This document is a thesis submitted by Thuy Duong Pham in July 2011 for the Master Program on International Urban Development at VGU. The thesis examines urban sustainability visions and public perceptions in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. It begins with an introduction that discusses the importance and challenges of urban sustainability as more people live in cities. The research aims to understand what makes a livable and sustainable city according to experts and public perceptions. The thesis uses a backcasting and systems approach to develop a holistic framework for urban sustainability. It presents findings on urban sustainability visions from experts and surveys perceptions of sustainability and urban development in HCMC. The conclusion recommends actions like poverty alleviation and education to progress toward a sustainable urban future.

1. Master Program on International Urban Development
Master Thesis
URBAN SUSTAINABILITY
VISIONS & PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
A Case Study of HCMC
Supervisor: Prof. Kosta Mathey
Written by student: Thuy Duong Pham
Ho Chi Minh City, July 2011

2. 2
Abstract
The future of our world is the future of cities. Therefore, building a holistic
guiding framework for urban sustainability, which can be used in urban governance,
decision-making, capacity building, education and public awareness raising is a critical
key for a sustainable future. The thesis uses visionary and holistic approach in dealing
with urban issues. What makes a livable and sustainable city? How do people perceive
urban sustainability? How do people envision their dream cities? Among many aspects of
urban development, what matter most to them? What are public perceptions on current
urban development in HCMC? This thesis seeks to find answers for these questions, from
suggestions of experts and think tanks, to people’s opinions, their hopes and dreams.
Beside the international document research and the global online survey, the case of public
perception in Ho Chi Minh City was also investigated with both online and offline
questionnaires and interviews of people in some slum areas.
Findings from experts bring out that sustainability associates with balance and equity in a
comprehensive approach, which acknowledges the interrelationships among various
dimensions of life and our interconnectedness with each other and with natural systems.
Urban sustainability strives for ecological balance, low-carbon economic development,
social inclusion and cultural vitality. Among these dimensions, good governance which is
accountable, transparent, democratic, efficient, plays a vital role as inclusive decision
making processes toward sustainability.
A series of concepts and features for urban sustainability such as sense of place, green,
human friendliness, renewable energy, waste recycling, bicycle friendly and walkable
neighborhoods, rainwater harvesting, affordable housing, inclusiveness, e-governance…
has been developed in the questionnaire to test responses from public perception on their
desirable city. Most of these ideas were well received by respondents; this proves that a
sustainable city can also be a desirable and lovable city. On the other hand, findings from
survey of public perception on HCMC’s urban performance as well as field study in some
slum areas in the city present quite a gloomy picture. Poverty alleviation, education,
empowerment, capacity building and public awareness raising are recommended for
bringing about social change toward a sustainable urban future.

3. 3
Acknowledgments
from Daisy with love
First of all, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our supervisor, Prof. Kosta Mathey,
for his kind guidance and for giving me a chance to join this wonderful UDP course.
I am greatly grateful to our course coordinators, Dr. Harry Storch and Prof. Karl Klügel,
for their kind helps and careful advices.
I am especially grateful to my dear friend Nigel Downes, who introduced me to this
course, for his supporting as always.
I would like to express a huge thanks to all Professors for their lectures and inspiration,
many thanks to the staffs at VGU for their assistance. Thank you all my friends at VGU
for our memories during these last two years together!
I am also greatly thankful to Dr. Bui Van Nam Son, the respected philosopher for his
patience, kindness and his precious time for my consultation.
This study cannot be done without the consideration and responses from more than two
hundreds people all over the world. I would like to thank you all, each and everyone! It
was such an honor and pleasure for me to read some really thoughtful sharing of people
that I have even never met from far away lands. Thank you very much too, my friends,
who had helped promote the survey through their blogs, sites and social networks.
My sympathy goes out to the interviewees in slum areas that I have talked to during the
field study in May. It was a unique and transformative experience that touched my heart. I
really hope that life will be better for you all.
Finally, I would like to take this chance to express my deepest gratitude and love from my
heart to my parents and beloved ones for their endless support and care. I know no words
would be enough...
Thuy Duong Pham
HCMC, July 2011

