Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

A critical review of Hong Kong’s proposed climate change strategy andaction agenda

Mee Kam Ng ⇑Department of Geography and Resource Management, 2/F Wong Foo Yuan Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 March 2011Received in revised form 4 August 2011Accepted 7 August 2011Available online 1 September 2011

Keywords:Climate changeEvaluation frameworkCarbon intensityHong Kong

0264-2751/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.001

⇑ Tel.: +852 2609 6645; fax: +852 2603 5006.E-mail address: meekng@cuhk.edu.hk

a b s t r a c t

Climate change was not on the policy agenda in Hong Kong before 2007. In 2010, a consultation docu-ment, Hong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda, was published proposing a voluntary car-bon intensity reduction target of 50–60% by 2020 (from the 2005 level). This review attempts tounderstand why there was a sudden shift to climate issues and whether the proposed strategy, actionsand targets are appropriate to the climate change challenges faced by the city. Through synthesizingexisting literature on climate change at the city level, a framework outlining possible actions at the stra-tegic, knowledge accumulation and implementation phases is developed to position Hong Kong’s expe-rience. It is found that Hong Kong’s move towards climate change is strongly affected by China’sefforts. The city is facing some real climate change threats. However, while the carbon intensity reductiontarget looks impressive, it is actually too modest for the city’s developed economy. The city needs toreflect critically on its economics-first strategy and undertake more refined vulnerability studies and riskassessments to identify spatially and sectorally-specific adaptation measures. To be a responsible globalcitizen and to pursue sustainable development, Hong Kong needs more concerted and comprehensiveefforts to combat climate change.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1 The Chief Executive in his speech at the ‘‘Business for Clean Air’’ Joint Conferencen 27 November 2006 argued that people’s health was measured by their life span. Asife expectancy in Hong Kong is among the highest in the world. . .you can come tonly one conclusion – we have the most environmentally friendly place for people, forxecutives, for Hong Kong people, to live’’ (Tsang, 2006).2 The date marked the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule and human rights

ctivists have organised a protest rally on this date on an annual basis. In 2003 whenong Kong was hard hit by SARS and to protest against the introduction of Basic Law

Introduction

In September 2010, the government of Hong Kong publishedHong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda: Consulta-tion Document (henceforth Consultation Document), proposing atarget of reducing carbon intensity by 50–60% by 2020 (2005 asthe baseline) as well as other measures related to mitigation andadaption to climate change (p. 7). This document was publishedwhen the city was moving at full gear with 10 major infrastructureprojects underway including the controversial dual three-laneHong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. The government’s response toa recent court case related to this Bridge, however, raises doubton its commitment to combat climate change. In April 2011, whenthe court overturned the environmental assessment of the Bridge,the Chief Executive alleged that ‘‘a certain political party and pol-iticians make use of legal proceedings or other means, under theexcuse of environmental protection or conservatism, to blocklarge-scale projects. . . they would rather harm Hong Kong’s. . .

interests’’ and warned that more than 70 other projects would beheld up because of the ruling (Ng & Cheung, 2011).

The government’s ‘‘awakening’’ to climate change is extremelyrecent because even in Hong Kong 2030 (HKDB and PD, 2007),

ll rights reserved.

the city’s latest long-term territorial development strategy pro-mulgated in 2007, the words ‘‘climate change’’ appear only oncein the 371-page document. Hong Kong has a longer history of tack-ling air pollution but the concern is always about poor air qualitydriving out investors and the global elite, lowering the city’s com-petitiveness (Chu, 2010). Social equity and health concerns relatedto air pollution have been raised by the civil society organisations(Hedley et al., 2006; Ng, 2007) but they are not acknowledged bythe government.1 During the annual 1 July march2 in 2009, the HongKong Special Administrative Region Chief Executive was ‘‘wanted’’by Greenpeace as ‘‘a climate fugitive’’ (Plates 1 and 2). However,aside from the green groups and some concerned professionals,people in Hong Kong have paid relatively little interest to ‘‘climate

rticle 23 on national security, 500,000 people marched on the street on 1 July andventually brought down the first Chief Executive and the Minister of Health (Cheng,005). Since then, the 1 July march has become a carnival-like event with differentroups bringing various issues to the attention of the city when the government

o‘‘loe

aHAe2g

celebrates Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule.

Plate 1. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Donald Tsang: the wanted ‘‘climate fugitive’’.

M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98 89

change’’ issues. In fact, some even argue that Hong Kong qualifies asa sustainable city as only 25% of its land area is developed (HKSAR,2009, p. 480, chap. 3), that over 85% of its work trips are carriedby public transport (Transport Department, 2003) and the car own-ership rate of 55 per 1000 is extremely low by developed world stan-dards (EIU, 2010). Is it true that Hong Kong is a sustainable societyfree of climate change threats? What accounts for the sudden shiftof the government with a reputation of favouring economic growthover environmental concerns, to climate change issues? How canone assess whether the proposed climate change strategy and actionagenda are adequate to tackle climate change challenges in the city?

In order to answer the above questions, we need to understandhow climate change can be understood and tackled at the city le-vel. This paper tries to synthesise the published work and developa framework for understanding the spectra of local responses toclimate change. The framework will be used to understand and

assess the proposed strategy and action agenda set out in the Con-sultation Document. In order to ascertain the appropriateness ofthe proposed carbon-intensity reduction target in Hong Kong, thetarget will be benchmarked against the case of London, a world citywith slightly larger land area and population size. The proposedmitigation and adaptation measures are critically reviewed and itis argued that the pro-economic growth government needs toadopt more integrated and stringent policy measures to tackle realclimate change challenges in the city.

Climate change at the city level: Committed? Tokenistic?Indifferent?

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that ‘‘[m]ost of the observed

Plate 2. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Donald Tsang: the wanted ‘‘climate fugitive’’.

90 M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th centuryis very likely [i.e., >90% probability] due to the observed increase inanthropogenic greenhouse gases concentration’’ (IPCC, 2007, p.39). As more than half of the world’s population is now residingin urban areas, cities play an increasingly important role inaddressing climate change issues (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2007; Dhakal& Betsill, 2007, p. 551; Hunt & Wartkiss, 2007; Kousky & Schmeider,2003; Mills, 2007; Ruth & Coelho, 2007). Tibaijuka, former Exec-utive Director of UN-Habitat, suggested that ‘‘cities wereresponsible for 75% of global energy consumption and 80% ofgreenhouse gas emissions’’.3 Another estimate is that the builtenvironment contributes to almost 50% of carbon dioxide emission(Ove Arup, 2007, p. 3). In the latest UN-Habitat Global Report onHuman Settlement, human-induced greenhouse gas emissionsamount to 40–70%, using production-based methods and 60–70%,using consumption-based method (2011, p. iv). Nevertheless,Satterthwaite argues that the per capita greenhouse gas emissionin many cities in rich nations is lower than their national averages,suggesting that cities, when well-planned and governed, play a keyrole in delinking high quality of life from massive consumptionand hence greenhouse gas emissions (2008, p. 547). In order todevelop a better understanding of how cities are tackling climatechange, existing literature is reviewed and synthesized into aframework to identify possible spectra of actions at the strategic,knowledge accumulation and policy formation, as well as actionphases (Fig. 1). The following paragraphs discuss the synthesizedframework which is then used to examine work done by Hong Kongin tackling climate change.

