A systemic bias in ecosystem valuation

After readings a few articles written by Dr Spash (who interviewed me last week) and some others, I get a couple of new thoughts on environmental valuation.

There is a systemic bias in traditional environmental valuation techniques, to whcih Dr Spash named as 'deontological bias'. When applying valuation techniques like Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), economists would usually classify zero bids or 'unrealistic' bids as protest bids and eliminate these from the average and aggreate WTP figures. But some protest-bidders might hold strong rights-based beliefs. They thought that any components of the nature have an inviolable right to exist and need to be protected whatever the costs. They were not irrational but simply did not believe that the monetary estimates could represent their unlimited 'values' attached to particular environmental products or goods. Under the current mechanisms this kind of responses is not counted. Consequently the WTP figures are biased to utilitarians who do have a 'value' in their minds.

The importance of such an utilitarian-deontological distinction lies on the ways 'values' are defined in current value system. Common economics beleifs suggest market prices represent the utility levels obtained by buying that good or service. By utility it does not actually imply whether that good or service exhibit certain actual 'functions' or not; it may refer to non-use preferences. Most economists do not reject this view. While prices represent an array of preferences of an individual, does it include deontological beliefs? Is it really presenting the whole picture?

Can prices, or valuation techniques like CVM, measure a 'price' I may impose on something to which I reject such a measuring practice? Put simply, I think my daughter or son is priceless, does it make sense if you ask me for a price? It is, however, still a problem if you deny the existence of an implicit value for that environmetnal good or services, given that, in philosophical sense, 'value' per se means the whole array of preferences, be it utilitarian or deonological. Exclusion of which is an ignorance of reality.

This draws many problems about how to incorporate these implicit beliefs into policy-making. The first one is, do we still need a value? I think the answer is 'yes', but we need to think seriously whether valuation should be treated as an end itself, or alternatively, a means to an end. Second, how can we precisely measure rights-based beliefs? Maybe by Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) that Dr Spash is working on, probably including me as well if I am luckily accepted for the PhD studentship.

P.S. Now I understand why someone said every academic discipline, at the end, is a branch of philosophy. And that's why research doctoral degree is called 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD). It seems to me that sustainability is more like a philosophical quest.

I am coming to Australia!

A month ago I submitted a PhD studentship application to CSIRO, an Australian-based research organization. They had a phone interview with me this morning. It took 25 minutes, asking me why I want to do PhD in Australia, what I think about valuation and attitudes, and what I am going to do for my current MPhil project. They did not ask any tricky questions, except one that I was not well prepared to answer. It's more like they want to know a bit more about my present works and future plan. There were some questions about academic understandg. I think I won't be able to answer if I did not do any preparation. And it's great that I felt little difficulty in listening to native speakers on phone - I am very weak in English listening tests.

Twenty minutes after it was finished, the project leader called me back and talked about two things. The first is my availability - as I will not finish my MPhil until early 2009. The second is that he wanted me to pay a visit to Canberra to have a talks (I forgot to ask if there will be any formal interviews or presentations). That's great! Because they pay me the air tickets. I have been longing to go to Australia and now I get the chance for free! No matter I will finally be accepted or not, it is a valuable chance for me to meet a pretiguous scholar in this field and enjoy a nice journey with minimal costs.

香港環境問題的死結

今早跟我的指導教授談了半個多小時，談到為什麼香港的綠化政策會如此不濟，當中的原因或多或少也可以延伸至整體環境政策上

過去數十年，香港政府財政開支很倚賴賣地收入，亦因為這樣才承受得起低稅率，從而助推動經濟發展，我們的六十至九十年代的風光日子就在這樣局面下渡過。但這樣的其中一個惡果是城市規劃及發展偏袒地產商 – 若果他們沒法賺多點錢，就不能保持政府財政穩健，低稅率亦不能維持(另一個惡果是樓價偏高)，為了補償買地的大筆開支，地產商用盡地面面積起樓，只預留很少空間給行人路或作公共空間，造成城市過份擠迫，亦造成市區內缺乏可種樹的地方，想綠化也變得無地可『綠』，再不是就動輒斬樹。當年政府批出對電力公司相當吸引的利潤管制協議亦出於同樣思維 – 讓電力公司多賺一點，確保供電穩定性，結果犧牲的是空氣質素。

要扳到地產商，政府以及市民都要承擔得起後果，其中之一可能是加稅。在各方都要求政府多撥資源的同時，又要減低對賣地收入的倚賴，無疑是自斷雙臂，不，可能連雙腳也兼顧不了 – 有幾多市民甘願接受透過加稅來改善整體生活質素? 政府深明此道，即使對這個局面非常了解，但個個高官不敢輕舉妄動 – 誰個敢拿自己的前程來開玩笑? 『有!』 我老師說：『董建華敢』，當年他提出八萬五就是減低對市民對私人屋宇的倚賴，但結果如何?

現在看看曾蔭權，他實在不得不官商勾結。在漸趨民主的社會裡，哪個高官膽敢與民心背道而馳都會人頭落地，但環保開支不會從天而降 (社會福利、教育開支也如是)，那麼，只好再向地產商叩頭了。所以，我們現在看到的問題不單單政府肯不肯做，而是經濟發展歷史留下來大包伏，政府如何有決心也沒用，除非市民用實際行動支持，這裡包括 - 但不只於 - 多付一些稅。但現今民粹/民生主義抬頭，似乎事情將變得更複雜。

市民每天罵這罵那，有沒有好好想想自己的公民責任呢? 不單是改變個人習慣，而是改變思維模式。歸根究底，市民現在享有的經濟成果都是建立在環境成本之上，別老是說商人短視，也別老是說政府無心環保，這叫賊喊捉賊。羊毛出在羊身上，好好想清楚環保到底是誰的責任吧。


PS. 少少補充：這只是死結之一，另一個或許是香港的地理面積限制，另外其政治身份也可能有關 - 香港從來都不是一個國家，只是一個不起眼的小城市，沒有任何國際壓力

Frustration

Feeling a bit frustrated about my project.