4. 4
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………5
1.1 Rationale.……………………………………………………………………………………………...5
1.2 Research aims………………………………………………………………………………………..8
2. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………9
2.1 Backcasting and systems approach................................................................................ 9
2.2 Research methodology ................................................................................................. 12
3. URBAN SUSTAINABILITY VISIONS…………………………………………………………15
Principles for Sustainability ................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Ecological balance........................................................................................................ 21
City as a regenerative and symbiosis system................................................................... 21
Urban ecology and integrated land use ..................................................................... 24
Urban agriculture.......................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Economic development ................................................................................................ 27
Towards a low-carbon economy..................................................................................... 27
Energy conservation and renewable energy .............................................................. 29
ICT for low-carbon urban development ...................................................................... 31
3.3 Social connectedness and cultural vitality.................................................................... 33
Social sustainability .......................................................................................................... 35
Cultural sustainability ....................................................................................................... 36
Spiritual values .............................................................................................................. 38
3.4 Good governance......................................................................................................... 39
4. URBAN SUSTAINABILITY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION……………………………………….44
4.1 Results from global online survey ................................................................................... 43
4.2 Results from surveys in HCMC......................................................................................... 57
4.2.1 Results from online and offline questionnaires......................................................... 57
4.2.1 Results from interviews in slum areas........................................................................ 63
5. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………….…………………………………….66
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………69
APPENDIX I Sample of Global Online Survey ....................................................................... 73
APPENDIX II Sample of Survey in HCMC............................................................................... 77
APPENDIX III Semi-structure Interviews in Slum Areas of HCMC ........................................... 84

5. 5
1. Introduction
“If sustainable development does not start in the cities, it simply will not go.
Cities have to lead the way.” (Maurice Strong)1
1.1 Rationale
It is since 2008, for the first time in human history, more than half of the world’s
population now lives in cities. As urbanization continues to grow worldwide, to some
extent, we can say that the future of our world is the future of cities.
Urbanization has brought to us many benefits, especially in terms of economic and job
opportunities. As centers of communication, education, science, religion, commerce, and
political power, cities are hubs of innovations and great places for cultural and social
exchange. In terms of environment, the concentration of people and resources provides us
the advantages of energy efficiency and convenience in transportation, goods and services
delivering, as well as helps preserve biodiversity by reducing the stress on wildlife habitats
(G. Tyler Miller 2004).
As cradles of civilization, cities’ influences on culture and society have gone far beyond
their proportion of the total population (Cunningham, Cunningham and Saigo 2003). In
earlier time, there was just a small percentage of population lived in urban areas, up to
only 3% in 1800 and 13% in 1900 (Bugliarello 2008). Then, together with population
booming after World War II, industrialization has rapidly boosted urban expansion around
the globe. However, most of these urbanizations, particularly those in developing
countries, are more on quantity rather than quality. In the international Sustainability
Survey2
conducted by SustainAbility and GlobalScan (2011), most of the experts think
that urbanization is a positive for global business, but a negative for society.
1
Chair of the Rio Summit, 1992, quoted in “Urban Sustainability in New Zealand: An Information Resource
for Urban Practitioners” (Hargreaves and Davies 2003)
2
(SustainAbility, GlobalScan 2011) The Sustainability Survey uses research-driven, expert insights to
explore solutions to the biggest sustainability challenges, through ongoing engagement with more than 700
thought leaders from across 70+ countries and a variety of sectors.

6. 6
In fact, while cities bring many advantages, they are also the cause of many environmental
and social problems. Most of cities are not self-sustaining but must rely heavily on
external sources such as food from farms, timbers from forests, minerals from mines,
water from watersheds. Cities are big consuming clusters of materials and energy.
Although city dwellers occupy only about 2% of the Earth’s land area, they consume
about 75% of the Earth’s resources (G. Tyler Miller 2004).
The amount of waste outputs is even greater than the materials inputs because materials
combine with air or water in the process of being used. Current urban systems are typical
examples of the degenerative throughput pattern characterized by linear flows (Lyle
1994). Ultimately, while resources are being depleted, sinks become overloaded with huge
wastes far beyond their capacity to assimilate. This one-way throughput system, like most
man-made processes but unlike nature’s cycle flows, results in the twin consequences of
resource depletion and environmental degradation.
Under population and housing demand pressures, unplanned and uncontrolled
“urbanization” spontaneously occurs. In many of the cases, it is merely urban sprawl or
urban spreading into suburban areas, where it does not properly and fully function as
genuine urbanization, lacking of public services, causing loss of landscape, loss of
CITY
Food
Energy
Water
Goods
Materials
Waste
Pollution
Heat
Noise
INPUT (Sources) THROUGHPUT (Processes) OUTPUT (Sinks)
Figure 1.1 City as an open, linear and unsustainable system

