that sustainability would be a very far away dream if the basic

subsistence needs have not been met.

0

1

2

3

12

16

22

31

49

74

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

History and culture

Urban design

Nature and green spaces

Urban life, entertainment, recreation

Urban governance, transparent, accountable

No flooding

Public services, health care and education

Sense of community

Safety, security

Economic opportunities

66

5. Conclusions

“Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision fails due to lack

of direction. Vision with action can change the world.” (Shahmardaan n.d.)

From the principles of Earth Charter or One Planet Living to models created by think tank

of Philips Center or Ecocity Builders, sustainability has been envisioned in an integrated

framework of interrelated dimensions. Cities and human systems are considered as parts of

larger natural ecosystems and socio-economic communities, in which all things are linked

to each other in the web of life. Thus, urban sustainability can only be achieved with a

systems approach which recognizes this profound interconnectedness. Urban sustainability

visions are not fixed images but rather flexible and evolutionary perspectives.

The core philosophy of sustainability lies in the appreciation of nature as the symbol of

integrity, stability and beauty. Thus, a sustainable city would be a green city, in which

nature is well protected and integrated harmoniously in urban design and planning.

Moreover, there is no concept of waste in nature, energy and materials flow and regenerate

through ongoing cycles. Thus, a sustainable city would be a regenerative city, which

applies nature’s wisdom in its waste recycling and using local, renewable material and

energy. Respecting nature, living more simply within the Earth’s limits and reducing our

impact on the Earth’s resources, this implies the moderation in population reproduction,

economic production and consumption. These are crucial steps towards a low-carbon

economy, particularly in the context of Peak Oil, climate change and resource depletion.

Written beautifully in the Earth Charter, the key principle of sustainability is “care for the

community of life, with understanding, compassion and love”. Sustainability cherishes

sense of community, social capital, solidarity and a culture of peace with mutual respect,

sharing and caring. Cooperation rather than competition with nature and with each other is

advocated. Above all, happiness, which is the real meaning of life, does not lie on

materials terms alone but rather on our spiritual and social relationship in community.

A sustainable city would be a human friendly city. This human friendliness does not come

only from its open-minded, helpful and friendly people but also this attribute can be

67

manifested and fostered by thoughtful urban design and planning, which encourage social

interaction and cultural exchange through public spaces, walkable neighborhoods…

Any imbalance or injustice implies unstability and high potential risk of collapse, thus it

can not sustain in the long run. Beside ecological balance, a sustainable city would be a

city of social and economic justice because equity is another primary principle of

sustainability. A sustainable city would not only be human friendly but also humane; an

inclusive city which embraces all its people, regardless of their race, gender, age, or social

and economic status. On the other hand, culture of sustainability appreciates tolerance of

differences, and diversity is seen as source of richness rather than conflicts.

Ideals of democracy, accountability, transparency and inclusive decision making are

essential attributes of good governance, which in turn plays a vital role as guiding forces

for cities on the journey toward sustainability. Since actors of governance comprise not

only the government but also the private sector and civil society, active citizen

participation is vital to the success of urban sustainability. Nowaday, with the

development of web 2.0, e-governance and other ICT applications in urban management

and operation promise huge potential in improving public services as well as enhancing

citizen participation and interaction in decision making.

*****

The global online survey and the questionnaire for HCMC’s residents present quite

promising results, in which urban sustainability models are welcomed by most of

respondents. It confirms that a sustainable city is also a desirable and loveable city.

On the other hand, reflection on reality of HCMC’s urban performance presents quite a

pessimistic picture. Many problems of traffic, pollution, flooding, overload infrastructure,

noise, lack of green and public spaces, corruption and bad planning pose great challenges

to sustainable development of this crowded, soon-to-be megacity. HCMC in perceptions

of respondents is still far away from urban sustainability visions. This also reminds us that,

although compact development is a good and efficient model, it would functions positively

only when there is reasonable size of population within its carrying and management

capacity, plus good governance and urban planning that harmonious with local nature.

68

In addition, observation from the field study at some slum areas in HCMC also shows that

there are many people still live in very bad conditions and everyday still have to struggle

to survive. When basic subsistence needs have not been met yet, sustainability is only a

very far away dream, which sometimes seems to not exist in their perception. Therefore,

poverty alleviation, public empowerment and awareness raising are first basic steps on the

way toward future urban sustainability, before we can go any further.