I approached quite a number of estate management offices to request for doing doorstep interviews in their housing estates. Most of them simply said "No". They don't want to cause any disturbance to the residents. The residents are well 'protected'.

People in HK is generally unwilling to take part in public affairs, probably including participating in questionnaire survey as well. They always walk very fast on the street and few will stay for more than ten minutes to complete a questionnaire even for non-profit making purposes. There is notoriously very weak sense of civil society in HK and they are not active to express their views. I guess people in the Western societies are cautiously open to doorstep interviews. But it seems in HK people are skeptical and feel negative to this, fearing that someone will use the information to do something illegal. A mail survey in NZ similar to mine received 60% response rate, which is impossible in HK. In a local telephone survey with the same topic as mine there is only 17% response rate which is terribly lower than acceptable standards. HK people have strong resistance towards telephone survey because of the overwhelming telemarketing messages (it's terrible, an hour ago the same person called me twice within 30 minutes to promote their products - the fourth time in past three months).

While HK people now ask for more welfares from the government, what do they contribute? Civil society is a slogan when people ask for democracy. The idea rapidly diminishes when they are asked to commit without direct benefits.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

HK people are not that level yet.

Anyway, I am now trying to figure out an alternative approach, or alternative means to approach potential interviewers. Telephone survey is no good given the above reasons. Maybe go to the public areas near the estates to find someone wandering around to interview~ The worst case would be simplifying my reserach question, that is, being less ambitious

Is greenwash an evil?

This is my reply to an article. Before I talk I quote two paragraphs from it first:

"Supermarkets can provide the “greenwash” by producing buildings which, in isolation, might approach carbon neutrality, and by addressing easily identifiable issues like food sourcing, healthy eating, organic foods, the elimination of packaging or the use of recyclable packaging, but these are the tip of the melting ecological iceberg — products on the shelves still have the greatest ecological footprint.
Because of their size, retail chains can fundamentally change consumer patterns, which could lead to sustainable organic food production and supply. But this will not happen without a paradigm change in the food economy. Either the consumer makes the ethical choice or the politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility. "
http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=5905356&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid120836973

Actualy it is ideality vs reality.
Clearly the 'Yes' camp is not showing any " genuine corporate responsibility". What they did is just a new marketing or operation strategy, it is still a business by nature. Another Bob from the 'No' camp is right in the sense that the increased consumption as a result may boost ecological footprint. So, is 'greenwash' an evil? It's more like there is an assumption that in the absence of greenwash, everything would get improved: carbon emission will drop and resource consumption will diminish. Put it simpler, is greenwash worse than business-as-usual?

As I said elsewhere, sustainable development is an extremely complex idea. There does not have a single solution that can make an enterprise immune from being unsustainable. Not to mention the most complex one - social aspects, it is quite unrealistic to think that you could have zero environmental cost for any good practices. HK people now 'love' recycle bags very much; however, its production takes a lot of energy and fibre materials, overuse of which may probably be more destructive than a wise use of plastic bags. Does it mean that we should keep the status quo?

If we know the net benefits of such 'greenwash' we can make a conclusive statement to the debate. But does it really matter if we can conclude that it does consume more than save? Is it meaningful only because of the measured contributions to ecological footprint? 'Greenwash', or I prefer using green marketing, embodies a paradigm shift. Firstly, the success of its green marketing strategies reminds its competitors and even other sectors the values of green products and services. No one can guarantee these products and services MUST be better than the 'brown' ones, but it is clear that the dominace of 'brown' will never be a sustainable option. We can expect that the true 'greenness' will rise as long as consumers are able and willing to choose according to environmental principles - this is related to the quality of people, information completeness, etc. Anyway, it should be seen as a good start, though imperfect.

Secondly, on the consumer side, it creates opportunities for them to go green. Not everyone is motivated enough to buy a farm to produce organic foods by themselves; nor are they capable of installing a renewable power system at their backyards (particularly in HK). They need a channel to elicit their environmental wishes. And the effects do not end here. First, their environmental behaviours may extend to other aspects of daily life once they adapt to such a good practice. When I become addicted to organic foods I may probably be more willing to support NGOs' anti-GM foods campaigns. Also, people are socially connected, my colleagues and relatives may be influenced by my good practices and become interested in organic foods too. Bear in mind that social pressure is a key to a big change in society at large.

So, green marketing is not an one-off process. One has to look beyond immediate negative impacts, if any, and assess by its long-term, aggregate effects. Perhaps, Bob Hayes has overlooked the fact that 'greenwash' is itself an early form of a paradigm change. To create a sustainable society we don't have to wait until a thorough paradigm shift. Green business is demand-driven. While our environmental 'minds' are still primitive (again, particularly in HK), we see imperfect solutions. We change slowly, but it is a good start anyway.

(Look at the recent no-plastic-bags movement in HK where some people collect too many recycle bags simply for fashion or for fun)

PS: I am curious what Bob Hayes means by "politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility"? Can it really be 'enforced'? Corporate responsibility should be voluntary by nature.

