Preparing for my PhD (2)

Talked to my MPhil supervisor this Monday. He was not quite happy about my decision to leave earlier. No doubt this is my fault to leave without completing the degree, so I have nothing to defend. But I know it is a right decision from my point of view, since I think I won't be able to get such an attractive scholarship even I have a MPhil degree and a few publications. CSIRO offers me a package which covers internationship student fee plus stipend (> HK$300,000 p.a., for three years), not to mention the opportunity to work with two renowned scholars in my field. My supervisor suggested that I can apply for Edward Youde Scholarship offered by HK government after MPhil. But I am not confident about this since I got a IIB honour degree and it is apparently uncompetitive.

To my surprise, he suggested me to leave as soon as possible. It is because if I hold the current studentship until August, the department may lose one research studentship place in the coming years. This is due to an unreasonable policy of the university that the department may be penalized if its research student withdraws from the programme (and the student will be ridiculously counted as 'failed'). My department (and my supersior) don't want to get penalized, so they asked me to leave asap if I really decide to go Australia. I was not quite happy about this. My reply was that I need to get a written confirmation from the ANU before making a final decision, and not now.

Maybe he feels like being betrayed. At the same time I also feel uncomfortable. But I will insist on making this hard decision if time goes back, although it ruins our mutual trust.

Seems that I have to give up so many things for this PhD and an uncertain future.

My first publication

My first publication:
Article title: Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined
Journal title: Energy Policy
DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006

Preparing for my PhD (1)

Good news, I have another big name to be my co-supervisor. Dr Sp_ash directly talked to him - Prof J. Dry_zek in ANU, one of the top environmental political scientists and got his agreement several days after we met.

Now I am thinking about my PhD project. I have a plan but it seems to be too big for a PhD project. I raise my question about resource contraints and feasibility in an email to Dr Sp_ash. He suggests me to start with searching for a problem (or an issue) that is interesting and important, then methodology and techniques, and then availability of resource and logistics. He is right, it is far more important to look at the problem/issue first because it determines the nature of the research, which in turn points to what approach you should and can use. Any research has to be contrained by resources available but you should not let it determine your research questions.

My trip to Australia

These three days I am in Canberra, Australia for visiting CSIRO, where I may have a chance to do PhD with a renowned professor, Dr Sp-ash.
On the first day I met him for the first time. We had dinner (or tea?) in a pub and got a long chat. We talked about some academic stuffs, what kind of project I can/want to do, and a little on the procedure. He is friendly, knows a lot about this field and is insightful. I really enjoy talking with him. After this he drove me around to have a quick look on Canberra.
On the next day we went to the CSIRO office where I may work later. I chatted with his current PhD student about the living here. Then, he took me, with his Post-doctoral fellow, to a restaurant to have a dinner. Other than meat and dissert we had beer, wine and coffee after finishing all. The dissert was pretty good! (it is something like French燉蛋). We talked a lots of issues, from democracy of different countries to local culture....but in most cases I could only listen because sometimes I found difficulties to understand what they are talking about, I could just say 'yea', 'oh'. My speaking is just ok, at least they could understand although I often got some grammatical mistakes.
On the third day I first went back to the office and talked to the personnel officer about the visa issues. It sounds uneasy to get a PR until I graduate. Then I had a practice for my presentation to get myself familiar with the situation. At about 11am the Post-doc took me to the new Parliament building. I looked around and knew more about the political history of Australia. I then presented in the afternoon with 7-8 audience. I talked about my previous MSc research project and the current one. There were some follow-up questions from the front but I didn't handle them very well. Overall I would say I can do it better. The final activity was chatting with the professor in a pub. We talked more on my plan for the PhD and some other academic stuffs. Again it's a nice chat. Talking to people with similar intellectual mind with me is always a good experience.

Canberra is quiet but it is good for doing research because you can make your mind clearer, though some people may find it boring. Goods are 2-3 times more expensive than HK. Australia accent is ...ok but a little different. I am just worring about the housing and transport here - I don't even have a driving licence.

Very likely that I will to come to Canberra for the 3-year PhD programme later this year. But I know it will definitely be a big challenge for me, not for the life here but the difficulty in doing the project. It's not hard for me to deal with theoretical issues, but it will be painful to implement survey like what I am doing now. And it will get more problems as I will probably do the survey in China and Australia. Hopefully I can get some fundings to hire someone to do the time-consuming jobs. Another issue is that I have seperate with my GF for 3 years. It's hard, I don't know how my life will be.

Environmental ethics

Some environmental philosophers and ecological economists considered the reductionish approach of neoclassical economics as an ethic by itself in constrast to deontological understanding of the nature of some people in the society. Values in economic sense is narrowly defined in an atomistic, individual-driven way. But the new wave of social-environmental movement is built on rights-based approach, based either on an environmental-consequentialist mentality or absolute rights of non-human and advocating collective values.