3 Tibaijuka, Executive Director of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme (UN-Habitat), in a speech to the United Nations, 62nd General Assembly,Second Committee, 30 October 2007, available on the internet at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gaef3190.doc.htm, (last accessed on 30 September 2010).

Strategic phase

The strategic phase is extremely important. Without it, it ishard to imagine how cities would begin tackling climate change.Many reasons account for climate change strategizing in cities.In a study to investigate cities’ actions on climate change inthe USA, Wheeler finds that as of 2008, more than 170 local gov-ernments have joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)campaign4 but ‘‘emission-reduction goals vary widely, many pro-posed actions are voluntary, few resources have been allocated,and implementation of most measures has not yet taken place’’(2008, p. 481). Studies in Britain, Germany, Japan and China illus-trate that national commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions are instrumental in influencing local authorities to takeclimate change actions (Allman, Fleming, & Wallace, 2004; Bulke-ley & Kern, 2006; Ove Arup & Partners Ltd., 2007; Qi, Ma, Zhang,& Li, 2008; Schreurs, 2008; Sugiyama & Takeuchi, 2008). In theStates, it is found that state mandate is the most important pre-dictor of the existence of higher quality climate change actionplans (Tang, Brody, Quinn, Chang, & Wei, 2010, p. 56).

In general, a city’s strategic commitment to climate change ac-tions is a function of national commitment to greenhouse gasreduction, local impacts of climate change, local vulnerabilitiesand levels of risks, local needs to save energy and control pollution,visionary leadership, and strong civil and environmental capacityto initiate and implement climate change policies (Bulkeley,2010; Meadowcroft, 2009; Qi et al., 2008; Sugiyama et al., 2008;

4 CCP was a result of the First Municipal Leaders’ Summit on Climate Change heldNew York in 1993, after the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention

n Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. CCP has since been an active instrument toitiate city level mitigation and adaptation actions in both developed and developinguntries. Information available on internet at ICLEI Climate Program, http://

inoinco

www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800 (accessed in October 2010).

Fig. 1. Tackling climate change at the city level: spectra of actions.

M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98 91

USCOM, 2009; Zahran, Grover, Brody, & Vedlitz, 2008). Themotivation of national and city level commitment to climatechange initiatives and their adopted rationalities will determinethe scope for policy intervention. Cities with strong commitmentat the policy level will probably develop integrated policy initia-tives to tackle climate change. Liberal rationalities favouring mar-ket-based solutions will probably use cost-benefit analysis ratherthan any other moral imperatives to determine practicable actions(Oels, 2005, quoted in Pidgeon & Butler (2009), p. 676); and eco-nomic interests resistant to mitigation policies coupled with scien-tific uncertainty would lead to delayed or less ambitiousgovernment actions (Meadowcroft, 2009, p. 27). Worse still, citiesmay remain indifferent to their responsibilities towards climatechange. The type of commitment at the strategic level in turn af-fects how the city approaches and accumulates knowledge on cli-mate change that will in turn dictate the contents of consequentclimate change policies and measures.

Knowledge accumulation and policy formulation phase

Ideally, city governments have to understand the sources ofgreenhouse gas emissions and their respective reduction potentials(Bader & Bleischwitz, 2009, p. 2; Dodman, 2009). Yet, the method-ologies and assumptions in developing greenhouse gas inventoriesfor cities are not standardized and they vary with questions suchas: Whose emissions are measured? What is measured? Andhow are emissions measured? (Bader & Bleischwitz, 2009) For in-stance, should greenhouse gas emissions be assigned to places ofproduction or consumption (Satterthwaite, 2008)? Where shouldemissions arising from international and domestic tourists whoare increasing in great numbers for world cities, be recorded(UN-Habitat, 2011)? What kind of tools should be used to calculatethe emissions (Bader & Bleischwitz, 2009; Kennedy et al., 2010)?

Hence, a transparent account of greenhouse gas emissions isimportant for a community to have a full picture of the emissionposition and develop appropriate mitigation actions (Bader & Ble-ischwitz, 2009, p. 3; Bloomberg, 2007; Corburn, 2009). Mitigationpolicies ideally should be integrated and cover various sectorsincluding energy, transport, infrastructure, buildings, industryand waste etc. (IPCC, 2007; Meadowcroft, 2009; UN-Habitat, 2011).

Besides mitigation, measuring vulnerabilities is a crucial step incoping with climate change. A city’s vulnerability is a function ofits exposure and sensitivity to climate changes and the relatedadaptive capacity conditioned by its physical as well as underlyingsocio-economic setting (IPCC, 2007; Mehrotra et al., 2009). Climaterelated changes include temperature increases leading to warmspells or heat waves, extreme rainfall, drought frequency, windspeed, sea-level rise and intense tropical cycles. These may createvarying direct and indirect impacts on different sectors, groups ofpeople or geographical locations, depending on a host of factorssuch as location of the city, proximity to the sea, physical relief,population size and density, size of the city, quality of the gover-nance structure, regulations, land uses and the consequent builtenvironment, etc. (Mehrotra et al., 2009). Together with riskassessment, that is, appraising the consequence of an impact thatcould be quantitative or qualitative and its probability or likelihood(high, medium or low), priority planning areas can be identified foradaptation actions embracing no- or low-regret options that canboost a city’s resilience to climate change (Hunt & Wartkiss,2007; CSES, King County and ICLEI, 2007; Mehrotra et al., 2009).Typical examples include water, infrastructure or settlement, hu-man health, tourism, transport and energy policies (IPCC, 2007;UN-habitat, 2011).

These data would be indispensable for developing appropriateclimate change strategies and policies. The greenhouse gas inven-tory helps a city to develop realistic mitigation targets and relevant

92 M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

policies ‘‘to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance sinks’’whereas the vulnerability and risk assessment provide clues toadopting adaptation measures that aim at countering possibledamages of the physical and built environments against real or ex-pected climate change impacts (Birkmann, Garschagen, Kraas, &Quang, 2010; Gough et al., 2008, p. 328; CSES et al., 2007; Usher,2000). These two aspects are interrelated: ‘‘if mitigation can holdimpacts at a certain level; adaptation can handle the impacts’’(Saavedra & Budd, 2009, p. 249) and effective adaptation measureswill also reinforce mitigation strategies (Hunt & Wartkiss, 2007, p.9). The suggested actions for various sectors all point to the needfor long term planning and the inclusion of climate and environ-mental concerns into all branches of government and in the courseof spatial planning (Giddens, 2009, p. 8; Meadowcroft, 2009). It isalso important to bear in mind the needs of vulnerable groups suchas the poor and the elderly in undertaking these policies or mea-sures (Bartlett, 2008, p. 515). In fact, climate change policies shouldbe leveraged to help achieve other policy goals and to rally cross-party and cross-jurisdiction support in society (Compston, 2009,p. 661).