Trees as a social construct

Doing research is not easy. I realized this during the past three months. Some people simply take as a 'project' that they 'have to' do, but to me it is 'career', something that I 'want to' do.
Back to my theoretical world. As I look around the literature, I do think that the environment-society-economy circle is extremely complex. There are too many views, problems and solutions that no one can give one single answer. The question I need to solve for my project is how people think about trees. Trees are clearly a multi-dimensional construct that gives me a chance to observe how ecological and social / economic needs blend. To quote my early draft:


People’s attitude towards urban trees is dynamic. From an ecological point of view, the single-tree approach suggests more or less generic benefits regardless of cultural and demographic differences. Social complexities, however, make it never a fixed concept but a to-be-defined public good to which different levels of the society may have their own interpretations.
................
Age is commonly considered as the key factor affecting the views towards urban green spaces (e.g. Tarrant and Cordell, 2002; Sanesi and Chiarello, 2006; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Lohr et al, 2004; Zhang et al, 2007). Although green spaces as a place for socialising and leisure were well received by the young Italians in Sanesi and Chiarello (2006)’s study, Wong (2007) held a different view that youths in Hong Kong who have more alternatives available to them (e.g. shopping, computer games) may not. Perhaps, this may be related to childhood community as suggested by Lohr et al (2004) who thought that people who grew up in cities might have relatively little nature experience so that they have weaker affinity for trees. Likewise, income is predictive (Lozenro et al, 2000; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006a), but Kuo and others (Kuo, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2004) noticed that from a social perspective, it is inconclusive to suggest that people from poor communities place little value on green spaces. Given the social functions of trees, urban green spaces may benefit these people more than their wealthier counterparts. A similar observation is drawn from Taylor et al (1998) who confirmed that green spaces are valuable places for children healthy development, particularly those from poor communities. This leads to stronger demand from mid-aged families with children (e.g. Wong, 2007). On the other hand, Grove et al (2006) argued that households who strive for membership in a given lifestyle are motivated to have more vegetation in their homes. It is not only a matter of income, but a synergistic effect between the social position of individuals and neighbourhood dynamic. It is the neighbourhood atmosphere that also influences individuals’ decision.

I did it

Finally, I get a Distinction for my MSc, with a HKD500 cash prize as well. But I will be more excited if I can get the another cash prize of HKD6000 for the best disseration in the class. Seems that it has been awarded to someone else. Anywayz, I already did what I promised to myself at the beginning of the study.

Formation of environmental values

Values. What are values? Can be prices you pay in the market, can be your attitudes towards something. But how can we determine their relationship when there does not exist a market for that product?

Mainstream economists are more than familiar with the estimation of the values of non-marketed environmental goods. We got thousands of articles talking about the determination of values of different environmental goods; we got a long list of valuation techniques for us to make use of, too. Finally we got the numbers. But do we clearly understand how the 'numbers' are formed? Everyone in an introductory economics class can tell me the socioeconomics characteristics of the respondents (for Contingent Valuation Method) would matter.

But I am talking about the 'process'. Dr. CL Spaash, among others, suggested that when a small group of people could have a discussion before they stated the monetary values for certain environmental goods, the values would be different, comparing to individual interviews. This is a process that mimics the real delibrative process in a democratic society.

A large group of elderly and mid-age individuals living in the same public housing estate for more than 30 years may have different values too, because they have developed a strong sense of belongings to the built environment as well as the landscapes inside. An good example is trees, under which they roamed for no reason, they slept for a whole afternoon, they chated with each other. Their 30-year living in that estate is a process, a much longer process.

Contrast to neoclassical economic views, preferences can change along with temporal and spatial variations. Values are not only a reflection of individuals' rational behaviours, but are socially constructed - that means values are not a matter of one single person, but a group of people who are interacting with each other and with the environment as well.

I am preparing to capture the impacts of these variations on environmental values.

What's Ecological Economics?

Forget to do one thing that I should do in the first post - to explain what Ecological Economics means. Quote from Wiki:

Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that addresses the dynamic and spatial interdependence between human economies and natural ecosystems. Ecological economics brings together and connects different disciplines, within the natural and social sciences but especially between these broad areas.
As the name suggests, the field is comprised of researchers with a background in economics and ecology. An important motivation for the emergence of ecological economics has been criticism on the assumptions and approaches of traditional (mainstream) environmental and resource economics. Ecological economics presents a more pluralistic approach to the study of environmental problems and policy solutions, characterized by systems perspectives, adequate physical and biological contexts, and a focus on long-term environmental sustainability. Ecological economics can be regarded as a version of environmental science with much emphasis on social, political, economic and behavioral issues.

Ecological economics' intellectual ancestry may be traced in large part to political economy, a refinement of early economic theory that includes among its earlier researchers Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Mill, in particular, by hypothesizing that the "stationary state" of an economy might be something that could be considered desirable, anticipated later insights of modern ecological economists, without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the dramatic post-World War II industrial expansion.

The objective of ecological economics (EE) is to ground economic thinking and practice in physical reality, especially in the laws of physics (particularly the laws of thermodynamics) and in knowledge of biological systems. It accepts as a goal the improvement of human wellbeing through economic development, and seeks to ensure achievement of this through planning for the sustainable development of ecosystems and societies. It distinguishes itself from neoclassical economics (NCE) primarily by its assertion that economics is a subfield of ecology, in that ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system. In contrast, NCE has historically assumed implicitly (and, more recently, explicitly) that the environment is a subset of the human economy. In this approach, if nature is valuable to our economies, that is because people will pay for its services such as clean air, clean water, encounters with wilderness, etc.