7. 7
farmlands. Sometimes, it is characterized by low density development, which is not energy
efficient in general, particularly in terms of transportation. And in other times, it is
characterized by too high density. Where physical (hard) and social (soft) infrastructure
developments do not keep pace with urban expansion and become overloaded, where
cities can not manage the excess unskilled labors, urbanization can create more slums,
shantytowns, unemployment, poverty, urban segregation.
On the other hand, man-made concrete buildings and asphalt roads absorb more heat,
altering microclimate and natural hydrological cycle, limiting rainwater infiltration which
can result in more urban flooding. The lack of nature in urban environment, lack of space
and stressful city life can cause negative impact to human psychology. Sometimes, the
hidden social problems related to industrialization and urbanization can be quite serious as
the linkages within communities and between tradition and culture have broken down.
Social alienation, lack of public life, isolation, ultimately results in increased crime and
fear (Goldsmith 2000).
Since our economies and societies depend so much on fossil fuel, particularly oil, in the
context of peak oil3
and climate change, many urban issues such as energy consumption,
green house gas emission, urban flooding, transportation… become more complex and
inextricable. Particularly, cities which stretch over flood plains or coast lines, are getting
more vulnerable to natural disasters as sea level rising.
So, nowadays, cities are facing many challenges on the path towards sustainability, given
that sustainability is an honor goal to pursuit, characterized by livability in a
comprehensive view. Urban development patterns can not be sustainable if in themselves
there are potential risks of breakdown and collapse due to any ecological imbalance,
inequitable distribution or social injustice. Unsustainable urban development, by default,
means that it can not go far and continue in the long run.
3
The label for the problem of energy resource depletion, the day that oil production reaches a maximum
and will subsequently begin to decline.

8. 8
1.2 Research aims
“The fate of our cities is the fate of the Earth” (Callenbach 1992). Unfortunately, most of
our urban development patterns nowadays are not sustainable. Hence, for our future to be
possible, we need creative visions of urban sustainability which must be very different
with current reality.
Although urbanization causes many problems, urban densities also have in themselves
great potential for socio-economic innovation and opportunities, for compact and energy-
efficient development. Moreover, the dark sides of urbanization do not always have to
manifest, but rather they are often exacerbated by bad planning and governance4
, low
public environmental and social awareness. Since awareness involves creating a shared
understanding of sustainability and a common sense of purpose among teams, institutions
and organizations, it is essential that everyone, especially those participates in the planning
process, has a common understanding of what sustainability is and why our current system
is not sustainable (Baxter, et al. 2009). Therefore, building a holistic guiding framework
for urban sustainability, which can be used in urban governance, decision-making,
capacity building, education and public awareness raising is a critical key for a sustainable
future.
What makes a livable and sustainable city? How do people perceive urban sustainability?
How do people envision their dream cities? What matters the most for them? This thesis
seeks to find answers for these questions, from suggestions of experts, and by listening to
people’s voices, their hopes and dreams. Beside the international document research and
the global online survey, the case of public perception in Ho Chi Minh City was also
investigated.
4
Findings from the international Sustainability Survey (SustainAbility, GlobalScan 2011) suggest that, poor
city management, plus corruption are the greatest barriers to addressing urban issues.

