Values of urban forestry in my study

I have been snowed by tonnes of readings these two weeks. Let me make up my mind here before I meet my supervisor tomorrow.

Value of ecosystem services and products basically is defined as a complex set of ecological, economic and socio-cultural benefits. While policy makers and scientists often speak of ecological and to a lesser extent economic values of certain environmental goods when defending their environmental policies or management practices, hardly there is a complete understanding of the socio-cultural importance in the estimation of their total values. The 'life-support' functions are too narrowly defined as non-human construct.
Urban forestry is an example of this. We know a lots about its contributions to the physical environment, like air purification, but how it interacts with individuals and the human society at large is seldom addressed in a scientific, systematic way. This is particularly the case in Hong Kong. The literature predominantly focused on the influences of individuals' socio-economic characteristics on their attitude and perceived values to green space. The implications of spatial factors seem to be unnoticed. Where the individuals live, what are the physical and social structures of their communities and what they do there should be another set of factors that lead to the variations in their attitude and perceived values. The spatial differences should be able to further explain why some people rate ecological benefits of urban forestry higher while the others more appreciate its contributinos to the people's interaction, society and culture, given that this socio-cultural component of value varies greatly across different spatical scale. We need to go deeper when investigating the ways that such values are formed and change.

Previous studies show that age is a key determinant of people attitude. Middle-age and old people tend to rate urban green space higher, compared to the youngster who have more alternatives like go shopping and karaoke. This links to the memories from the communties where they grew (like city or rural areas) and the fact that green space provides a commonplace for doing exercises in morning and social activities with other members of the community which are, however, not the cup of tea for the new generation. Other observations include greater concerns by married people with children.

One more point to add; Hong Kong is an exceptionally compact city that gives a different context comparing to other Western countries. For example, it is common to have a place where the poorest and richest people live in the same community and within walking distance. That means they have to share some infrastructures including green space. There may be a concern of safety or hygiene for, for example, those middle class who have children and hope to give them a desirable place for mild outdoor activities with their fellow classmates. The new private resident blocks very close to the Temple Street in Mongkok may offer an example to this view. Compact city, of course, is a source of poor air quality and noise problem, especially in the city centers like Mongkok and Wanchai. So the ways the residents there view the benefits of urban trees that can mitigate these problems may probably differ from those living in rural or suburb areas.

One week after my study started

My MPhil project is on valuation of urban green space in Hong Kong. I was suggested by my supervisor that it would be worthwhile to do this using Contingent Valuatino Method (CVM) with an emphasis of spatial differences and unique demographic characteristics of different regions.
I think it is a great idea because few people have done this and it actually aims to identify the magnitude and variation of social values attached to urban green spaces. Now I am snowed by journal articles but it's still an interesting process to keep thinking critically on issues I like. At the beginning I planned to apply another economic model called Hedonic Pricing Method as well. But my supervisor suggested me to focus on CVM instead. While I really want to do both, I am sure tbat I will be quite busy in these two years and perhaps focusing on one of them will make life easier. Given that CVM is intellectually more interesting and significant, I am happer to accept his suggestion.

One thing I feel a bit uncomfortable is that I was told that I will have to give out my own money to fund the survey. I don't know the exact amount but it seems quite strange to me. Is it a common practice? I am probably among the poorest graduates in my 2003 Finance class in CUHK given my salary and expenses in the last four years. I wonder if I could afford such expense if I want to have some savings myself.

『貪念』是環境破壞的真正成因?

環境破壞的真正原因真的是人的貪念嗎?
除人類以外的各種生物無一不『貪』，牠們一樣用盡各方法去增加自己可以使用的資源，某種物種的堀起可能導致另一物種數量下降甚至絕種，前者掠奪了後者的資源無非也是出自一己私利罷，如果從後者的角度看這也可算是『不環保』。事實上從進化論的角度看，如果生物沒有半點『自私』之心，根本無可能延續下去，物競天擇適者生存，所謂『適者』就是能確保自己獲得足夠的資源來生活下去，所以所謂的『貪念』是物種得以延續並進化的基本條件。

人類『貪』，其他生物也『貪』，為什麼我們不指責其他生物也不環保呢?
其他生物跟人類的其中一個很重要的分別是牠們『貪』之餘也能夠確保資源的循環性，牠們處於一個緊密的生物鏈當中，一方面用各種方法獲取資源，另方面製造另一些資源供其他物種使用，消耗之餘亦對其他物種的生存帶來正面影響，但人類則長則將自己isolate係生態循環中，只有消耗，沒有『貢獻』
同埋仲有intensity嘅問題，人類人口可以看似毫無限制地上升，同時人均消耗又不斷上升，資源消耗量比其他生物多出很多，但其他生物卻不得不面對某些資源限制，例如牠們幾乎無法解決因數量上升而導致的資源短缺問題，相反，人類卻可以藉著科技來擺脫這些限制，然而這卻加深了生態系統的負荷。兩者智慧上的差距使到人類的『貪念』比其他生物更具破壞力。

生物的自私行為是其本性，水能覆舟亦能載舟，其本身可以是對環境有害亦可以有利，環保不環保只是取決於其影響而不在於主觀定義本身。