Good leadership with urban sustainability vision is required for future success of a city.

Moreover, active citizen participation is also vital. Thus, capacity building for local

managers, officers, education and public awareness raising in general can be powerful

tools for positive social change and for nurturing a culture of sustainability.

69

References

Andrews, C. (2006). Slow is beautiful - New visions of community, leisure and joie devivre. New Society Publishers.

Annan, K. (1997, July). UNDP. Retrieved June 2011, from International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity: http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/icg97/ANNAN.HTM

APTA. (2008). Public transportation – Benefits for the 21st century. Retrieved November 2008, from American Public Transportation Association: http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/twenty_first_century.cfm

Baxter, K., Boisvert, A., Lindberg, C., & Mackrael, K. (2009). Sustainability Primer. Retrieved June 2011, from The Natural Step - Canada: www.thenaturalstep.org/canada

BioRegional and WWF. (2011). One Planet Vision. Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.oneplanetvision.org/

Brown, L. (2008). Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. Earth Policy Institute. .

Bugliarello, G. (2008, August 22). Urban Sustainability. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from SciTopics: http://www.scitopics.com/URBAN_SUSTAINABILITY.html

Callenbach, E. (1992). The Fate of Our Cities is the Fate of the Earth. In B. Walter, L. Arkin, & R. Crenshaw, Sustainable Cities - Concepts and Strategies for Eco-City development. Eco-Home Media.

Capra, F. (1988). The Turning Point - Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. Bantam Books.

City of Nagoya. (2009, November). The 2050 Nagoya Strategy for Low-carbon City. Retrieved June 2011, from Climate Neutral Network: http://www.unep.org/CLIMATENEUTRAL/Default.aspx?tabid=1055

Cunningham, W. P., Cunningham, M. A., & Saigo, B. W. (2003). Environmental Science - A Global Concern (7th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Duxbury, N., & Gillette, E. (2007). Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability - Exploring Concepts, Themes and Models. Creative City Network of Canada.

ECI Secretariat. (2011, March). The Earth Charter and the Green Economy. Retrieved June 2011, from The Earth Charter International: http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/details.php?id=867

Ecocity Builders. (2010). Ecocity Builders. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.ecocitybuilders.org

70

Ecologist, T. (2008, May). 30 Steps to an oil free world. Retrieved June 2011, from The Ecologist: http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/360427/30_steps_to_an_oilfree_world.html

Edwards, A. R. (2005). The Sustainability Revolution - Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. New Society Publishers.

EREC & Green Peace. (2007). Retrieved October 2008, from Energy [R]evolution – A Sustainable World Energy Outlook: http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf

G. Tyler Miller, J. (2004). Environmental Science - Working with the Earth (10th Edition). Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.

GeSI. (2008). SMART 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age. The Climate Group - the Global eSustainability Initiative (GeSI).

Girardet, H. (2010). Regenerative Cities. Retrieved April 2011, from World Future Council: www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Goldsmith, E. (2000). Hell on Earth: mankind and the environment. Retrieved 2005, from Edward Goldsmith: http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page64.htm

Grazia, B.-F. (2009). Engaging indigenous peoples and local communities in the governance of protected areas . Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/presentation_governance.pdf

Haines, S. G., Aller-Stead, G., & McKinlay, J. (2005). Enterprise-Wide Change Superior Results Through Systems Thinking. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hallsmith, G. (2003). The Key to Sustainable Cities - Meeting Human Needs, Transforming Community Systems. New Society Publishers.

Hodgson, N. (2008). The WACOSS social sustainability assessment framework. Integral Sustainability Symposium. http://integral-sustainability.net/wp-content/uploads/sas4-2-hodgson.pdf.

Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture - Principles & Pathwayd Beyond Sustainability. Holmgren Design Services.

Holocene. (2004). Holocene. Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.holocene.net/sustainability/human_needs.htm

IEA. (2007). World Energy Outlook 2007. Retrieved November 2008, from International Energy Agency: http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/WEO2007SUM.pdf

Jochmann, C. (2010). How to Build a Sense of Community. Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-build-a-sense-of-community-a181853

Jones, E., Haenfler, R., & Johnson, B. (2007). The Better World Handbook. New Society Publishers.