9. 9
2. Approach & Methodology
“Success requires an understanding of the complex forces at work, a vision of
the future and a strategy for making the vision a reality.” (Edwards 2005)
2.1 Backcasting and systems approach
This thesis uses visionary (backcasting5
) and holistic (systems6
) approach in dealing with
urban challenges and building the framework for sustainability. The concept of
“backcasting” is a way of planning which begins with the vision of what we want in the
future, and then goes back to the present, figures out what we have to do to get there.
Having first a desirable vision in mind is a powerful step to manifest it in reality. As
visions provide inspiration and guidance for decision-making towards sustainability, they
allow us to ensure that our actions and strategies aligned with the direction we want to
head and as efficiently as possible.
Since backcasting starts with the final end, the image of the desired outcome, it usually
refers to long time frames, where there is great uncertainty and less control over what may
happen. Hence, the future vision may usefully be defined using principles rather than
specifics (Outhwaite 2009). Backcasting does not describe for measurable and fixed
targets and goals, but rather for flexible, evolutionary and continuously re-created visions.
“Backcasting is an opportunity to let go of the current reality for a moment and freely
imagine what might be possible” (Outhwaite 2009). As forecasting mostly based on
current trend, it tends to present a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity
and new possibilities, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future.
“When we start with problems, often the vision is limited to having fewer problems, or
solving an isolated problem; it does not necessarily encompass how we can satisfy one’s
needs more effectively, or how we can live rich and meaningful lives” (Hallsmith 2003).
As Albert Einstein once said “the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking we were at when we created them”, backcasting is particularly
5
The Natural Steps – Backcasting: http://www.naturalstep.org/backcasting
6
More on Systems Approach (2008) http://sustainable.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Systems_Thinking-2008

10. 10
useful when current trends are part of the problems that we are trying to tackle. Thus,
though forecasting is very effective if we are happy with current situation, if what we want
is a very different future than the one we are headed toward, that is when we need to
backcast (Baxter, et al. 2009).
In brief, backcasting is looking at the current situation from a future perspective, which
allows complex problems to be approached by let us first simply focus on outcomes, then
think backwards to identify numerous potential pathways to reach the desired outcomes. In
turn, exploring many alternatives makes it easier to find solutions that best fit and optimize
all of the parts and relationships within the system toward achieving these outcomes
(Haines, Aller-Stead and McKinlay 2005). Therefore, backcasting is a helpful
methodology in planning for urban sustainability because of the complexity of urban
challenges and the need to develop new ways of doing things to address them.
Backward thinking is the core of where to start in systems thinking, a systems view and
comprehensive approach that can help us to design smart and enduring solutions to
Backcasting
Next Steps
Forecasting
Scenario Planning
Past Present Short-term Middle-term Long-term
TIME
Figure 2.1 Backcasting and other different perspectives used in planning
(adapted from Outhwaite 2009)

11. 11
problems. Systems thinking is a holistic approach which encourages us to see the “whole”
- the bigger picture, so that we can structure more effective, efficient and creative system
solutions.
The systems view looks at the world in terms of relationships and integration, recognizing
the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena – physical, biological,
psychological, social, and cultural (Capra 1988). “In order to understand what’s behind
our sustainability challenges, we need to step back and look at the big picture, see the
connections, identify the root causes of our problems and find the leverage points for
change” (Baxter, et al. 2009).
Systems approach attempts to widen the circle of understanding in order to comprehend
the connections that exist between all things in the web of life. It is a continuing process
that involves honoring the past, being present, looking ahead, and keeping future
generations in mind (Newman and Jennings 2008). Identifying cause – and – effect
relationships requires us to see not only bigger but deeper, farther in all dimensions of
space and time. The following quote by Grazia is a beautiful metaphor on contemplation
through longer time frames to recognize patterns: “Imagine you want to shoot an arrow.
The farther back you pull the bowstring, the farther the arrow flies. The same is true for
our own understanding and vision. The farther back we look into history, the farther we
can see into our future” (Grazia 2009).
The holistic approach towards sustainable urban development is a strategic thinking to
address the complex challenges of our urban issues. Thus, urban sustainability visions
should encompass an integrated and interdisciplinary framework in which cities are
considered as parts of larger natural ecosystems and socio-economic communities.

