Tuesday 15 November 2016

Case study 2: Eco-cities: The perfect model or just overambitious?

Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city

I’m going to start this post with a couple of videos which present the sustainable efforts of an eco-city in Tianjin, China (and featuring some typical geography video music). Instead of retrofitting sustainable measures to an existing settlement, they are rather building an entirely new city, named Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, which is located about 40 km from Tianjin city centre.






I find climate change in China particularly interesting. A stigma exists of the country that it is highly polluting, with dirty air and very little care for the environment. Whilst it is true that it is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, and air pollutants are a major concern, the steps the Chinese are taking towards climate change leave a lot to be desired of other countries.


But do eco-cities actually work?

The legitimacy of whether eco-cities are working is a topic of much discussion. Flynn et al. (2016) argue that to judge whether their success, we need to critique all areas of the process, including the design and build, and the effect on the behaviour of the new residents.

A key facet of the paper are the findings of a questionnaire of the residents, looking at their attitudes pre- and post-moving into the eco-city. One interesting outcome relates to the mode of the transport used for different activities (Figure 1). In almost all cases, the use of private cars has decreased, although, perhaps ironically as it was one of the major selling points from the videos above, the only case in which it has increased is for travelling to work.


Figure 1. Mode of transports of residents living in Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city compared to previous residence.
Source: Flynn et al. (2016)

The study also presents changes to the amount of walking that residents partake in. 42% of residents said that they walked less regularly than prior to moving, 33% reported it to be similar and just 25% answered that their walking had increased. Again, this shows that the aims of the project are perhaps not as realistic as hoped. Finally, the paper also finds that the whole premise of the eco-city being designed to be more environmentally friendly actually results in residents believing that they can use more energy at their convenience. Rather than the clean energy of the city accompanying a behavioural shift towards more careful use of resources, it appears to possibly be having the opposite effect and leading to a more elaborate lifestyle.


Premalatha et al. (2013) extend this point further, focussing on two zero-carbon eco-cities: Dongtan City in China, and Masdar City close to Abu Dhabi. Dongton was designed as the world’s first-ever zero-carbon city, and was planned to be a model for sustainable city building that could be followed for all future developments. Masdar was even more ambitious by being stated to be the first ever zero-carbon and zero-waste city. 

The authors argue that both cities were over-ambitious in their approaches, and that for a city to sustain life through a truly ‘zero waste’ existence actually contradicts the second law of thermodynamics and that some form of waste must eventually be created. This, along with other shortcomings of both cities, such as an over-reliance on renewable energy, has resulted in both ultimately failing at their aims. Masdar has, for example, had to rely heavily on fossil-fuel-induced energy being imported from Abu Dhabi.

The concluding statements of Permalatha et al. echo those of Flynn et al. For a sustainable city to reach its maximum potential, the character of the residents themselves must adapt too. Installing appliances and creating buildings that are low energy only serve as deflections from the underlying issue – that we rely too much on energy – unless they are accompanied by a change in mindset and lifestyle.

I think the findings of Premalatha do, however, provide a basis of hope for the eco-city in Tianjin. The aim for the city to be more of a stepping stone to sustainable living, with a plan that can be replicated in part because it isn’t gunning for an adoption of 100% renewable energy, means that costs are kept down and the likelihood of other cities and countries following the same formula increases. Whereas a switch to fully renewable could induce a blasé attitude of “It’s clean energy, so I can use as much as I want.”, incremental decline of fossil fuels and ascension of renewables could instead create an opportunity for a reduction in the reliance of energy altogether.




2 comments:

  1. Hey Guy! I agree with the concern that a switch to renewable energy does not cater to a change in behaviour which is really what climate change calls for. However I do think that choosing to live and partake in places that are completely renewable, means that sustainability is a huge part of your daily life and there is the possibility that it will draw subconscious attention to being more conservative. https://www.minds.com/blog/view/407634747297107968 have a look at this place, they are completely renewable and have been highlighted as part of one of the most sustainable places in the world. Changing peoples attitudes to consumption is very difficult and I'm not sure the China case would be as easily embraced as this one in Germany as the German example would be, at least in my opinion, a smoother transition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment Courtney! I completely agree that the place in Germany is fantastic and has great potential to be replicated - the country seems to be such a hub for sustainable ideas and practices. I think you're right that it would be more easily embraced, but one stumbling block could be the costs that are associated with some of the technologies that have been installed in Germany. Having worked briefly in sustainable construction, it's clear that though there is a increasing desire to build sustainably, the major hurdle is the finance and I feel this would be even more of an issue in developing countries. Hopefully as more countries invest in climate change and new technologies are invented the cost will come down and the end result will be more eco-cities!

      Delete