71

Kamata, S. (2011). Low carbon city development guidance. The Urban Sector Week 2011. World Bank.

Kingston. (2010). Sustainable Kingston Plan - Designing our community's future together. Kingston.

Kuhlman, A. (2007). Peak Oil – The End of Oil Age. . Retrieved October 2008, from http://www.oildecline.com.

Kumar, S. (2007). Spiritual Compass - The three qualities of life. Green Books .

Lamborn, K. (2010). Visions of Sustainability: A Dream for My Students. Journal of Sustainability Education .

Lerch, D. (2009, May). Post Carbon Cities - Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty. Retrieved June 2011, from Post Carbon Cities: http://postcarboncities.net/pcc-presentations

Lin, J. (2006). Love, Peace, and Wisdom in Education - A Vision for Education in the 21st Century. Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development. Wiley .

Ministry of Environment - Japan. (2007, December 2011). Building a Low Carbon Society. Retrieved June, from Ministry of Environment - Japan: www.env.go.jp/earth/info/pc071211/en.pdf

Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems – Principles and Practices. Island Press.

Nguyen, Q. K. (2005). Long term optimization of energy supply and demand in Vietnam with special reference to the potential of renewable energy. Oldenburg University .

NREL. (2002). Energy Analysis Office Report. Retrieved October 2008, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory USA: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2002.ppt

Outhwaite, A. (2009, January). Backcasting . Retrieved 2011, from Arising Beyond Sustainability: http://wearearising.org/2009/01/13/backcasting

Roseland, M. (2005). Toward Sustainable Communities - Resources for Citizens and Their Governments. New Society Publishers.

Shahmardaan, B. R. (n.d.). Making Your Vision A Reality. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.shahmardaan.com/vision.htm

Sterry, M. (2010, December). Bionic City. Retrieved June 2011, from Earth 2.0: http://earth2channel.com/magazine/article/22

SymbioCity. (2009). Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.symbiocity.org/

72

The Philips Center for Health & Wellbeing. (2010, September). Insigt on Livable Cities Series - 1st Edition. Retrieved May 2011, from The Philips Center for Health & Wellbeing: http://www.philips-thecenter.org/

UNDP. (1997, January). Governance for sustainable human development. Retrieved June 2011, from http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/

UN-HABITAT. (2010, March). Bridging the urban divide: Inclusive cities. Retrieved June 2011, from UN HABITAT: www.unhabitat.org/documents/SOWC10/R11.pdf

Veenhuizen, R. v., & Danso, G. (2007). Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. FAO.

WEF. (2011, January). Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government. Retrieved June 2011, from World Economic Forum: http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-government

Wheeler, B., Wheeler, G., & Church, W. (2005). It's All Connected - A comprehensive guide to global issues and sustainable solutions . Facing the Future: People and the Planet.

Williams, R. B. (2011, May 28). Wired for Success - Why we need livable, "walkable" cities. Retrieved June 2011, from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201105/why-we-need-livable-walkable-cities

Worldwatch. (2011, June 16). Farming the Cities, Feeding an Urban Future. Retrieved June 2011, from World Watch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org/farming-cities-feeding-urban-future-0

WWF & Ericsson. (2009). Communications Solutions for Low Carbon Cities. WWF.

Yamakawa, T. (2008). Aiming to Realize Low–Carbon Society via ICT. ICT Symposium on ICTs and Climate Change. Kyoto.

Zeeuw, H. d., Dubbeling, M., Veenhuizen, R. v., & Wilbers, J. (n.d.). Key Issues and Courses of Action for Municipal Policy Making on Urban Agriculture. Retrieved June 2011, from RUAF Foundation - Resource Center for Urban Agriculture & Food Security: http://www.ruaf.org

73

APPENDIX I Sample of Global Online Survey

Link: https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey What kind of city/community do you want to live in? How do you envision it? Please feel free to share with us your ideas. We're eager to hear from you! Many thanks in advance. :-)

About You

Your age

Your gender

Where do you live? (Name of the city/community and the country, for example: Hanoi, Vietnam)

Your occupation or profession: Which sector do you work in? (or if you are a student: What is

your major field of study?)