However, as can be seen in Fig. 1, short of strategic commitmentto combating climate change due to a lack of national support or aliberal approach adopted by local governments, some cities may bepaying only tokenistic attention to greenhouse gas emissions, fail-ing to set meaningful emissions targets or to develop thoughtfulmitigation and adaptation policies and measures.

Action phase

Mitigation and adaptation strategies will not be successfulwithout the active involvement of various actors (Aylett, 2010;Burch, 2010; Kithiia & Dowling, 2010; Lidskog & Elander, 2007).This would require a clear and effective communication strategydeveloped by the government and the bringing on board of stake-holders in the business and third sectors in carrying out and mon-itoring climate change policies with the long term goal ofpromoting the sustainability of the city (Birkmann et al., 2010, p.201; Compston, 2009, p. 661). Birkmann et al. argue that adaptivegovernance should achieve integration between different geo-graphical scales; between everyday and expert knowledge; and be-tween different norm systems in the formal and informal sectors(2010, p. 203). It is about mobilizing all actors in society to exercisetheir wisdom to tackle climate change issues at different stages forlong term sustainability. Again, depending on the context of thecity at the strategic, knowledge accumulation and policy formula-tion phases, actions combating climate change could range from anintegrated tripartite-partnership among the government, privatesector and civil society, to fragmented un-coordinated and ad hocinitiatives undertaken by the three sets of stakeholders.

Using this synthesized framework, the following section tries toposition the performance of Hong Kong, ‘‘Asia’s world city’’, at thestrategic, knowledge accumulation and policy formulation as wellas action phases, in its efforts to combat climate change.

5 In the 1990s, polluting power plants were closed; measures were developed togreen the transport and energy sectors; air pollution index and building energy codesetc. were introduced to monitor and improve air quality.

6 The author had asked about the origin of the drafting of the ConsultationDocument during a consultation session in October 2010 and the Minister for theEnvironment mentioned that it was an initiative of the Chief Executive. One couldassume that the Central Government might have instructed the Chief Executive toplay a part in combating climate change as a response to the national policy.

Performance of Hong Kong in tackling climate change

Strategic level: at the behest of central ‘‘instruction’’?

The government of Hong Kong did not join the first Earth Sum-mit in 1992. And it was not until 2003 that China notified the Uni-ted Nations that the Kyoto Protocol be extended to Hong Kong(Environment Bureau, 2010, p. 18). Yet, as China is only a non-An-nex I Party, Hong Kong has no obligation to cut its greenhouse gasemissions. This, however, does not mean that Hong Kong cannotdevelop its own strategies to combat climate change. The ‘‘One

Country Two Systems’’ arrangement allows Hong Kong autonomyon all policy areas except diplomatic relations and foreign defence.Critics at that time had lamented such lack of action by Hong Kongas the city ranked 15th globally in terms of per capita gross domes-tic product (Harris, 2007). Instead of climate change, most of theactions undertaken by the local government5 had been targeted to-wards combating air pollution, identified by different stakeholdersas the most serious problem in the city’s first sustainability report(Ng, 2007), and was seen as a threat to Hong Kong’s appeal to inter-national investment and talents.

Similar to experiences elsewhere (Allman et al., 2004; Bulkeleyet al., 2006; Qi et al., 2008; Schreurs, 2008; Sugiyama et al., 2008),Hong Kong’s recent awakening to climate change has to do withthe national government. As the world’s emerging economy heav-ily dependent on coal and facing the problem of low energy effi-ciency, China has been a keen player in the international arena inissues related to sustainable development and climate change.Though China is only a non-Annex I Party under the Kyoto Protocoland is only required to gather and share information on green-house gas emissions, national policies and best practices on mitiga-tion and adaptation to climate change, it published a national planon climate change response in 2007. The formulation of this planrelates to actions undertaken at the Central Government level. Inthe 1990s, a National Coordination Group on Climate Change(NCGCC) was set up within the China Meteorological Administra-tion and was later moved to the National Development and ReformCommission (the most powerful agency in the Chinese CentralGovernment) in 1998. In 2003, the NCGCC was renamed as the Na-tional Coordination Group on Climate Change Strategy (NCGCCS)and was led by a vice premier to coordinate the implementationof the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) (Qi et al., 2008, pp. 381–382). In 2007, the NCGCCSwas re-created as the National Leading Group on Climate Change(NLGCC) and has been led by the premier with twenty-seven agen-cies, representing almost all agencies of the Central Government,and is responsible for making major decisions and coordinating na-tional actions on climate change (Qi et al., 2008, p. 381–382).According to the research team led by Qi, NLGCC’s membershipcoincides with the National Leading Group on Energy Saving andPollution Reduction which is also led by the premier, showing thatthe Chinese Central Government has considered the close link be-tween climate change and energy saving (op. cit., 2008, p. 381–382).

The consolidation of the NCGCCS into the NLGCC and the pro-mulgation of a national plan on climate change in 2007 help ex-plain Hong Kong’s ‘‘sudden’’ shift to the challenge of climatechange in 2007. It is interesting to note that similar to other prov-inces and local authorities, an Inter-Departmental Working Groupon Climate Change led by the Environment Bureau was created in2007, after the setting up of the NLGCC by the Chinese Central Gov-ernment (Environment Bureau, 2010, p. 5). And after theannouncement of the voluntary national greenhouse gas reductiontarget by the Central Government in 2009, a Framework Agree-ment on Hong Kong/Guangdong Cooperation was signed in 2010and the Consultation Document was published in September2010.6 These coincidences help explain Hong Kong’s abrupt shiftto climate change issues.

Table 1Greenhouse gas emission trends of Hong Kong from 1990 to 2008. Source: Environmental Protection Department, Climate Change Resources., available on the internet at http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/climate_change/files/HKGHG_Sectors_201009.pdf> (accessed in October 2010).

Year Electricitygeneration (%)

Transport(%)

Other end use offuel (%)

Waste(%)

Industrial processes and productuse (%)

Agriculture, forestry andothers (%)

Total (in kilotonnesCO2-e)

1990 64.9 16.8 12.9 4.4 0.6 0.4 35,3001991 66.0 16.7 11.2 4.1 1.6 0.3 38,8001992 67.9 16.0 10.5 3.9 1.5 0.2 43,0001993 68.3 16.0 9.7 4.0 1.7 0.2 43,4001994 61.0 20.3 11.2 4.9 2.3 0.2 35,9001995 62.4 19.5 10.1 5.3 2.5 0.2 36,9001996 61.3 20.2 10.2 5.3 2.7 0.2 35,6001997 60.0 22.0 10.1 4.7 2.9 0.2 34,1001998 62.3 20.9 9.5 4.4 2.8 0.2 35,5001999 60.3 22.7 10.3 3.4 3.1 0.3 33,3002000 62.4 23.2 8.3 4.4 1.5 0.2 34,6002001 62.4 22.1 9.1 3.6 2.5 0.2 34,7002002 64.7 21.8 7.8 4.1 1.4 0.2 36,2002003 66.9 19.7 7.3 4.5 1.4 0.2 39,6002004 66.3 19.2 7.7 5.0 1.6 0.2 39,8002005 68.2 17.8 6.5 5.3 2.1 0.2 42,0002006 67.4 17.7 6.5 5.1 3.3 0.1 42,3002007 68.4 17.1 6.3 5.0 3.1 0.1 43,3002008 66.7 17.5 6.8 5.1 3.8 0.1 42,000

Table 2Proposed changes to fuel mix in the consultation document. Source: EnvironmentBureau, Hong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy And Action Agenda: Consultation document(Hong Kong: Government Printer, 2010), at 43.