12. 12
2.2 Research methodology
Three research methods were used in this thesis: document research, questionnaire (online
and offline), and semi-structure interviews. The thesis starts first with international
document research to seek for experts’ views and ideas on urban sustainability, the
principles and ingredients of a sustainable city, as well as some suggested models and
good practices. The materials came from variety resources: books, specialists’ websites,
articles, and experts’ blogs.
The results from this document research stage are summarized in chapter 3. Some main
ideas from the experts’ visions on urban sustainability were used to design the
questionnaires for the surveys of public perceptions. Samples of these questionnaires are
Figure 2.2 Thesis methodology flowchart

13. 13
attached in the annex (appendix I, II and III). Results from these surveys are presented and
discussed in chapter 4.
The purposes of these questionnaires are assessment of public perceptions/awareness on
some aspects of urban sustainability, as well as testing public’s responses on some
sustainable urban development models. Then, the results from these surveys can be
considered in making public awareness raising programs, as well as public opinions can be
integrated in the framework for urban sustainability.
Table 2.1 Research questions & methodology
Main Research Questions
Methodology
Document
Research
Questionnaire
InterviewOnline
Survey
Offline
Survey
How do experts envision a sustainable city?
What make a sustainable city?
How do people envision their desirable cities?
What are their perceptions on urban
sustainability?
Among many aspects of urban development,
what matter most to them?
Global
HCMC
HCMC’s
slum
dwellers
What are public perceptions on current urban
development in HCMC?
HCMC
The surveys of public perceptions on urban sustainability were conducted online globally
(in English), and both online and offline for citizens in Ho Chi Minh City (in Vietnamese).
The free Google Docs’ Form was used in designing the online surveys.
The global online survey in English was launched in May of 2011 at this link:
• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey
Then, it has been promoted by posting on websites, social networks, blogs and mail groups
such as Wiser Earth, Facebook, LinkIn, YES Alumni, ERM, Scribd…

14. 14
Also in late May of 2011, the other survey with target groups of Ho Chi Minh City
citizens was launched both online and offline (distributed in papers) in Vietnamese. The
translated English version of this survey for Ho Chi Minh City is available in the website
as well as in the appendix:
• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-
hcmc/vietnamese-version (Vietnamese origin)
• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-hcmc
(English, translated version)
In addition, the fieldwork study in some slum areas, especially those along the polluted
canals in district 4 and district 8 of Ho Chi Minh City, with observations and interviews of
slum dwellers, had been conducted in May 2011. Since most of slum dwellers are
powerless and poor, their voices are often left unheard while they are the most vulnerable
with the disadvantages of urbanization. The questions asked to people in slum areas must
be modified to be appropriate in their specific contexts and situations (appendix III).
Mostly, the main purpose of this fieldwork is to get the real picture of the urban poor lives,
and to listen to their wishes.
Figure 2.3 Locations of the fieldwork study at slum areas in Ho Chi Minh City

15. 15
3. Urban Sustainability Visions
“Vision is seeing the potential purpose hidden in the chaos of the moment, but
which could bring to birth new possibilities for a person, a company or a nation.
Vision is seeing what life could be like while dealing with life as it is.
Vision deals with those deeper human intangibles that alone give ultimate purpose to
life. In the end, vision must always deal with life’s qualities, not with its quantities.”
(Van Duisen Wilhard)7
Principles for Sustainability
Sustainability literally means the capacity to endure over time. Symbolically, it refers to
what is of true values, what is good, genuine and resilient, which can stand the test of time.
Sustainability associates with balance and equity in a comprehensive approach, which
acknowledges our dependence on the health of natural systems for our survival and well-
being, the limit carrying capacity of the Earth and the detrimental impact of unchecked
human activities (Edwards 2005). Thus, sustainability strives for balance among the
interconnected ecological, economic and social systems. As implied from the most popular
definition of sustainable development8
(the Brundtland report 1987), sustainability
requires a long term, intergenerational perspective. Equity should be maintained, not only
across communities within generation but also between generations.
The Earth Charter is a global consensus, a product of a decade-long, worldwide, cross-
cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. As “a vision of hope and a call to
action”, it provides us with inspiration and guidance to a sustainable future. In October
2003, UNESCO adopted a resolution recognizing the Earth Charter as an important ethical
framework for sustainability (ECI Secretariat 2011). Main principles of the Earth Charter
are summarized in the following box 3.1.
7
Quoted in “Beyond You and Me - Inspirations and Wisdom for Building Community”, Robin Alfred &
Kosha Anja Joubert (Ed.), Gaia Education - Permanent Publications 2007
8
“Our Common Future”, the report by World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987):
“Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