So, it is clear that EE is not a branch of economics but a hybrid of various pentinent disciplines. Urban ecological economics, the field I am working on, is a combination of economics, urban planning and human/physical geography as well. As strange as it is in HK, I sometimes feel lonely when I find no one to share except my supervisor. Well...perhaps, as he said, doing research is a lonely journey.

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。

全球農夫種「能源」減種食糧

這剛好說明了較早前我提出的可再生能源的潛在限制。可再生能源的生產受地理因素所限制，以這段報導為例，大幅提升生產可能導致食物產量下降。減輕了與能源有關的環境問題，但卻使糧食價格上升，即是環境成本轉化成社會成本，如果這一個情況持續，恐怕對一些倚靠國際組織提供食物援助的第三世界國家來說會是一個災難。Malthusianism returns!? Sustainable development is a contradiction?

******************************
全球農夫種「能源」減種食糧
日本「Karu」牌脆片縮水10%、德國慕尼黑啤酒節的啤酒大幅加價嚇怕了酒客、馬來西亞公務員15年來首次獲得加薪。這三件看似風馬牛不相及的事情，其實息息相 關，它們都受到一股全球新趨勢影響︰生物燃料熱潮，令農夫們決定增加栽種「綠色石油」，減少種植食用的粟米和大麥，脆片袋 的脆片，悄悄地減料。

脆片「縮水」　啤酒加價
世界各地的農夫都在自問︰「我要種食物還是能源？」農夫陷入要填滿全球8億個汽車油缸，抑或餵飽60億人腸胃的兩難抉擇。美國俄克拉荷馬州農夫柯爾決定把他141公頃的田地，撥1/3種植基因改造粟米，用作生物燃料，因為他相信以糖、粟米研製而成的生物燃料乙醇，價格會上升。
美國政府年初大力提倡使用乙醇，令農夫一窩蜂改變農地用途。過去一年，種植粟米的農地就增加了15%。若明年白宮真的做到乙醇增產一倍的目標，那麼40%的粟米就會變成汽車燃料。
粟米田多了，大豆供應減少，導致價格上升，便宜的棕櫚油乘勢而起，富了來源地馬來西亞和印尼，大馬庫房水浸，政府決定拿出相當於172億港元，讓所有公務員加薪7.5%至42%，令他們分享成果。
英國《泰晤士報》
(AppleDaily 26/8/07)

Environmental politics of electricity in HK (conclusion)

Based on a chapter of my dissertation I have prepared a shorter article. The title (tentative) is "Electricity and environment politics in Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined". Below is the conclusion:

The reasons why sustainable electricity policy in Hong Kong remains underdeveloped go beyond lack of environmental awareness or private commitment to the common goods as often said. Supply-demand relations are ill-constructed in a way that everyone is fairly aware but nobody has the motivation of taking meaningful actions. It stems from the path-dependant institutional setup that restricts a timely transformation, in combination with the Government’s treatment that attributes the problems merely to these structural constraints, more appreciating scientific and economic rationalities than communicative actions.

Everything starts from the historical constraints embedded in the regulatory structures. Hong Kong has never given environmental endeavour the same priority as economic growth. Particularly at the time of economic downturn, no official can afford to undermine growth for the sake of environmental protection. Cross-sectoral sustainability imperatives are at odd with its conventional administrative culture and handled in a piecemeal manner, and apparently the style has been extended to electricity policy. These constraints inevitably nurture critiques from the concerned parties along with the growing public awareness and the (yet successful) democratic movement. These then turns to an emphasis of the role of utilities as the contributors of the causes as well as the solutions and a view that environmental gains are a function of a unidirectional, ‘one-to-one’ relationship between the government and utilities. Local community, however, has never been convinced that environmental protection should be taken as a reason for making more profits if the citizens’ living will be affected. Consequently, the Government as a reactive party deals with the problems mechanistically, while the utilities’ private interests are posited as a conflict to the social objectives. Communicative actions exist only on the consultation documents but not in the policy.

From a broader perspective, the administration’s treatment of electricity is a reflection of the local environmental discourse. With respect to environmental management, it is reluctant to transform itself from a ‘controller’ to a ‘facilitator’ regime and seems to return to the technical dimensions of sustainability (Hills & Welford, 2002; Hills, 2004). Policies addressing the socially constructed consumption rationality that need ‘bottom-up’ demand-side commitment earn little credit. The weakened Government is inclined to play a stronger role in controlling the industrial operations of electricity provision which involve less costs and are more welcomed by taxpayers, rather than prompting substantial behavioural changes in consumption which are normally politically more costly as this often challenges consumption sovereignty (Murphy, 2001b). Extension of the production-focused approach is thus more preferred given the current political climate.

The Hong Kong energy economy is inevitably framed by this situation: electricity provision appears as a conflict between supply and demand sides; while there are certain degree of improvements in the power generation processes, promotion of sustainable energy consumption remains rhetoric and ineffective in the absence of political commitment. As such, it has constituted, at best, only the first half of the notion of sustainable development. What is in need is building a positive, collaborative relationship between the utilities, and the Government and the consumers in particular. Opportunities for negotiation and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between the stakeholders should be given a heavier role in the new agenda (Blake, 1999). However, we do not expect this will happen tomorrow because the minimal progress in democratic development in near future and the extension of the utilities’ monopolist status are going to ruin the ‘trust’ between them and this compounds the guilt of the regulatory constraints.