2009 (%) 2020 (%)

Coal 54 <10Gas 23 40Nuclear 23 50Renewable energy 0 3–4

M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98 93

Knowledge accumulation and policy formulation phase: ‘‘marginal’’concern in a pro-growth city

Unlike air quality and pollution concerns, the ‘‘climate change’’agenda did not feature in the Chief Executive’s annual Policy Ad-dress before 2007, reinforcing the suggestion that Hong Kong, sim-ilar to many other provincial and local authorities in the mainland,has had to respond actively to the work of the NLGCC in 2007. In2007, the Asia–Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Leader’s Dec-laration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Develop-ment adopted in Sydney pledged to reduce at least 25% of energyintensity by 2030, with 2005 as the base year, and as a memberof APEC, the Hong Kong government honoured the target and alsoproposed a number of initiatives to meet this target (Chief Execu-tive, 2007, p. 18). The government’s responses from 2007 onwardsfocus on enhancing efficiency of energy consumption related tobuildings and greening the fuel mix as coal produces over half ofthe energy consumed in the city. This is because 66.7% of the2008’s total greenhouse emissions in the city was related to elec-tricity generation (Table 1) and 90% of this was consumed by build-ings, that is, electricity consumed by buildings amounts to about60% of Hong Kong’s greenhouse emissions (Environment Bureau,2010, p. 15). In fact, according to Wan, Li, and Lam (2011, p.1404), the average annual building energy use in the 21st centurywould be increased by 6.6–8.1%.

According to the Consultation Document (Environment Bureau,2010, p. 14), the city’s per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions(Co2-d) was 6 tonnes in 2008. In order to tackle climate change, thegovernment proposed to adopt a voluntary carbon intensity reduc-tion target of 50–60% by 2020 as compared with 2005 level (op cit.,2010, p. 46). This would amount to a reduction of GHG emissionsby 19–33% or a ‘‘per capita GHG emissions’’ of 3.6–4.5 tonnes

CO2-e by 2020 (op cit., 2010, p. 46). In terms of mitigating GHGemissions, the government has proposed a two-pronged strategy:improving energy efficiency and greening the fuel mix. The govern-ment has proposed to implement a set of statutory Building EnergyCodes to introduce the Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme inphases and to encourage the carrying out of carbon audit in build-ings. As the transport sector contributed to a sizable amount ofgreenhouse gas emissions (17.5% in 2008) in Hong Kong, the gov-ernment has also encouraged the consumption of cleaner fueland the use of electric vehicles etc. District water cooling will beintroduced to cut down emissions in the redevelopment of theold Kai Tak international airport site and will before 2020 utiliselandfill gas as a source of energy (Environment Bureau, 2010). Atthe regional level, the government has tried to encourage HongKong owned factories to adopt clean production technologies.The government has also signed an agreement framework to se-cure the supply of nuclear energy and liquefied natural gas etc.from Guangdong. This latter initiative is related to the govern-ment’s efforts in greening the fuel mix. In order to encourage thepower companies to switch to clean fuels, in 2008 the governmentintroduced a new regulatory regime allowing the companies ahigher rate of return for investment in renewable energy facilities(11% vs. other assets at 9.99%) (Leung, Yung, Ng, Leung, & Chan,2009, p. 98). A more controversial proposal, especially after theMarch 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Sendai, Japan, isincreasing the share of nuclear energy from 23% to 50% (Table 2).Amidst protests launched by environmental groups, the govern-ment has promised a rethink its plan to expand the supply of nu-clear energy from Guangdong where several more nuclearreactors will be constructed (Siu, 2011).

Is Hong Kong doing enough? Civic Exchange, a local think tank,questioned the government’s figure on per capita carbon emissionsand argued that it should be two to five times higher because theofficial emissions inventory omits pollution arising from air traveland consumption of imported goods (Wong, 2010). Others arguethat a target of reducing energy intensity is simply not good en-ough for a maturing economy such as Hong Kong. In any case, isa reduction of 50–60% of carbon intensity an ambitious target forthe city? To answer this question, the target is benchmarkedagainst another world city, London in Table 3. While London is onlymarginally bigger than Hong Kong in terms of population size andland area, its urban development is much more extensive, with 95%

Table 3Climate change in London and Hong Kong—current situation and proposed targets.

Hong Kong London

Current statusCity area (km2) 1104 1572Built-up landb 23.7% 95%Populationc (mid-2008) 6.98 7.60GDP/GVAa (USD billion) (2008) 216.146 413.838GDP (HKD billion)d (2008) 1675.3 3207.6Per capita GDP (2008) 240,096 418,295Carbon dioxide emissionse (million tonnes)1990 35.3 452006 42.3 502008 42.0 46Per capital carbon dioxide emissions (tonnes) 6.03 (2008) 6.05 (2008)Carbon intensity (kgCO2-e/HKD of GDP)

(2008)0.025 0.014

Proposed targetsf

Carbon intensity Reduce by 50–60% below the 2005 level by 2020 (0.012–0.015)

–

Reduction of carbon emission 19–33% (reference year 2005) 60% by 2025 (reference year 1990)Others: Per capita GHG emissions: 3.6–4.5 tonnes � 25% decentralised energy by 2025.