16. 16
Box 3.1 The Earth Charter - values and principles for a sustainable future9
THE EARTH CHARTER’S PRINCIPLES
Respect and Care for the Community of Life:
To respect Earth and life in all its diversity;
To care for the communityof life with understanding, compassion and love;
To build democratic societies that are just, sustainable, participatory and peaceful; and
To secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:
Ecological Integrity
Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern
for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge
is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's
regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and
wide application of the knowledge acquired.
Social and Economic Justice
Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human
development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and
ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment
supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to
the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and
accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to
justice.
Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and
skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
9
Full version of the Earth Charter and more at www.earthcharterinaction.org

17. 17
The spirit of the Earth Charter is beautifully highlighted in the core principle of Respect
and Care for the Community of Life: respect Earth and life in all its diversity, care for the
community of life with understanding, compassion and love. It helps us to recognize what
is deeply and fundamentally important to us – our connection with each other and with the
natural world. That holistic worldview leads us to do no harm and cooperate with nature,
with all other humans and other living beings in the web of life.
One Planet Living10
is a global initiative developed by BioRegional11
and WWF12
.
While the Earth Charter is an ethical framework, the One Planet Living’s sustainable city
concepts are more of a practical vision that helps us to focus on how we can take action
for a sustainable future.
Box 3.2 The Ten Principles of One Planet Living (BioRegional and WWF 2011)
10
One Planet Living: http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html
11
BioRegional – Solutions for Sustainability: http://www.bioregional.com
12
World Wildlife Fund: http://www.wwf.org

18. 18
The Philips Center’s framework for Livable Cities - In the urban context, sustainability
can be perceived as visions of livable and lovable cities (The Philips Center for Health &
Wellbeing 2010). Experts from the Philips Center have identified three important and
interlinked ingredients of a livable city: resilience, inclusiveness and authenticity (fig. 3.1
and box 3.3).
In their conceptual framework for urban sustainability, think tank of the Philips Center
pointed out that these three essential attributes of a livable city should present in all
dimensions of sustainability (social, cultural, economic, technical and environmental).
So, a livable city should be a resilient city, environmentally, socially and economically;
this is particularly true in the growing context of climate change, as resilience is about
Figure 3.1 The Philips Center’s Visualization Framework for Livable Cities
(adapted from The Philips Center for Health & Well-being 2010)
ECOSYSTEM (environmental dimension)
SOCIETY (socio-cultural, economic & technical dimensions)

19. 19
adaptability, flexibility, the ability of a city to balance continuity with change. A resilient
city is a “strong” city which has inner strength to help it remain stable through shocks and
stresses. A livable city is also an inclusive city, which cherishes social integration and
cohesion. Moreover, a livable as well as lovable city usually has its own unique identity.
Box 3.3 Three important and interlinked ingredients of a livable city13
VISION OF A LIVABLE & LOVABLE CITY
(The Philips Center 2010)
Resilience
Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems for local environmental quality
Energy, food, water, materials at low global ecological footprint
Green areas and water as environmental mitigation factors, parks as “lungs” of a city
Cultural diversity, multiple lifestyle, continuity and change, tradition and innovation
Adaptability, regeneration, transformation, interdependency, systems view
Economic diversity, local entrepreneurship, job creation…
Inclusiveness
Public green areas as outdoor gyms, recreational spaces, social bridges…
Empowerment, justice and freedom
Equitable access to resources, rights to public goods and services
Social participation, economic inclusion
Cultural diversity and integration, tolerance
Sense of ownership, security and safety
Authenticity
Local ecosystem for local identity, native species as uniqueness of a place
Natural heritage as collective memory
Connection between people and nature
Historical heritage and identity
Valuable local knowledge and culture
Appropriate innovation and choices of change
Cultural and technological rootedness
Sense of place, belonging and pride
Connection between people and people, people and land
13
First edition of the Insight Series on Livable Cities (The Philips Center, 2010)
http://www.philips-thecenter.org/livable-cities/recent-activity/2011/Insight-1-on-Livable-Cities/