人口與環境

人口問題其實是環境問題的根源，18世紀末英國經濟學家馬爾薩斯(Thomas Malthus)提出人口的增長率往往高於資源的增長率，結果引致資源不足，繼而帶出疾病、戰爭、餓荒等等社會經濟問題，這些天災人禍使人口又會向下調整。
不過，自踏入廿世紀以來，科技的高速發展令人對這套被稱為馬爾薩斯主義的觀點產生質疑，因為現實告訴我們，人口上升並沒有帶來預的災難性影響。可是，這些反馬爾薩斯主義者忽略了一點，就是資源耗用的時間性。使用某一資源的影響不一定是即時性的，而可以是十年、五十年甚至一百年後才會顯現出來，環境資源就是一個典型的例子：一天之內砍光地球上所有樹木不會立刻導致人類滅亡，即使一天之內用盡了所以非再生能源人類活動也不會立刻終止。廿多年前經濟學家Julian Simon說只要human capital(e.g.人類的智慧)仍在，便可以不斷製造出各樣資源，包括能源，所以就算挖乾了所有油田也無礙，人類可以轉靠可再生能源，可以製造風力發電機、太陽能裝置等等，人類活動依然可以靠增加人口(即增加human capital)來生生不息延續下去...
但是Julian Simon支持人口無限增長的論調是站不住腳的，因為他完全漠視了所以human capital都需要用自然資源來製造、運作這一事實，沒有自然資源根本不可能有human capital，太陽能裝置也得耗用金屬!

人口增長至某一程度，就一定會對環境帶來沉重壓力，除非......

Path dependancy of HK electricity policy

這幾天我在埋首整理篇dissertation，又多了一些想法
First, the failure of the electricity policy with respect to environmental aspects is obviously path dependant. The rationale of the SCAs was virtually necessitated by the local development history. 'Growth first' was so clearly written in the SCA documents. This is what the people (including the general public) want (not only in the past, but, to your surprise, also now). SCAs is doing what the society wants.

Second, the changing socio-political environment produces a basket of conflicts. Democratization speeds up social movement, amplifying the voice against the high (really high?) electricity prices and environmental damage by the power plants. On the other hand, we know that any meaningful changes in the electricity provision privately owned depends on changes in demand sides. Given a strong 'public' and weak government particularly after 1 July 03, the latter tends to avoid challenging the consumption rationality. So we don't have DSM after 2003 when the pilot scheme ended, we don't have energy tax, we don't have electricity price rise. The only things the Government does is 'window dressing' and shouting at the power companies, but they actually don't want any big changes.

The sad news is that I do not expect substantial changes in these situations. While the old 'paths' ('growth first') is likely to go on, the new one has elements contradicting the sustainability discourse. At a first glance, the people have become environmentally more conscious. Yes, they are, but if there is a tradeoff between environmental and economic benefits, they aren't. Their ethical minds are weakly constructed, weaker than we expect. This is more obvious in electricity matters.

This is the results of two government survey

(where is the environmental goals?)

A reply to the last post

I got a reply to the last post in the discussion.com, I post it here (in blue colour) and wrtie a few lines as a reply to it.

Definitely it is too early to expect social learning to occur and make a difference before envir technologies get mature (technology is usually a driver of societal changes in an ecological economy), but I am less pessimistic because I think the trend of urbanization and civil society following better education and income levels will do the job, just like HK. That means, in my opinion, the major barriers lie in the institutional setup (in both regional and national levels) rather than in household level if we move beyond merely environmental protecion and towards sustainable development (obviously they are not identical). 。

Social learning requires both individuals' values changes and provision of an insitutional 'platform'. It is not accurate to describe the problem as a lack of puiblic awareness or willingness, given that people's behaviours are shaped by institutioal setup to a very large extent. Awareness does matter, but as it grows its importance diminises, and it will become nothing hif policy initiatives do not adequately fit in their minds. As in HK, you do not need to worry about awareness issues indeed, it is more likely that the bottleneck appears in what decision makes assume and expect their people want. There will have no future at all if Chinese gov assumes and expect more stringent laws and advanced technologies are the way to the SD, just like what HK decision makers did.Individuals' values or preferences are not necessarily envir-friendly as you pointed out.

But that's the reason we need social learning. It is a way to transform individualistic values to social, collective values that are more consistent to SD. Democratic deliberative forum for environmental purposes, for example, is an emerging approach that may help.

I do believe 'self-interest' is inborn, but human behaviours are socially constructed too.


原帖由 FireStallion 於 2007-8-4 09:18 PM 發表

Well, if we talk about social learning, I am really worry the learning willingness and ability of the people. Behavior change!!!
What makes people change their behavior?
For me, I can tell for myself as I am going to build a new house. The budget is my constraint. I will build my house just to pass the regulation, though I want to get it better than the regulations required.

But for HK ppl, what will make them change?