� Improving energy efficiency of homes andbuildings.� Reducing transport emissions.

a GVA means Gross Value Added and measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. The relationshipbetween GVA and GDP is as follows: GVA + taxes on products – subsidies on products = GDP. Source: Office for National Statistics, Gross Value Added (GVA), available oninternet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=254 (accessed in October 2010).

b Sources: Built-up land: (a) Hong Kong: Planning Department of the HKSAR (2010), Information Services: Planning Statistics: Broad Land Usage Distribution, available onthe internet at http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.html Accessed 05.05.10 (Last revised 23.03.10). (b) London: Office for Nation Statistics, RegionalTrends: Directory of Online Tables – Table 5.10 Previous use of land changing to residential use, 2005–2008, available on the internet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/RegionalSnapshot/directory.pdf (accessed on 21 September, 2010).

c Population: (a) Hong Kong: The data [Mid-population] is obtained from Census and Statistics Department of the HK SAR (2009), HK Statistic-Table 001: Population by Sex,available on the internet at http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&tableID=001 (accessed on 12 May 2010, Last updatedon February 11, 2010). (b) Office for National Statistics (2010), Regional Profile: London Summary, available on the internet at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nug-get.asp?id=1132 (accessed in February 2011).

d GDP: Exchange rate between USD and HKD is assumed to be 7.8. (a) Hong Kong: The data [GDP] is obtained from Census and Statistics Department of the HK SAR (2009),HK Statistic-Table 031: GDP and its main expenditure components at current market prices, Table 030: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), implicit price deflator of GDP and percapita GDP, available on the internet at http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?charsetID=1&tableID=001 (accessed on 12 May 2010,Last updated on 12 November 2010). (b) Office for National Statistics (2009), Regional GVA December 2010, Table NUTS1.1, available online at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA2009.pdf (Accessed in February 2011). Exchange rates used: 1USD to 7.75085 HKD (December 2008); 1 HKD to 0.08391 GBP(December 2008); 1 USD to 0.65039 GBP (December 2008), Source: Currency convertor http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/ (accessed in October 2010).

e Carbon dioxide emissions: (a) Hong Kong: Environmental Protection Department, Climate Change Resources, available on the internet at http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/climate_change/files/HKGHG_Sectors_201009.pdf (accessed in October 2010). (b) Figure for 1990: London Energy Partnership (2006), London Carbon Scenarios to2026, Page 6, available at http://www.lep.org.uk/uploads/london_carbon_scenarios.pdf, viewed on February 17, 2011. Figure for 2006: Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs (2008), Local Authority CO2 emissions estimates 2006: Statistical Summary, available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/climate_change/archive/131-LA-co2-emissions-estimates-2006.pdf, viewed on February 17, 2011. Figure for 2008: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2010), Local Authority CO2

emissions estimates 2008: Statistical Summary, available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/climate_change/localAuthorityCO2/465-local-authority-co2-2008-stat-summary.pdf.

f Emissions reduction target: (a) Hong Kong: Environment Bureau, Hong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda: Consultation Document (Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter, 2010), at 44. (b) London: Greater London Authority, Aiming for Big Reductions in Carbon Emissions, available on the internet at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/climate-change (accessed in October 2010).

7 Some suggestions raised by participants in a focus group meeting, organised bye Council for Sustainable Development on 19 May 2011, provide inputs to facilitatenew round of public engagement in mid-2011 on the barriers, possible incentives

nd action plans for maximising energy efficiency and minimizing carbon emissionsbuildings. The author was one of the participants.

94 M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

of the city being built up. Hong Kong’s urban form is much morecompact. The city’s population is ‘‘cramped’’ in less than 25% ofthe land area with small per capita domestic and working space,short community distance, low percentage of car ownership etc.(Leung & Lee, 2000, p. 4490). So, it is rather surprising to see thatthe per capita carbon emission figures are almost the same in thetwo cities. The discrepancies between the existing emission figuresand the proposed reduction targets between London and HongKong cannot be more different. Hong Kong’s carbon intensity(0.025 tonnes in 2008) is almost double the figure in London(0.014 tonnes in 2008). While London is planning to cut 60% ofits greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, Hong Kong’s target is only19–33% (Environment Bureau, 2010, p. 40). Hence, while our emis-sion reduction target looks rather ambitious, this target even ifachieved, would only be about the current carbon intensity figureof London today!

Criticisms are not only directed towards the fuel mix proposaland carbon intensity reduction targets. Environmental groups inthe business as well as the non-government sectors have urged

the government to legislate for a compulsory carbon audit and de-mand disclosure of energy consumption figures for buildings ingeneral and the commercial ones in particular as the latter cate-gory accounts for 65% of the GHG emissions of all the buildingsin Hong Kong which in turn consumed about 90% of electricity pro-duced in the city (Wong, 2011). Others have urged the governmentto adopt a more stringent regulatory regime setting higher andcompulsory standards for building energy efficiency codes, energylabelling and area cooling and to embed carbon cost in setting elec-tricity prices.7 Efforts at the regional level have also not beenimpressive. For the 5-year Cleaner Production Partnership Pro-gramme launched in April 2008 to facilitate Hong Kong-owned fac-tories to adopt cleaner production technologies and practices, the

thaain

M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98 95

number of awardees in 2010 was only 115. This figure is rathermeaningless given the fact that there are 58,500 Hong Kong-ownedfactories in China (Tsang, 2010).

To summarise, an absence of consumption-based emission fig-ures, modest GHG emissions reduction targets, a rather weak reg-ulatory regime in terms of identifying sources of carbon emissionsand developing strategically effective and mandatory measures toreduce energy consumption and the proposed expanded use of nu-clear power to meet growing demand all suggest that Hong Kong istaking a rather tokenistic approach in combating climate change.The absence of integrative responses to reduce GHG emissions isalso shown in the lack of climate change considerations in itsbuilding, land use and infrastructure development planning or de-sign regulations. In fact, many of its planning proposals run coun-ter to the objective of mitigating carbon emission. For instance, oneof the government’s ‘‘Conserving Central [Business District]’’ pro-posals is to demolish a government building and remove half ofthe Government Hill, a site for the seat of government since the1850s, to make room for a commercial building with Grade A offi-ces and shopping facilities totalling a floor space of 42,000 m2

(Development Bureau, 2011). The carbon footprint involved inthe redevelopment and the consequent carbon emission as a resultof increased traffic flow are not even mentioned in the proposal.

In the area of climate adaptation, what the government hasdone in the Consultation Document is to only list the vulnerableareas, possible major impacts and adaptation options. The majorvulnerable areas, including biodiversity and nature conservation,built environment and infrastructure, business and industry, en-ergy supply, financial services, food resources, and human healthand water resources are identified, and their general impacts areoutlined in the document (Environment Bureau, 2010, p. 52–53).However, as no risk assessments including probability and conse-quences have been done, the spatial and sectoral distributions of

Table 4Direct and indirect impacts of climate change in Hong Kong.

Trends in Hong Kong

Temperature � From 1885 to 2009, the annual average temperature� From 1947 to 2008, the average rise amounts to 0.16� From 1885 to 2003, at the Hong Kong Observatory Heincreased by about 0.6 �C per decade, much higher than� Decadal mean annual temperature from 1971–2000 w

Rainfall � Annual rainfall increased by 51 mm from 1947 to 200� From 1900 to 2000, the occurrence of hourly rainfall

Extreme weather Hot nights� From 1947 to 2009, the number of hot nights (minimunightsa

� Number of hot nights expected for the decade 2090–2Very hot days� Number of very hot days (i.e. maximum temperature oto 9.6–23.5 in the decade of 2090–2099a

Cold days� Number of days with minimum temperature of less th2009 by 2.3 daysa

� From 1971 to 2000, the number of cold days was 16.3� By the decade 2090–2099, the number of cold days wHeavy rainfall� From 1947–2009, heavy rainfall days (hourly rainfall� From 1947–2009, thunderstorm days had increased b

Mean sea level (VictoriaHarbour)

� From 1954 to 2009, rose by 26 mma

� From 1954 to 2009, has risen about 14 cm (or an ave� A rise of 0.59 m in the sea level in Hong Kong would tevent)c

a Environment Bureau, Hong Kong’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda: Consulb Y.K. Leung, K.H. Yeung, E.W.L. Ginn and W.M. Leung, ‘‘Climate Change in Hong Kongc B.Y. Lee, W.T. Wong and T.C. Lee, ‘‘The Latest on Climate Change in Hong Kong’’, Con

Environmental Protection (2010), at 7, 9.

the various impacts cannot be ascertained. As a result, the pro-posed adaptation options and measures are rather skeletal includ-ing only very broad directions such as monitoring, institutionalstrengthening and capacity building, disaster management andemergency planning, research and investigation and educationand public awareness (Environment Bureau, 2010, pp. 50–51).