Now there is a trend towards deontological values as an ethical basis of sustainable development. To this end, Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993) suggested that we are in the age of 'post-normal' science. Provided that the environment is a public good,they suggested that for achieving environmental sustainability, we have to move from the past utilitarian ethics and atomistic understanding of the world characterising science (both physical science and neoclassical economics) to an open, delibreractive approach emcompassing norms, values and different ethical stances of human in a collective social context. It is because past utility-based policy tools are actually an inapproriate way to deal with the environment as a public good. A self-interested individual may be willing to pay for better quality of drinking water but not global warming mitigation. Decision-makers have to think about what ethical motivations people have when dealing with global environmental problems - a different ethics is needed comparing to the exclusive economic pursit in the past few centuries.

So, there is tendency of (re)constructing a new ethics, new value theory as the world is confronted global issues like enhanced greenhouse effect. This is different from the emphasis of using technical means (by assuming high scientifc certainty) or economic tools (still based on utility maximization) in the past few decades.

Is science the key to global warming?

After reading several papers on global warming and relationship of science and society written by Dr Sp ash, I think it is useful to elaborate the main points in a few paragraphs before I meet him in person.

For those who find difficulties in reading what follows, bear in mind one thing: global environmental problems are not just a matter of science; whether there is scientific evidence of global warming or not does not change the conclusion that the ways we understand and 'operates' the environment are problematic.

Scientific proof is not the key point because of the human's inadequate understandings of the nature. Since science is established on laboratory settings, scientific 'evidence' is based on many assumptions and confined to existing knowledge. It has some key differences from the live world we face which is a dynamic, always changing system, both in subjective and objective sense (i.e. both values and facts). Even though we claim ourselves able to find the scientific 'truth', it would be misleading to suggest that this can determine correct policy conclusions.

Whether global warming exists is always controversial, not only because of scientific uncertainties but more of vested interests. As far as sustainable development is concerned, science is not everything. Kuhnian science extended from laboratory, or normal science which is in constrast to post-normal science (see Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), has missed humankind as an integral part of the natural world for centuries. Scientifically sound conclusions in natural science and economics literature manifest themselves ethically 'neutral'. But can we, or should we, achieve a fundamentally value-free sustainable path?

Another problem with science is the treatment to uncertainties. In natural science and economics literature there are professionally determined 'evidence' claiming that there is Problem A so that we need to do something for it, or the reverse.
Imagine you are playing puzzle game. If you cannot see how big the picture is, can you tell me precisely which pieces you are missing? No one knows, but we may still be able to make some ways to fix it. Given the numerous uncertainties, varieties and complexities of Earth's operations, can anyone PROVE that there is global warming? This applies to the reverse, can anyone DISPROVE that there is global warming?

Science can make figures precise, but it may be precisely wrong without anyone knowing this except the God.

A point I want to make is that: broadly speaking, every human activity can do harm to non-human entities, over time and space, so you never know what problems follow after solving Problem A. It is more important to develop the ways, or insitutions, through which we can find the appropriate and timely solutions whenever new problems arise, than to develop a single set of solutions to deal with a specific problem. The world is changing, so do the problems and hence solutions. It will not point to a hands-off approach even if global warming is PROVED inexistent.

學海無涯

做研究真是不容易
要面對的不單是經費、資源問題，還有的是研究結果未如理想，更甚者是 - 如果是做social survey的話 - 受訪者對你所作的研究都不表支持
時間、精神上的消耗在所難免，但研究歷程裡的不確定性令你覺得彼岸總是遙遙無期
不知道能不能做到想要的結果，不知道去conference要怎樣present，不知道自己做的夠不夠好，也不確定自己的前途會如何......輾轉反側，連做夢也會唸著晚上看過的學術文章

學海無涯，原來是這樣的意思

Get published!

Another piece of good news - the manuscript I submitted to a peer-reviewed journal 'Energy Policy' is accepted for publication!

In academia, publications are very important to a researcher not only for job hunting but also promotion - as often said: 'publsih or perish'. My supervisor told me that when they recruited teaching staffs, those who did not have more than 3 publications before getting the PhD would normally not be shortlisted, let alone given an interview opportunity. 'Energy Policy' is within the top ten journals in the Environmental Studies category, ranked by impact factor. As a first-year MPhil student I think it is a big surprise to me. Hope that this will help my PhD application later this year.

The article is titled 'Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined'. The idea and content are actually based on my MSc dissertation. I spent the later half of my summer holidy to get it finished. It's a bit more than 10,000 words, which is fairly long to read. It's a qualitative one based on secondary data only. This is a piece of comment from one of the reviewers of my article:

"Reviewer #1: I must commend the author for producing this excellent paper which provides a comprehensive review on the development of the electricity industry in Hong Kong. I concur with the views of the author as presented in the paper which faithfully reflect the status quo of the electricity policy of Hong Kong. Findings from the study are reasonable to help identify the barriers for sustainable development and reform of the Hong Kong's ESI in the future.

In conclusion, I recommend the paper be accepted for publication in the Journal of Energy Policy."

Actually, I have submitted another manuscript to another journal (but is of lower grade), again based on my MSc disseration. Hope that there will be more good news soon.

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。