短評中國環境政策

中國環境政策其實在某些方面有一定成果，尤其是在技術層面上、管制措施上 (但地區政府陽奉陰違仍是一個問題)，而且在國際壓力之下，態度也是想消極也不行。而我想指出的是，中國的情況可能是『有心無力』，有一些根深柢固的內在因素阻礙了其環境政策上質量方面的推進(Qualitative improvement, more than laws and standards) 。

要邁向可持續發展，中國目前的情況是先天不足，主要是人為因素 – 特別是政治架構。沒有民主意識就不會有公民參與政策制訂，可持續發展裡『社會』這一環不單指貧富問題，也是公民社會的建立，讓人民可以影響政策大方向之餘，亦讓他們從討論、對話當中學習及提升個人的可持續發展思維，從而促進 social learning (democratic environmental movement is more than votes and protests, but construction and alteration of values and preference which are the ultimate cause of behaviours) 。所以，我們很難想像中央政府可以在政治對內與對外均封閉的情況下符合到這一環。所以恐怕短期之內中國仍會跟隨技術主義的路線。

*************************************************

全球氣候暖化致極端天氣

(明報)08月 03日星期五 05:10AM 【明報專訊】中國7月份多個地區出現極端天氣，中國氣象局 更指出，全球氣候變暖，是造成嚴重水災及乾旱的原因之一。綠色和平 項目經理陳宇輝表示，中國政府在處理氣候變化問題上，態度積極，原因是嚴重天災會造成人命傷亡及巨大經濟損失，早前召開的8國集團（G8）峰會上，國家發改委主任馬凱表示，中國不承諾量化溫室氣體減排目標，但不等於中國不承擔對氣候變化應負的責任。

陳宇輝說，事實證明全球變暖導致的極端天氣現象愈來愈明顯，全球各國都應採具體措施，減少排放溫室氣體。港府亦應盡快全面研究，了解氣溫上升對海水水位、生態以至疾病的變化及影響，從而制訂應變措施。

天文台 過去曾多番指出，全球暖化 對本港最直接的影響是將來可能不再有冬天，預料至本世紀末，香港平均氣溫將上升攝氏3至4度，而12度或以下的寒冷日子，會由2000年至09年每年平均16、17日，減至平均0.8日。此外，天文台預料，目前至世紀末，會出現3年大旱及6年雨量遠高於平均數的現象，海水水位則會上升28至58厘米，威脅沿岸低窪地區。

Preference construction for sustainability

The economic dominance of Hong Kong development history is necessarily conducive to economic individualism, reductionism which has significantly impeded the merits of its environmental policy. Without downplaying their roles in mitigating pollution, some environmental policies, like sewage charges and emission limits, are deterministic and do not see the construction of preference as a policy goal in search for a sustainable path. Consultation exercises, on the other hand, are meaningful because it is a kind of deliberative activities that were totally absent in the colonial years. However, did they make any difference to the environmental policymaking? I doubt this. What I want to point out is, one of the goals of sustainability policy is to facilitate formation and transformation of preferences. Preferences, or values, are ultimate cause of behaviours; ignorance of the ways they evolve will produce no qualitative change in the ecological economy.


The idea above is drawn from an academic paper I finished reading a few minutes ago. Below is an extract from that article, written by Niemeyer and Spash; the latter is a prestigious ecological economist who recently works in deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) to which I am very interested in.

“The treatment of individuals as ‘economically rational’ (that is, self-interested and aiming to maximise utility), is far removed from the individual as a member of a community who aims to achieve a collectively best outcome. Thus, economy theory tends to assume that preferences about collective environmental goods and services are predetermined and require no further explanation. Once humans are viewed as moral agents, their values, and consequently, preferences, can only be understood in historical, social, and ecological contexts (Siebenbuner, 2000). Preference construction means taking into account the formation of preferences and their change through campaign, media coverage, advertising, or survey processes.”

(Extracted from Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19)

保育主義與政策的盲點 – 元朗牛場及皇后碼頭

上周某周刊刊登了一篇講及生態保育及發展之間的衝突(元朗荔枝山莊牛場)的文章。(詳細見下文)，這作為一個典型的環保議題，與近日鬧得熱哄哄的皇后碼頭保育衝突加起來，構成了一大一小、『相映成趣』的保育爭議點。本文將首先評論前者的絕對環保主義，接著以後者為題，討論決策者在價值處理手法上與可持續發展的不協調性。

毫無保留的環境保育? – 元朗牛場
環境資源之所以要保護，是因為社會普遍相信這樣可以保障日後有充足的資源可供長期使用，而並不是單單因為其本身的存在意義。當然，動物權益捍衛者會反對這論點，這多半是出於道德考慮。但不論出於什麼道德考慮，有一點無可爭議的是資源有限，哪些物種要大力保護、對哪些應該寬鬆一點，是社會不得不作出的一個抉擇，用社會道德護航不能給我們帶來更多資源。已故著名生態學家Garrett Hardin在描述其人口政策的主張時，提出所謂『Lifeboat Ethics』，指在發生沉船災難的時候，待救的人多於救生艇的乘載量，要麼就是『一鑊熟』，要麼就是犧牲少部份人來拯救大部份人，Garrett Hardin說後者可取。

可持續發展的主調是平衡利益，它前設了在某一議題上，無論是社會、經濟及環境三方面都有一些得或失。要平衡就要先要看這些得或失有多大，即使是相對最重要的環境資源，如果在可靠的科學證據支持下，能夠指出它對社會長遠來說帶來的利益有限，那麼我們是應該優先考慮其他更迫切的。生態學有所謂keystone species，確定重要的物種我們須要加倍保護，否則 - 除非不確定性相當高，我們仍要去拼死保護似乎又是另一種浪費。

所以，不是每一物種我們也要毫無保留的保護，如果該批牛隻的商業價值有限，生態價值亦有限，我們是否應該將資源用作保護其他物種? 例如樹木的生態甚至經濟價值要比之高得多，也更有迫切性，要分配資源保育也應該作優先考慮。發展和保育其實不一定永遠對立，但前提是要兩者都要對社會有價值，發展元朗農地會不會比保育牛隻的價值還高?我們的決策者是否有認真思考過這問題值得商榷，但訂立優先次序和作出選擇取捨確是任何社會無法避免的決定，如果有人認為那些牛隻對環境及社會有重大價值，而又能提出證據支持，那麼沒有人應該反對，反之亦然。