20. 20
Ecocity - Figure 3.2 features main characteristics of an ecocity model envisioned by
experts of Ecocity Builders14
, using integrated, whole systems approach for city design,
building, and operations in relation to the surrounding environment and natural resources
of the region (Ecocity Builders 2010).
Figure 3.2 Principal features of an ecocity
(adapted from Ecocity Builders)
The following parts of this chapter will discuss briefly more concepts and models for
urban sustainability, in terms of its interrelated dimensions, ecological balance, economic
development, social cohesion, cultural vitality and good governance for sustainable urban
development.
14
Ecocity Buillders: http://www.ecocitybuilders.org
City of
qualified
density
City of
sustainable
lifestyle
City of human
scales and
urbanity
City for strong
local economy
City of cultural
identity and
social diversity
City with new
balance of
concentration and
decentralization
City of health,
safety and
well-being
City of concentrating
development at
suitable sites
Cityintegrated in
global
communication
networks
City as
network of
urban quarters
City built and
managed with
the inhabitants
Cityintegrated into
the surrounding region
City as power station
of renewable energies
City of
balanced
mixed use
City of short
distances
City of minimized
energy
consumption
City of
minimized land
consumption
City contributing
to closed water
cycle
City for pedestrians,
cyclists,
public transport
City of reduction,
reuse, recycle of
waste
City of
accessibility for
everyone
City of
bioclimatic
comfort
City with
public space
for dailylife
City
in balance
with nature
City with
integrated
green areas
ECOCITY

21. 21
3.1 Ecological balance
“Cities can become more sustainable by modeling urban processes on ecological
principles of form and function, by which natural ecosystems operate. The
characteristics of natural ecosystems include diversity, adaptiveness,
interconnectedness, resilience, regenerative capacity, and symbiosis.” (Newman and
Jennings 2008)
City as a regenerative and symbiosis system
The core philosophy of sustainability lies in the appreciation of nature as the symbol of
integrity, stability and beauty. Sustainability deals much with creative designs and
planning in harmony with nature. From the perspective of sustainability, nature’s design
and technologies are far superior to human science and technology (Sterry 2010).
Figure 3.3 City as a regenerative system with circular metabolism
INPUT (Sources)
Reduced Consumption and
Increased Efficiency
THROUGHPUT
(Processes)
OUTPUT (Sinks)
Reduced Pollution & Waste
Renewable
Resources
Renewable
Energy
Regenerative
Water
Waste
Pollution
CITY
Recycle
organic wastes
Recycled
materials, water

22. 22
In nature, nothing is useless, nothing is waste but everything is resource for other process
in the sophisticatedly interconnected web of life, where circular metabolism is the
principle of ongoing self-renewal system. Thus, a sustainable system is a regenerative
system that mimics nature’s circular patterns, replacing the present linear flows (fig.1.1)
with cyclical flows (fig.3.3).
On a predominantly urban planet, cities will need to adopt circular metabolic systems to
assure their own long-term viability as well as that of the rural environments on which
they depend; outputs will need to become inputs into the local and regional production
system (Girardet 2010). Most importantly, it is crucial to return organic waste into plant
nutrients, for assuring farmland’s long-term fertility. By recycling wastes back into the
system, it also minimizes pollution. Sustainably using renewable resources, instead of
fossil fuels and chemicals is also more resource-conserving, healthy and less
environmentally damaging.
On the other hand, creating a circular urban metabolism can create resilient cities and
create many new local businesses and jobs (Girardet 2010). About resilience, Melissa
Sterry is developing the model of Bionic City15
, which embraces nature’s approach to
building complex infrastructures: “Whereas a conventional city is a mass of static,
disconnected and inert structures operating independently and irrespective of one another
and their environment, the Bionic City operates as an interconnected and intelligent
ecosystem in which every entity is engaged in an ongoing symbiotic relationship with all
others, from the molecular to the metropolitan in scale. Beyond preventing the problems
traditionally associated with flooding, the Bionic City will also feature the means to utilise
excessive quantities of water, including hydropower and water harvesting technologies.”
According to Melissa Sterry, the sensitivity the city has with its surroundings is key to its
ability to predict and prepare for environmental changes.
One essential characteristic of nature systems that helps maintaining stability in constantly
changing conditions is diversity (Holmgren 2002). Multiple associations nurture each life
form, thereby increasing the stability and resilience of the whole system. In natural
system, everything is connected to everything else, each important function is supported
by many elements, and each element performs many functions. Thus, this provides the
15
“Bionic City”- article on Earth 2.0 magazine: http://earth2channel.com/magazine/article/22