Characteristics of Your Desirable City Please relax and give us opinions about the city of your dream. :-)

Size - Population

A City with Sense of Place. Sense of belonging, place attachment and identity (Please tick all options that apply)

• Caring, familiar neighborhood with a strong sense of community

• Strong sense of place by culture and historic preservation

• Strong sense of place by local biodiversity and natural landscape

• Beautiful urban designs that are harmonious with surroundings

• Original local food and traditions

• Other:

74

A Human Friendly City (Please tick all options that apply)

• Great public spaces for lively human interaction, social and cultural exchange.

• Welcoming to people of diverse cultures and backgrounds

• Open-minded and helpful people

• Other:

A Green City (Please tick all options that apply)

• Many parks in the city, lots of trees on the streets

• Urban gardens, plant pots on balconies, green roofs, community gardens...

• Fresh air and clean water

• Other:

A Regenerative City (Please tick all options that apply)

• Renewable energies are used

• Energy conservation and energy efficient appliances are used

• Many green buildings using local, renewable materials

• Wastes are separated at sources and then go for composting or recycling.

• Rainwater is collected to avoid urban flooding and for groundwater renewal.

• Other:

A Smart and Connected City (Please tick all options that apply)

• E-governance (use of ICT to improve public services and interactions between citizens and government, making government more accountable, transparent and effective).

• Active citizens participation in decision - making

• Use of ICT, GPS in traffic management, lighting systems...

• Other:

A Bicycle-Friendly City - Walkable Neighborhoods (Please tick all options that apply)

Well-organized, diverse and efficient public transport system

• Bicycles are used for short distances. There is encouraging cycling culture.

• Services, transport stations are in walkable distances

• City centre is pedestrianised

• Car sharing or car rental models are available

• Other:

75

An Interesting City (Please tick all options that apply)

Lively urban life with diverse activities of services, entertainment and recreation

• A city of innovations and creativity

• Community arts, music, dance and celebrations are fostered

• Other:

An Inclusive City - Social Justice (Please tick all options that apply)

• Good quality, affordable housing available for the poor.

• Education and job opportunities for all. Special concern and assistance for people with disability.

• Good health care and public services are accessible to all.

• Other:

What aspect of a city that makes you love to live there? What matters most to you? Please rate the following aspects (1: least important, 5: most important)

1 2 3 4 5

Economic

opportunities

Caring and friendly people, strong sense

of community

Beautiful urban designs

Natural landscape, green spaces

History and cultural tradition,

celebration

Good urban governance, transparent, accountable

Good public services, health care

and education

Lively urban life

76

More comment (Optional): Any ideas to make better cities that you want to share with us? Or where in the world do you want to live, and why? Please feel free to leave your comment here.

Submit

Powered by Google Docs

77

APPENDIX II Sample of Survey in HCMC

BẢN THĂM DÒ Ý KIẾN VỀ ĐÔ THỊ VÀ PHÁT TRIỂN

Chân thành cảm ơn bạn đã chịu khó dành chút thời gian cho bản thăm dò ý kiến này!

Tên của bạn: __________________________________

Tuổi: ____ Nam Nữ

Nghề nghiệp: __________________________________

I. Thành phố mơ ước. Bạn thích sống trong một thành phố:

1. a. nhỏ, < 500.000 dân b. trung bình, 500.000 – 1 triệu dân c. lớn, > 1 triệu dân

Đặc điểm của thành phố

Rất thích

Thích

Không quan tâm

Không biết (?)

Không thích

2. Nhiều vườn hoa, công viên, cây xanh trên đường phố

3. Th iết kế đô thị hài hòa với địa thế, cảnh quan thiên nhiên và không gian xung quanh

4. Những di sản đô thị cổ được gìn giữ, bảo tồn tốt

5. Có bản sắc riêng, những nét cảnh quan, kiến trúc, văn hóa đặc thù mà không thể tìm thấy ở những chỗ khác

6. Thân quen, gần gũi (cảnh vật, con người, ẩm thực, văn hóa…), nơi mà bạn có cảm giác thuộc về nó

7. Cộng đồng thương mến, mọi người ch ia sẻ, tương trợ lẫn nhau

8. Ngườ i dân thân thiện, cởi mở với người ngoài, với cái mớ i. Sự đa dạng và khác biệt được tôn trọng

78

Đặc điểm của thành phố

Rất thích

Thích

Không quan tâm

Không biết (?)