誰決定社會價值?– 皇后碼頭
跟環境資源不同，作為一個文化象徵的皇后碼頭其價值完全由社會建構，而不是由用科學單位衡量。要保留，就要指出其社會文化價值有多高，要拆，亦同樣要確保保留的成本高於可接受水平。然而，觀看保育人士及政府，哪一方指出了充份的客觀理據支持皇后碼頭的去或留? 不難看到，在這個議題上一般市民的取向分歧，比起民主或環保，保留皇后碼頭並沒得到一面倒的支持，社會各界莫衷一是，價值走向極端 – 一部份人拼死支持，但有部份人則不為所動甚至反感，前者的小眾主觀道德理據未能佔據整體社會價值取向，故此皇后碼頭擁有很高的社會價值這一假設則尚需要更多的資料來立足。

政府有責任去提供這些資料，為自然或文化資源作估值。但據港大姚思教授所指出，香港的環境政策長久以來都往往是由上而下的方式施行，強調技術主義，傾向以專家、行政機關的專業判斷來代替社會意願，嚴重阻礙了本質是由下而上、強調公眾參與決策的可持續發展。事件中，政府對皇后碼頭有作出充份的、客觀的社會估值嗎? 或許與其環境政策的傳統做法一樣，政府仍以長官意志、專業判斷由上而下地掩蓋了可持續發展的本質。

香港的環境和保育政策缺乏了以下兩點考慮。第一，對該事物作出經濟估值，這方面香港比西方國家落後很多，後者二、三十前已經廣泛採用經濟工具來量化環境資源，把環境資源定下一個以金錢為單位的經濟價值，例如透過物業價格高低或問卷形式評估，從而有助於政策制訂，而更值得參考是，有些西方國家已經開始研究如何在傳統的經濟估值工具裡加入社會商議機制，以平衡其不足之處，也作為公眾參與的另一種方式，香港在這範疇的研究或採用幾乎是零進展的。第二，就是要了解環境或保育政策需要的是一個推演性的過程，而非決定性的結論，政策是否可取取決於其決策過程的合理性而不是結果本身，這過程強調透過包羅社會各界 – 尤其是公眾 - 的商議機制來協調各種不同利益，這種著重協商的政策方向，目的不在於妥協，而在確保不同利益集團有對話機會，脫離單以專業判斷或小眾道德取向來決定的片面價值，避免片面思維忽略了其他的或整體的價值，因此所產生的選擇或許較接近社會可接受水平。

可持續發展是基於共同價值，其產生是由社會共同建構，而不是來自新古典經濟理論所假設的個人觀，或環保/保育運動的英雄主義。可持續發展的理念不會武斷說皇后碼頭該拆與否 – 結果其實並不重要，重要的是顯示問題所在：狹隘的決策思維和民間與政府的互動嚴重不足。