Local scientists have confirmed the impacts of climate changeon the various vulnerable areas (Table 4). Decadal mean annualtemperature is expected to rise from 23.1 �C (1971–2000) to24.5–32.3 �C in the decade of 2090–2099. The number of hot nightsis expected to be 22.0–68.7 for the decade 2090–2099 (comparedwith the increase of only 3.5 nights from 1947 to 2009). This couldbe exacerbated by the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The 2004 UHIvalue for the city was 2.17 �C (Fung, Lam, & Hung, 2004, p. 12); andaccording to research findings of the Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-versity, the UHI effect could go up to ‘‘over 9 �C with a range of10.4–19.8 �C between the core urban area and the most rural sites’’(Nichol, 2009, p. 280). Unless the urban form is radically restruc-tured, heat waves and hot nights will definitely increase in thecoming decades (Ng, Yuan, Chen, Ren, & Fung, 2011). Accordingto the government’s Consultation Document, the mean sea levelhas risen by 26 mm from 1954 to 2009 but this figure differs fromthe one given by scientists at the Hong Kong Observatory: 14.3 cmor an average rate of about 2.6 mm per year (2010). The most con-servative estimate indicates that by 2030 the mean sea level rise inHong Kong will exceed 5.7 cm (Fung, Lam, & Hung, 2004, p. 112).These somewhat worrying figures show that Hong Kong govern-ment should carry out more systematic vulnerability and riskassessments to identify vulnerable social groups and spatial loca-tions that may be affected by climate change and develop an inte-grated strategy to carry out appropriate adaptation measures. Theapproach adopted in the Consultation Document is too broad-brush and therefore rather disappointing.

increased by about 0.12 �C per decadea

�C per decade, accelerating to 0.27 �C during 1979–2008b

adquarters in the heart of the urban area, the annual average temperaturethe figures recorded in the rural stationb

as 23.1 �C and it is projected to become 24.5–32.3 in the decade of 2090–2099a

9a

of 100 mm or above has nearly doubledc

m temperature more than or equal to 28 �C) in June–August had increased by 3.5

099 is 22.0–68.7a

f 33 �C or above) in June–August from 1971–2000 was 8.2 but this would increase

an or equal to 12 �C in December to February had been decreasing from 1948 to

a

ould be less than 1a

more than 30 mm) had increased by 0.4 daysa

y 1.8 daysa

rage rate of about 2.6 mm per year)c

urn a 50-year storm surge (about 3.5 m above chart datum (mCD) into a biennial

tation Document (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 2010), at 11.’’, Hong Kong Observatory (2004) Technical Note No.107, at 21.

ference 2010 Powerful Automation Technology, Control and Instrumentation System for

Fig. 2. Tackling climate change at the city level: the case of Hong Kong.

96 M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

Action phase: in need of government-led concerted efforts

The steps towards addressing climate change described aboveare rather halting and far from decisive and aggressive and this isnot unexpected given the government’s pro-growth stance in thecity’s development history. Compared with the government, thebusiness chambers have shown more resolve towards the chal-lenge of climate change (Salter, Miles, & Tung, 2010; CCBF, 2009).The Hong Kong Business Coalition for the Environment even callsfor transparent targets for GHG emissions reduction through inter-national benchmarking and the development of strong long-termpolicy framework through engaging the business and communitysectors (HKBCE, 2010, p. 1). Similarly, some NGOs have formed acoalition to push for more vigorous strategies and policies to com-bat climate change (Greenpeace China, 2009; Loh, 2010; OxfamHong Kong, 2010).8 Yet, the government’s actions until now arefar from comprehensive. The emphasis on the cost saving aspectsin the course of policy deliberation rather than the adoption of amoral discourse on the city’s global obligation to cut emissions re-veals the government’s conservative assessment of the public’s re-sponse (including the commercial sector) towards the challenge ofclimate change. This contradicts the results of a recent survey whichfinds that 96% of respondents considered Hong Kong had alreadybeen affected by climate change and that 80% of them were ready

8 In 2009, Greenpeace China, Oxfam Hong Kong and WWF Hong Kong formed theCombat Climate Change Coalition with 12 local NGOs. Other NGOs’ work can be foundin Christine Loh, Greenhouse Gas Emission How Hong Kong Compares Policy Recom-mendations (Hong Kong: Civil Exchange, 2010) 2p.; Greenpeace China, ‘‘The ‘ClimateChange Bill’: Economic Costs of Heavy Rainstorm in Hong Kong (Hong Kong:Greenpeace China, 2009), available on internet at http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/china/en/press/reports/black-rain-hong-kong.pdf (accessed in October2010); Oxfam Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s Vulnerability to Global Climate Change Impacts:An Oxfam Report on 2010 Public Survey and Policy Recommendations (Hong Kong: TheKadoorie Institute and Public Opinion Programme, The University of Hong Kong,2010), 65p.

to pay more to combat the problem (Oxfam Hong Kong, 2010, p.14). However, 64% of respondents were not interested in participat-ing in the formulation of climate change policies and indeed 81% didnot even know that the government was contemplating a climatechange strategy when the survey was done (op cit., 2010, p. 16). Thisperhaps explains why Hong Kong society as a whole appears to berather indifferent in face of the challenges of climate change. Sothere is relatively little pressure on the government to formulate cli-mate change policies and measures that would achieve multipleneeds of different stakeholders.

Conclusions

This article has attempted to understand Hong Kong’s suddenshift to climate change issues and examine whether the proposedstrategy and action plans are appropriate and adequate for the city.In order to ascertain this, existing literature and practices havebeen synthesized into a framework outlining the spectra of city-le-vel actions at the strategic, knowledge accumulation and policyformulation, and action phases. Fig. 2 captures Hong Kong’s perfor-mance against this framework. It becomes clear that national com-mitment to tackle climate change is crucial in ‘‘herding’’ HongKong, among other provinces and cities, to commit and respondto climate change. Although China’s non-Annex. I status underthe Kyoto Protocol means that she is not bound by the set emis-sions reduction target, the Central Government has been a keenadvocate of sustainable development to combat climate changeas energy conservation and efficiency are key concerns in China’srapidly growing economy. In 2009, the Chinese government an-nounced a voluntary national target to reduce carbon dioxideemissions produced for each yuan of national income by 40–45%by 2020 with 2005 as the reference year, mainly through intensify-ing energy conservation, improving energy efficiency, developingrenewable and ‘‘nuclear’’ energy and a low-carbon economy

M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98 97

(Environment Bureau, 2010, p. 18). Given China’s commitment to-wards emissions reduction, Hong Kong has no choice but to movebeyond the tackling of air pollution and poor air quality issuesbrought about by its investments in the emerging world factoryof the Pearl River Delta, and to tackle climate change challenges.This strategic move is uncharacteristic of the pro-growth city andthe passive and reactive response has consequences for the knowl-edge accumulation phase and helps explain the government’s lack-lustre performance in formulating forceful policies or facilitatingpartnership actions in combating climate change.