Không thích

9. Nhiều không gian công cộng cho những sinh hoạt chung, gắn kết cộng đồng, trao đổi văn hóa…

10. Đời sống đô thị phong phú, nhiều khu vui chơi, g iải trí, rạp hát, quán ăn...

11. Không có những khu ổ chuột. Thành phố có những chính sách nhà ở xã hội chất lượng tốt. Mọi người dân đều có chỗ an cư lạc nghiệp.

12. Công bằng xã hội: Mọi công dân được tôn trọng, đối xử bình đẳng trước chính quyền và pháp luật. Thành phố quan tâm và có những chính sách hỗ trợ người nghèo, người khuyết tật, nhất là những cơ hội tiếp cận về giáo dục, y tế, việc làm…

13. Kinh tế nhân bản, các doanh nghiệp có trách nhiệm xã hội, môi trường làm v iệc an toàn cho người lao động, thời gian và điều kiện làm việc, chế độ lương, nghỉ phép hợp lý.

14. Kinh tế xanh, các doanh nghiệp xanh với ý thức về môi trường, chú ý đến tiết kiệm năng lượng, tài nguyên, sử dụng năng lượng tái tạo, tận dụng vật liệu tự nhiên của địa phương.

15. Chính phủ điện tử: giúp cho việc điều hành được hiệu quả, minh bạch, tăng mức độ tương tác giữa người dân và chính quyền. Các dịch vụ công và hành chính được thực hiện nhanh chóng qua internet.

16. Rác được phân loạ i, làm phân bón hay tái chế

17. Đô thị được thiết kế khuyến khích thẩm thấu nước mưa xuống đất để bổ sung vào nguồn nước ngầm và giảm ngập lụt. Nước mưa cũng có thể được thu gom và tận dụng ở quy mô gia đ ình.

18. Hệ thống giao thông công cộng phát triển, đa dạng, tiện lợ i.

19. Khu trung tâm là phố đi bộ. Việc đi xe đạp được khuyến khích (vừa giúp người dân khỏe vì vận động, vừa giảm ô nhiễm môi trường từ khói xe, giảm tiêu thụ nhiên liệu, giảm kẹt xe…).

79

20. Đô thị hóa được kiểm soát và quy hoạch tốt, gìn giữ đất cho nông nghiệp, cho những khoảng xanh, g iúp điều hòa vi khí hậu.

21. Có những điều gì khác về thành phố mơ ước của mình mà bạn muốn chia sẻ thêm? Hơi riêng tư một chút, ước mơ lớn nhất hiện tại của bạn là gì? (Không bắt buộc)

II. Sài Gòn - Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh

22. Những điều gì của Sài Gòn khiến bạn yêu nhất?

23. Những điều gì của Sài Gòn khiến bạn không thích nhất?

80

24. Chấm điểm Tp. HCM - Với thang điểm 10, bạn hãy cho điểm Sài Gòn về những mặt sau (tất cả đều là tương đối, ở đây không có đúng hay sai nên bạn cứ đánh giá theo quan điểm của mình. Bạn có thể để trống ở những mục nào bạn còn phân vân):

Phương diện Điểm

Cơ hội việc làm, phát triển kinh tế

Kiến trúc, cảnh quan

Việc bảo tồn các di sản đô thị

Chất lượng môi trường

Cơ sở hạ tầng

Giao thông

Giáo dục

Y tế

Mảng xanh và những không gian công cộng

Công bằng xã hội

Sự gắn kết trong cộng đồng, tinh thần tương thân tương ái

Sự cởi mở, thân thiện

Bản sắc riêng

Quản lý đô thị

25. Câu hỏi thêm (không bắt buộc): Bạn có ý tưởng, giải pháp nào cho những vấn đề đô thị của Sài Gòn mà bạn muốn chia sẻ? Theo bạn chúng ta cần làm gì, cần có những chính sách gì để thành phố ngày càng trở nên tốt đẹp hơn? Bạn lạc quan hay bi quan khi nghĩ về tương lai của thành phố?

81

English Version of the Vietnamese Questionnaire

SURVEY ON URBAN AND DEVELOPMENT Thank you for taking your time to answer this survey!

Your name: __________________________________

Age: ____ Male Female

Occupation: __________________________________

III. A Desirable City. You like to live in a city:

2. a. small, < 500.000 inh. b. medium, 500.000 – 1 mio. inh. c. big, > 1 mio. inh.