********************************
農地有價 牛場惹風雲
(壹周刊 26/7/07)
元朗大棠荔枝山莊，是無線拍古裝劇的取景勝地，也是假日一家大細郊遊的好地方。不過山莊其中一名創辦人梁新發，就涉嫌襲擊山莊內「流浪牛之家」的工人，案件本週二在屯門裁判法院開審。八十隻流浪牛與山莊弗人和平共處近十年，現變成陌路人，於法庭中相見。本刊走進荔枝山莊考察，發現這片一千萬呎的土地隱藏了一個涉及百億元的地產鴻圖大計，規模媲美賣個滿堂紅的新地葡萄園。九八年進駐大棠荔枝山莊的流浪牛之家，當時的 牛場 沒有街燈及水源。創辦人洋洋向政府申請，才造成這個供八十隻牛居住的安樂窩，但隨鄉村發展，流浪牛要另覓家園。由市區驅車，經青馬大橋、三號幹線進入元朗公路後，不消十分鐘便抵達大棠山路，背靠綠油油的山坡就是大棠荔枝山莊。旅客只須付二十元入場費，便可任摘當造生果吃，當中以荔枝及大樹菠蘿最聞名。山莊內還有一幅有機菜園、士多啤梨園、野戰場和騎術學校，是香港少有的郊遊樂園。不過最蔚為奇觀的景象，卻是一個收留了八十隻牛的「流浪牛之家」。牠們早晚排隊吃草的奇景，令不少城市人大開眼界。創辦人有菩薩心腸，加上山莊風景如畫，實在是一個世外桃源。本週二，山莊的其中一名創辦人梁新發，涉嫌於今年五月，毆打流浪牛之家的一名工人許秋蘭，暴露了荔枝山莊與流浪牛之家原來摩擦不少。原名歐陽翠如的流浪牛之家創辦人洋洋，九八年經朋友介紹，向梁新發的弟弟梁福元，以六千元一年，租了荔枝山莊內的一塊土地，收養從漁護署購買得來的退休老牛。不過，她卻聲稱近兩年來牛之家時常無水用，有些牛隻更不時無故受傷。令牛隻難以繼續在這片樂土生活。洋洋說：「當日係梁福元俾我入養牛，佢仲周圍同人講話牛係佢，叫人入來參觀。而家我牛幫唔到佢賺錢，就唔歡迎我。」梁氏兄弟於九七年共同創立荔枝山莊。據梁福元表示，荔枝山莊經營初期由於不為人識，一直以來都虧蝕。故當有人向他租地養牛時，就一口答應，更即時把流浪牛之家改名為原居牛之家，並做了一個牌匾，吸引旅客遠道而來，為荔枝山莊打響頭炮。發展商插旗梁氏兄弟一直與「牛」相處融洽，關係出現變化，源於這塊地背後隱藏了莫大的利益。一些大棠村原居民向記者表示，近年來不斷有發展商來洽商買地事宜，更有指是新地及新世界。本刊找來身兼大棠村村長的梁福元查證，在他的辦公室內放滿政府規劃草圖，他承認荔枝山莊正規劃發展，並於年頭與新地及新世界傾好發展細則，他說：「大棠無多，係地多，荔枝山莊都用唔晒咁多地啦。而家都無人耕田啦，唔發展等幾時，我都係幫居民爭取最大利益。」一頭曲髮的梁福元，充滿鄉土味。他於九○年開始擔任大棠村村長，最愛打上代表鄉議局，藍紅斜紋的領呔。平日駕其銀灰色平治，在大棠村內出出入入，一時探訪居民，一時在其開設的大棠山莊名廚茶座飲茶，也常往荔枝山莊巡視業務。這位說話略帶鄉音的原居民自稱：「我咪又係鄉下佬一個。」不過這位鄉下佬已漸漸變身為發展商的盲公竹。人脈廣夠圓滑位於大欖郊野公園旁的荔枝山莊，坐擁約一千萬呎的荒廢農地，成為不少發展商覬覦的目標。根據土地註冊處資料，長實於○六年初，已以一百三十多萬向梁福元購入約二萬呎的土地。而新地及新世界於去年亦開始接觸梁福元，在今年年頭也是透過梁福元跟大部分原居民洽商買地事宜。能游走於發展商及村民之間，除了因為他是大地主及村長外，也因其處事手法極度圓滑。荔枝山莊其中一個大地主，住在白沙村的易伯說：「佢好尊重我老人家，過時過節會送飛俾我食盆菜，出入見到面都叫聲我呀。」另一位大地主俞伯並非大棠村民，但對梁福元亦讚不絕口：「我話間屋水浸，佢都會過來睇，佢唔得閒都叫職員幫我。」對大地主唯唯諾諾，但對小地主卻另一副嘴臉，有居民指：「有阿婆阿伯仔女過外國，梁福元就恰人乜都唔識，同人講你唔租俾我都無人同你租啦，耆英怕佢咪乜都聽晒佢講囉。」所以即使荔枝山莊分屬二十多個不同的業主分別擁有，梁福元亦有本事軟硬兼施，一口氣租下數十幅地皮發展為荔枝山莊。梁福元承認四大發展商也曾向他接觸，查詢收購大棠地事宜，他更即席打開大棠規劃地圖說：「紅色圈住的位置已落訂。其餘也傾得七七八八。」夥拍新界王搵銀能夠成為發展商身邊的大紅人，還因為他夠「高瞻遠矚」。十多年前，當荔枝山莊還是一大片草原，村民出入都要踏草攀山，梁福元就在其私人擁有土地上興建一條行車路，即現今的大棠山路，成為通往荔枝山莊的唯一途徑。故即使村民死不願賣地，梁福元亦顯得無有怕，「佢唔賣都得，不過我有權唔俾佢從我條車路入喎，佢唔賣俾我亦唔會有其他人買。」梁福元聰明絕頂，其政界戰友，鄉議局主席劉皇發亦大讚：「佢好叻仔，發展鄉村幫村民改善生活質素係好事。」有「農地王」之稱的發叔，其女婿余漢坤成立的公司去年開始收購元朗大橋村，估計是代發展商長實出手，一方面向城規會申請改建為酒店及大型商場，一方面與村民訂下一份換地協議書，承諾在元朗覓地與居民作交換條件。發叔女婿透過梁福元作中間人，介紹大棠山腳一幅地，並於去年十月以二千二百萬元購入。身為元朗當然區議員及元朗城鄉規劃及發展委員會主席的梁福元理直氣壯地說：「買樓買地梗要有經紀有駁腳啦，我度做村長十幾年，都係多得村民信任我。總之我開會時，有申報利益咪得囉。」 牛場 是一個遺憾智者千慮，必有一失。梁福元對於引牛入村感慨地道：「係我人生最大遺憾。佢入來得十幾隻牛，而家繁殖到有八十幾隻喇。牛女洋洋唔交齊租，我都唔介意，最大問題係村民不滿佢牛出出入入時，破壞風水山墳。」牛之家的地屬梯田，正好佔了數幅地，而洋洋只交了其中兩幅地租金，即六千元一年。其餘沒有納租的包括一幅屬梁福元所有，多年來欠租，梁福元要趕走洋洋屬理所當然。不過，據梁說：「佢最叻搏人同情，成日同記者講我蝦佢，又搵議員幫佢。我都幫佢爭取過元朗大樹下幅地，佢又嫌度無車路，我趕佢走好似係我錯咁。」洋洋反駁說：「佢都無叫我交租。總之牛無晒利用價值就叫我走，好過分！」不過，梁福元早已向城規會入紙申請改變荔枝山莊為康樂用途，地積比率二點五倍，已與新地及新世界分別計劃在那兒發展度假屋及豪宅，以內地富豪為目標。一千萬呎的大棠土地，以約數十元一呎至百多元一呎計算，當中約涉及了數十億元的交易。新界農地受發展商垂青，流浪牛之家難免成為急劇發展下的犧牲品。