While scientists in Hong Kong have accumulated a wealth ofinformation on climate change over the years, the related concernsseldom appear in the city’s policy agenda. The Consultation Docu-ment published by the Environment Bureau has only set a volun-tary target of reducing carbon intensity by 50–60% by 2020 fromthe 2005 level and instead of outlining integrated mitigation andadaptation targets and actions and other policy measures to com-bat climate change, the Document has only repackaged on-goingmeasures with some sporadic new suggestions such as turningwaste to energy and boosting the use of natural gas and nuclearpower, both to be provided by the China mainland. The fact of rel-egating a multifaceted issue such as climate change to the Environ-ment Bureau shows a general lack of understanding and perceptionby the pro-growth government of how climate change impinges onvarious policy areas. Unless Hong Kong tackles the challenge of cli-mate change strategically in an integrated manner, not only focus-ing on the ways urban development take place and urban forms areshaped, but addressing gender and social equity issues as well, thecurrent approach will not take Hong Kong very far in tackling cli-mate change. While Hong Kong is much more compact, its carbonintensity in 2008 was almost double that of London. Even if theproposed target in the Consultation Document were achieved by2020, Hong Kong would, at best, be only on a par with what Lon-don has achieved today. Hence, the seemingly ambitious target(when compared with the China mainland) needs to be reconsid-ered. In fact, carbon intensity (energy efficiency) is considered tobe an inappropriate target for developed economies.

While the private and third sectors have developed initiatives toeducate the public on climate change issues and push for changes,the pro-growth government’s lukewarm response to the centralgovernment-imposed challenges means that a cross-jurisdictionpartnership has yet to emerge to lead the city towards tackling cli-mate change. If Hong Kong is serious in adopting sustainabledevelopment as the overarching principle to direct its future terri-torial development and retain its status as ‘‘Asia’s World City’’, amore ambitious emission reduction target should be set after iden-tifying and properly documenting GHG emissions and strong andintegrated mitigation and adaptation policy frameworks and ac-tions should be formulated to combat the real threats of climatechange in the city.

References

Allman, L., Fleming, P., & Wallace, A. (2004). The progress of English and Welsh localauthorities in addressing climate change. Local Environment, 9(3), 271–283.

Aylett, A. (2010). Conflict, collaboration and climate change: Participatorydemocracy and urban environmental struggles in Durban, South Africa.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 478–495.

Bader, N., Bleischwitz, R. (2009). Measuring urban greenhouse gas emission: Thechallenge of comparability. SAPIENS, 2(3), 1–15. <http://sapiens.revues.org/index854.html> Accessed October 2010).

Bartlett, S. (2008). Climate change and urban children: Impacts and implications foradaptation in low- and middle-income countries. Environment and Urbanization,20(2), 501–519.

Betsill, M., & Bulkeley, H. (2007). Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade ofcities and climate change research. Local Environment, 12(5), 447–456.

Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M., Kraas, F., & Quang, N. (2010). Adaptive urbangovernance: New challenges for the second generation of urban adaptationstrategies to climate change. Sustainability Science, 5(2), 185–206.

Bloomberg, M. R. (2007). Inventory of New York City: Greenhouse gas emissions.Mayor’s Office.

Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. The Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources, 35, 229–253.

Bulkeley, H., & Kern, K. (2006). Government and the governing of climate change inGermany and the UK. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2237–2259.

Burch, S. (2010). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examinationof barriers to action in the three Canadian cities. Energy Policy, 38, 7575–7585.

Climate Change Business Forum (CCBF) (2009). Capitalising on the businessopportunity. CCBF in partnership with the Hong Kong General Chamber ofCommerce, Hong Kong (93p).

Center for Science in the Earth System (CSES) (The Climate Impacts Group), JointInstitute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washingtonand King County, Washington, in association with ICLEI (2007). Preparing forclimate change: A guidebook for local, regional, and state governments. The ClimateImpacts Group, King County, Washington, and ICLEI—Local Governments forSustainability, Washington (186p).

Cheng, J. (2005). The July 1 protest rally: Interpreting a historic event. Hong Kong: CityUniversity of Hong Kong Press.

Chief Executive, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (2007). The2007–2008 policy address: A new direction for Hong Kong. Hong Kong:Government Printer.

Chu, K. (2010). Air pollution stands in way of Hong Kong growth. USA Today 9/24/2010 <http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2010-09-24-hongkongsmog 24_ST_N.htm> Accessed on February 2011.

Compston, H. (2009). Introduction: Political strategies for climate policy.Environmental Politics, 18(5), 659–669.

Corburn, J. (2009). Cities, climate change and urban heat island mitigation:Localising global environmental science. Urban Studies, 46(2), 413–427.

Development Bureau (2011). Restoring green central—the new landscape of centralgovernment offices: Proposed scheme. <http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/misc/cgo/eng/proposed_scheme_eng.htm> Accessed 25.04.11).

Dhakal, S., & Betsill, M. M. (2007). Challenges of urban and regional carbonmanagement and the scientific response. Local Environment, 12(5), 549–555.

Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urbangreenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1),185–201.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2010). Hong Kong cars: Sub-sector update. <http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=ib3PrintArticle&article_id=587536243&printer=printer> Accessed February 2011.

Environment Bureau (2010). Hong Kong’s climate Change strategy and action agenda:Consultation document (67p). Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Fung, W. Y., Lam, K. S., Hung, W. T. (2004). Final report: Characterizing the climatechange impacts in Hong Kong. Provision of service (Tender AM02-316) by the HongKong Polytechnic University to the HKSAR Environmental Protection Department,Hong Kong (132p).

Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change: National responses to the challengeof global warming. Policy network paper (19p). London: Policy Network.

Gough, I., Meadowcroft, J., Dryzek, J., Gerhards, J., Lengfeld, H., Markandya, A., &Ortiz, R. (2008). JESP symposium: Climate change and social policy. Journal ofEuropean Social Policy, 18(4), 325–344.

Greenpeace China (2009). The ‘Climate Change Bill’: economic costs of heavy rainstormin Hong Kong. Greenpeace China, Hong Kong. <http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/china/en/press/reports/black-rain-hong-kong.pdf> Accessed October2010.

