Sofiya Mahdi

A TALE OF TWO CITIES: URBAN SPRAWL AND AIR POLLUTION IN

HONG KONG AND LONDON

Tuesday 18th May, 2010:

Having gone through many possible topics for my end-of-year presentation, I

have come to the decision to focus on the harmful effects of urban sprawl and
emissions in two cities; one being London and one being Hong Kong. I will be
interested to see exactly how each of these issues pan out in the different cities; with
London I expect to find that the infrastructure lends itself to tackling emissions and
therefore can allow for an overall brighter future in tackling emissions. In terms of
research, I also predict that London will be much more accessible in terms of gaining
information about the subject, therefore making my presentation much richer in that
regard.
Where Hong Kong is concerned, I expect it to be much more difficult to find
information, what with the governmental control that many have seen regarding the
internet and the horrendous levels of emissions I would also be sceptical as to the
accuracy of the information. I decided to use Hong Kong as a comparison in order to
juxtapose a city that has been established for a long time in a developed country,
versus a city that has remained for quite some time as well, but is in an area of the
world that has only started to really explode in terms of commerce and opportunity in
the last few decades.
Therefore, my question is really a comparison of urban sprawl and emissions
in both these areas and more importantly, what is being done to combat the two issues
in terms of governmental assistance and whether these measures are actually very
effective.

Thursday, 20th May, 2010:

I have begun researching urban sprawl and its harmful effects. I came across
the official definition, “is a pejorative term for the expansive, often explosive and
sometimes reckless, growth of a metropolitan area, traditionally suburbs (or exurbs)
over a large area.” I find this definition was the most accurate out of my discoveries
because it accurately reflects the issue of urban planning. According to the same
research, urban sprawl was and still is driven by the want for real estate. As
population sizes continue to increase, the demand for housing increases accordingly.
Furthermore, with the growth of the culture that prefers a suburban lifestyle, the
sprawl of urban areas is effectively inevitable. In another article, William E. Rees and
Mark Roseland remark, “Such an effort must simultaneously create more efficient use
of urban space, reduced consumption of material and energy resources, improved
community livability, and improved administrative and planning processes capable of
dealing effectively, sensitively, and comprehensively with the social and
environmental complexity of urban settlements”. In this quotation they are referring
to North America, but the overall sentiment still outlines the kind of measures
necessary for urban reform. Upon researching the effects of urban sprawl, I came
across a really surprising case study that I would definitely like to include in my
presentation. In San Jose, California, a case study was conducted in which 13,000
residential “units” were built in an urban “greenbelt”, and they analyzed 13,000 that
were built in the standard pattern of urban sprawl. The results are astounding. “The
exurban homes would require 200,000 more miles of auto commuting and three
million more gallons of water per day. The exurban units would also require 40
percent more energy for heating and cooling than would their urban counterparts.” I
found this case study particularly compelling to read because it outlined in simple
statistical terms what exactly the effect of urban sprawl was on human consumption.
In order to supplement my presentation, I also began to research the kinds of
emissions and which one I wanted to focus on. After deliberation, I decided to focus
mostly on ozone and sulphur dioxide because they are both pertinent to the subject
matter I am focusing on regarding the two different cities.

Saturday 22nd May 2010:

Today I am dedicating to researching more about the city of London and its
emissions. While the website that assesses the air quality is certainly comprehensive;
the information is much harder to navigate than I previously imagined. Furthermore, I
am rather sceptical about the model they boast on their website as well. There is a
map with dots in various locations where they have current assessments of the air
quality. However, these dots are in very random locations, leaving huge gaps in the
data. And they are all green, indicating that perhaps the only locations being assessed
are the ones that have fairly good air quality. There is one dot that showed the air
quality was moderate, but overall the Central London locations seemed to be fine.

This could possibly be due to the congestion charge, which I proceeded to look into
next. As far as I could see, that was the only legislation in place that was doing
anything to tackle emissions. While I am sure that something more has to have been
accomplished, the governmental websites are not being particularly helpful in giving
me that information. The congestion charge was set up a few years ago in order to
tackle emission in Central London by placing a tax on certain areas, making them
“congestion charge zones”. There has been debate as to its success, and I found a
wonderful website that outlined why it has succeeded and why it has failed. It has
succeeded in bringing down emissions from cars, however in turn it has placed more
emphasis on public transportation. This means that as a result the emissions come
from buses and taxis instead. Furthermore, the government is not making as much
revenue as they predicted they would; probably due to the fact they need to put so
much of the money back in to pay for running costs of public transportation. Overall,
I am quite disappointed at my findings regarding London’s tackling of air pollution.

Monday, 24th May 2010:

Today, I am going to complete my research on the Hong Kong segment of my

presentation. I have to say I am extremely impressed with the Hong Kong
governmental air pollution website. Everything is extremely accessible to look at;
there are comprehensive diagrams showing emissions in different areas of the major
pollutants, even outlining areas that are way over the recommended limit. Even
though the data is from 2008, the map is extremely comprehensive and allows one to
accurately decipher where the problem areas are.
The most impressive findings in my opinion was the list of legislation that
Hong Kong has put into practice in order to combat pollution. I was astounded as to
the level of thoroughness one could see in the laws the passed regarding noise
pollution, water pollution and air pollution. There is a section on the website called
“Problems and Solutions” that contained detailed reports of Hong Kong’s progress
and outlined bodies set up that have been working collectively to target problem
areas.
While I initially thought my research for Hong Kong would be really difficult
to process and find, my whole outlook on how they deal with emissions has changed a
result of formulating my presentation.