Characteristics of a desirable city

Like very much

Like

Don’t care

Don’t know

(?)

Don’t like

2. Many gardens, parks, trees on the streets

3. Urban designs are harmonious with natural landscape and surroundings

4. Urban heritages are well preserved

5. Original, having identity

6. Sense of place, sense of belonging (landscape, people, gastronomy, culture…)

7. Strong community sense, supporting and loving community

8. Friendly and open-minded people. Diversity and Differences are respected

9. Many public spaces for community activities, cultural and social exchanges…

10. Interesting urban life, many entertainment and recreational areas, theatres, restaurants…

11. Slumless. City has good quality social housing program. Everybody has a decent place to live.

82

Characteristics of a desirable city

Like very much

Like

Don’t care

Don’t know

(?)

Don’t like

12. Social justice: Every citizen is respected and treated equally. Inclusive city which cares for the marginal groups and has policies to assist the poor, people with disability, especially in terms of accessibility to education, health care and job opportunities…

13. A humane economy: social responsible enterprises which have safe working conditions for labours, reasonable working time, holidays and decent wages

14. A green economy: green business with environmental consciousness, energy and resource saving, using renewable energies, local and natural materials.

15. E-governance: more transparent, effective and responsive, increasing interaction between citizens and decision-makers. Public and administrative services are made quickly by internet.

16. Wastes are classified, then go for composting or recycling

17. Urban designs encourage rainwater infiltration to replenish groundwater and mitigate urban flood. Rainwater harvesting can also be done at household scales.

18. Diverse, developed and convenient public transportation system.

19. Pedestrianized downtown. Encouraging bicycling culture (healthy, environmental friendly, energy saving, less traffic).

20. Urbanization is controlled. Good urban planning, preserving farm land, green spaces for microclimate regulation.

21. Is there anything else you want to share about your desirable city? What is your dream now? (Optional)

83

IV. Saigon – Ho Chi Minh City

22. What do you like best about Saigon?

23. What don’t you like most about Saigon?

24. Evaluating HCMC - With the scale of 10, please assess Saigon in terms of these following aspects (there is no wrong or right answer, just freely give the score according to your personal view):

Aspects Score

Job opportunities, economic development

Architecture, designs, landscape

Urban heritage conservation

Environmental quality

Infrastructure

Transportation

Education

Health care

Green and public spaces

Social justice

Sense of community, supporting and caring

Openness and Friendliness

Identity

Urban management

25. More comment (optional): Do you have any ideas, solutions for HCMC’s urban issues that you want to share? What do we need to do, which policy we should have to make our city better? Are you optimistic or pessimistic when thinking about the future of the city?

84

APPENDIX III Semi-structure Interviews in Slum Areas of HCMC

Place and date of visit

Name of interviewee

Age: How old are they?

What is their occupation?

Period of time living there: How long have they lived in the place?

Housing Ownership: (If rented, how much do they have to pay per month?)

How many people living in how many square meters?

Sense of community: How do they experience sense of community here? Is sense of community important to them?

Water: Do they use tap water (municipal water), groundwater (their own well)? Do they have to buy water from private sources?

Electricity: Do they have municipal electricity? (Their awareness/experience on renewable energy, energy conservation, energy-efficient appliances)

Wastes: How wastes are treated? Do they have municipal collecting or do they dump the wastes nearby?

Green space (observation).

Mobility modes (observation and asking questions)

Urban flooding: Have they experienced urban flooding in the area? (Have they heard about Climate Change?)

Internet: Do they connect to internet? If yes, how do they think about e-government?

Recreation, entertainment: What do they do in their free time? (How is the public space in their area? Do their communities offer any activities?)

Safety and security in the area?

Do they have health care insurance?

How do they care about their children education?

Social justice: Have they received any support from local government? Have they experienced any injustice? Have their voice heard?

85

Urban governance: How does local government in the area function? Are they transparent, accountable, responsive? Is there public participation in decision-making?

Their top 3 priorities (1st = 3 points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point)

1 2 3

Economic opportunities

Sense of community

Urban design

Nature and green spaces

History, culture and tradition

Urban governance, transparent, accountable

Public services, health care and education

Urban life, entertainment, recreation

Safety, security

No flooding

What is their dream in life now?

Suggestion for the city: Do they have anything they want the city to improve? What is their hope for the future of the city?