Harris, P. G. (2007). Hong Kong and climate change: A question of justice. The QuarterlyOnline Journal about Issues Relation to Hong Kong and China. <http://www.hkjournal.org/archive/2007_summer/harris.htm> Accessed September 2010.

Hedley, A. J., McGhee, S. M., Wong, C. M., Barron, B., Chau, P., Chau, J., Thach, T. Q.,Wong, T. W., & Loh, C. (2006). Air pollution: Costs and paths to a solution (16p).Hong Kong: Civil Exchange.

Hong Kong Business Coalition on the Environment (2010). Business coalitionstatement on climate change (28 January 2010, 2p). <http://www.chamber.org.hk/en/doc/committee_bce/climateaction.pdf> Accessed25.05.11.

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2009). Hong Kong yearbook.Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Hunt, A., Wartkiss, P. (2007). Literature review on climate change impacts on urbancity centres: Initial findings. OECD working party on global and structural policies(53p).

IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (pp. 26–73). Valencia, Spain: IPCC.Kennedy, C., Steinberger, J., Gasson, B., Hansen, Y., Hillman, T., Havranek, M., Pataki,

D., Phdungsilp, A., Ramaswami, A., & Mendez, G. V. (2010). Methodology forinventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Energy Policy, 38,4828–4837.

Kithiia, J., & Dowling, R. (2010). An integrated city-level planning process to addressthe impacts of climate change in Kenya: The case of Mombasa. Cities, 27,466–475.

Kousky, C., & Schmeider, S. H. (2003). Global climate change: Will cities lead theway? Climate Policy, 3(2003), 359–372.

Leung, D. Y. C., & Lee, Y. T. (2000). Greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong.Atmospheric Environment, 34, 4487–4498.

Leung, D. Y. C., Yung, D., Ng, A., Leung, M. K. H., & Chan, A. (2009). An overview ofemissions trading and its prospects in Hong Kong. Environmental Science andPolicy, 12, 92–101.

98 M. K. Ng / Cities 29 (2012) 88–98

Lidskog, R., & Elander, I. (2007). Representation, participation or deliberation?Democratic responses to the environmental challenge. Space and Policy II (1),75–94.

Loh, C. (2010). Greenhouse gas emission how Hong Kong compares policyrecommendations (2p). Hong Kong: Civil Exchange.

Meadowcroft, J. (2009). Climate change governance. Development Economics, TheWorld Bank (40p).

Mehrotra, S., Natenzon, C. E., Omojola, A., Folorunsho, R., Joseph Gibride, J.,Rosenzweig, C. (2009). Framework for city climate risk assessment (84p). WorldBank Commissioned Research, Marseille, France.

Mills, G. (2007). Cities as agents of global change. International Journal ofClimatology, 27, 1849–1857.

Ng, M. K. (2007). Reporting sustainability in Hong Kong and the central and westerndistrict and technical report. Hong Kong: Sustainable development fund and centreof urban planning and environmental management (210p). The University ofHong Kong.

Ng, K. C., Cheung, G. (2011). Certain party is hurting city: Tsang. South China MorningPost (20 May 2011).

Ng, E., Yuan, C., Chen, L., Ren, C., & Fung, J. C. H. (2011). Improving the windenvironment in high-density cities by understanding morphology and surfaceroughness: A study in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(1), 59–74.

Nichol, J. E. (2009). Urban heat island diagnosis using ASTER satellite image andin situ air temperature. Atmospheric Research, 94, 276–284.

Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: From biopower toadvanced liberal government? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning,7(3), 185–207.

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd. (2007). A review of planning and climate change (19p). UK:English Partnership.

Oxfam Hong Kong (2010). Hong Kong’s vulnerability to global Climate change impacts,an Oxfam report on 2010 public survey and policy recommendations (65p). HongKong: Oxfam.

Pidgeon, N., & Butler, C. (2009). Risk analysis and climate change. EnvironmentalPolitics, 18(5), 670–688.

Planning department of the HKSAR (2010). Information services: Planning statistics:Broad land usage distribution. <http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.html> Accessed 05.05.10 (last revised 23.03.10).

Qi, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, H., & Li, H. (2008). Translating a global issue into local priority:China’s local government response to climate change. The Journal ofEnvironment and Development, 17(4), 379–400.

Ruth, M., & Coelho, D. (2007). Understanding and managing the complexity of urbansystems under climate change. Climate Policy, 7, 317–336.

Saavedra, C., & Budd, W. W. (2009). Climate change and environmental planning:Working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in WashingtonState, USA. Habitat International, 246–252.

Salter, L., Miles, A., Tung, C. (2010). Low carbon economy for Hong Kong sectorregulations paper (26p). Hong Kong: Business Environment Council and ClimateChange Business Forum.

Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities’ contribution to global warming: Notes on theallocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2),59–549.

Schreurs, M. A. (2008). From the bottom up: Local and subnational climate changepolitics. The Journal of Environment and Development, 17(4), 343–355.

Siu, P. (2011). Rethink on tapping more nuclear energy. South China Morning Post (22March 2011).

Sugiyama, N., & Takeuchi, T. (2008). Local policies for climate change in Japan. TheJournal of Environment and Development, 17(4), 424–441.

Tang, Z., Brody, S. D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., & Wei, T. (2010). Moving from agenda toaction: Evaluating local climate change action plans. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 53v(1), 41–62.

Transport Department of HKSAR Government (2003). Travel characteristics survey2002: Final report. Characteristics of trips made within the HKSAR by Hong Kongresidents, p. 12. Table 3.5 distribution of boardings by transport mode. <http://www.info.gov.hk/td/eng/publication/tcs/Section%203%20(Eng).pdf> Accessed01.04.04.

Tsang, D. (2006). Press release. CE speaks at ‘‘Business for Clean Air’’ jointconference. <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200611/27/P200611270129_print.htm> Accessed 25.05.11.

Tsang, D. (2010). Hong Kong-owned factories in delta win concession on labour rules.South China Morning Post (30 October 2010).

UN-Habitat (2011). Cities and climate change: Policy directions (abridged edition,51p). UN-Habitat.

United States Conference of Mayors (USCOM) (2009). Taking local action: Mayorsand climate protection best practice. In United States conference of mayors.

Usher, P. (2000). Integrating impacts into adaptation measures. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment, 61, 37–48.

Wan, K. K. W., Li, D. H. W., & Lam, J. C. (2011). Assessment of climate change impacton building energy use and mitigation measures in subtropical climates. Energy,36(3), 1404–1414.

Wheeler, S. M. (2008). State and municipal climate change plans. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 74(4), 481–496.

Wong, M. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions: How Hong Kong compares (7 October2010). <http://archive.reasonablespread.com/3406-51139/Civic_Exchange.newsletter/> Accessed 12.10.10.

Wong, O. (2011). New regulations urged to force city to cut back on its use of energy.South China Morning Post (26 April 2011).

Zahran, S., Grover, H., Brody, S. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Risk, stress, and capacity:Explaining metropolitan commitment to climate protection. Urban AffairsReview, 43(4), 447–474.