Wednesday, 26th May 2010:

Looking back on my finished project, I suppose my conclusion would have to

be that I was initially wrong in my assessment of Hong Kong and London with regard
to air pollution. While I initially thought that London being a booming metropolis
would be much more conscious toward its environmental issues, I have found that
apart from the congestion charge there really is no real effort to promote catalytic
change. Hong Kong on the other hand, while having much worse air pollution, is
probably much closer to finding sustainable solutions simply because they have
placed a much larger emphasis on the future and sustainability. While I do not think
the congestion charge would be a successful or viable arrangement for Hong Kong, I
do believe that London in fact, can utilise some of Hong Kong’s legislative ideas in
order to better their control on air emissions.
ANALYSIS: URBAN SPRAWL IN THE EAST AND WEST

When one mentions air

pollution or smog, the immediate
association is made between a
picture of a city like Hong Kong
steeped in horrific smog, so much
so that in the morning one cannot
see over across the river that divides
the two sides of the city. It is a
horrid site to behold and one cannot
help but wonder why absolutely
nothing is being done in order to
combat the problem.
London is a completely
different scenario. Because the air
pollution is not immediately
obvious due to the lack of serious,
visible smog, the danger seems less imminent. London has been developing for years,
cementing its place in the world as a formidable power both financially and
politically. However, this does not alter the reality of traffic heaving streets, pumping
fumes into the atmosphere. The danger is still ever present and right under our noses.
Cue the congestion charge; a seemingly
perfect plan that will reduce traffic in central
London and ensure that emissions decrease as
well as increased revenue for the benefit of
governmental services. In a hypothetical
sense, the plan seems perfect. However, in
practice it has been seen that this is not in fact
the case. The revenue is not as large, the
congestion from cars has decreased but that
has been replaced by congestion of public
transport and cabs. Yet again, the government
intervenes, deciding that the congestion zone
should be expanded. The toll goes up from
five pounds to eight pounds. Many people in
the city feel that this measure is becoming
increasingly inefficient.
Go back to the case of Hong Kong. In
the past few years they have set aside concrete
air emission goals, and furthermore have
carefully thought out the legislation to
implement them. This is an especially notable
achievement considering the whispers of conspiracy that have recently arrived to
Hong Kong. Shanghai, the former powerhouse of China, has been seeking to rise
again as a booming hub of commerce. However, Hong Kong currently sits in that
niche and is internationally recognized as such. Therefore, it has been speculated that
there have been factories that emit huge amounts of harmful emissions into the
atmosphere being built right around Hong Kong in order to worsen the air pollution,
and effectively “pollute it to submission”. For fairly self-evident reasons it is not at all
feasible to find any such record of this conspiracy having any validity, yet the results
remain to be seen.
William E. Rees and Mark Roseland carefully outline in their article that one
of the results of urban sprawl and consequentially deteriorating air quality is the use
of cars, a result of the boom in oil consumption that has been characteristic of the 20th
and 21st century. “
Similar reforms are needed in urban land-use planning and controls.
Metropolitan planning must shift away from the prevailing assumption that
the primary urban access will be by automobile or even mass transit.
Planning for sustainable urban centres must be based on the contrary
assumption that people will be concentrated in the urban centre and that
access will be determined primarily by the proximity of residences to work,
recreation, shopping, and services. Urban sprawl can be contained by setting
limits on physical expansion and favouring alternatives to the automobile.
Appropriate measures include limiting automobile access to inner cities,
levying regional carbon dioxide taxes, restricting parking availability, and
using traffic-calming street designs. Governments, investors, and banks
should all be required to analyse alternative long-term least-cost strategies
for transportation and land-use investments. This would tend to give
pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit riders priority over the automobile. It
would favour building surface light rail and bikeway systems connecting
higher density pedestrian-friendly city and suburban centres. It would favour
building bicycle parking garages and policies that slow down car traffic to
improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

The issues facing each city are clear, and to a certain extent so are the
measures required to effectively tackle them. However, these changes require a
significant change in societal lifestyle and further require a strong hand from
governmental agency and policy. This has been demonstrated by Hong Kong, yet in
London that attention to legislative reform needs to be increased. Furthermore, people
need to provide incentive for a change in lifestyle. Looking to the future, Hong Kong
has become much more strict in its urban planning, and London should look to follow
suit. While the physical images of smog hanging over Hong Kong seem to exude a
city that has no grasp of environmental policy, the statistics seem to dictate otherwise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

"EPD - Air Quality Objectives." Web. 18 May 2010.

<http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/air_quality_objectives/air_
quality_objectives.html>.

"EPD - Data & Statistics." Web. 18 May 2010.

<http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/air_data.html>.

London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air Quality Network
» Home Page. Web. 18 May 2010. <http://www.londonair.org.uk/>.

"London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air Quality Network
» Pollution Guide Page." London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air
Quality Network » Home Page. Web. 18 May 2010.
<http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/information.asp?view=howbad>.

"London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air Quality Network
» Pollution Guide Page." London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air
Quality Network » Home Page. Web. 18 May 2010.
<http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/information.asp?view=whatis>.

Morris, Nigel. "The Big Question: Has the Congestion Charge Been Effective
in Reducing London's Traffic? - Home News, UK - The Independent." The
Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper. 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 18
May 2010. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-
has-the-congestion-charge-been-effective-in-reducing-londons-traffic-781505.html>.

Rees, William E., and Mark Roseland. "From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable
Human Communities." Converge. Web. 18 May 2010.
<http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/sprawl.htm>.

"Urban Sprawl - Arguments for and against." Spiritus-Temporis.com -

Historical Events, Latest News, News Archives. Web. 18 May 2010.
<http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/urban-sprawl/arguments-for-and-against.html>.