23. 23
thinking of multiple pathways to achieve one goal as well as a common solution to
disparate problems (Lyle 1994). For instance, rainwater infiltration with thoughtful design
can replenish groundwater, create landscape, as well as reduce urban flooding…
The idea of solving problems simultaneously is also the main theme of SymbioCity16
, an
urban sustainability approach by Sweden. Symbiosis means the integration of two or more
organisms in a mutually beneficial union. Looking at the city as a whole, we find benefits
through synergies in urban functions such as combination of industrial waste heat with the
municipal energy plant, combination of architecture and landscape planning…
“It takes more than one petal to make a flower”. SymbioCity means urban resource
efficiency – across and between different urban technological systems, letting nothing go
to waste; combining energy, waste management, water supply and sanitation, traffic and
transport, landscape planning, architecture and urban functions for new and better
solutions as well as a more efficient use of natural resource (SymbioCity 2009).
16
More on SymbioCity: http://www.symbiocity.org
Figure 3.4 Building blocks of SymbioCity
– a holistic and integrated approach for sustainable urban development
Urban functions
(housing,
industries,
services)
Waste
management
Energy
Landscape
planning
Architecture &
master planning
Traffic &
transport
Water supply
& sanitation
SymbioCity

24. 24
There are many ways to make an urban function effective, but focusing on them
individually may let us miss out the synergies between them, which can only be found
with a holistic approach. Therefore, an integrated planning approach is key to unlocking
hidden synergies in the city. Instead of managing urban sectors one by one, SymbioCity
combine them, saving valuable city resources and creating new values (SymbioCity 2009).
Urban ecology and integrated land use
As the spirit of sustainability lies in the heart of nature, protecting and restoring ecology
within urban areas, bringing nature back into city is an essential theme in urban
sustainability. Green spaces in cities offer us a lot of benefits. They provide shading,
filtering the air, enriching urban biodiversity, reducing urban heat island effect, thus
simultaneously making bioclimate comfort and lowering energy use for cooling. “Urban
ecology uses climate- and region-appropriate plants, xeriscaping17
to minimize the need
for fertilizer and water, and uses land for multiple functions such as food production,
wildlife habitat, recreation and beautification” (Roseland 2005). Urban ecology also
acknowledges the role of water and urban aquatic systems – streams, ponds, rivers in
revitalizing cities. Besides those ecological advantages, thoughtful urban designs in
concert with nature and embracing culture of a place also have many aesthetic values,
social and psychological healing benefits. Green public spaces can enhance community
connection and interaction, providing places to contemplate, play, relax and meditate.
Since land use permeates nearly all urban aspects, appropriate land use is a decisive factor
for a sustainable city. In order to be sustainable, city should minimize land consumption,
integrating green spaces and preserving farm land for food security as well as for other
ecological functions. It is not always easy as land is a limited resource and the cost of real
estates is often too high, while cities have to balance among conflicts of urbanization,
development, population pressure with environmental and social goals. Therefore,
symbiosis integrating planning or whole systems design18
for multi-purpose use can help
afford this balance. Many examples illustrate this concept (Roseland 2005): green roof,
solar photovoltaic panel on rooftop (no extra space needed); parks, urban gardening as
17
Xeriscaping refers to landscaping and gardeningin ways that reduce or eliminate the need for
supplemental water from irrigation (Wikipedia).
18
Whole systems design concept for sustainability: http://www.wholesystemsdesign.com

25. 25
both recreation areas and edible landscaping; constructed wetlands as sewage treatment
facility, natural habitats, recreation areas, drainage for rainwater run off…
Urban agriculture
Urban agriculture or urban farming can be understood as farming within and around cities.
“Urban agriculture is a dynamic concept that comprises of a variety of farming systems,
ranging from subsistence production and processing at household level to fully
commercialized agriculture” (Zeeuw, et al. n.d.).
In response to serious problems of poverty, food insecurity, and environmental
degradation, there is a growing attention and promotion of urban farming all over the
world, along with the movement of resilient, self-sustaining and low carbon cities.
Increasingly, urban farming has been seen as part of sustainable urban development.
Urban
Farming
Social
Food secure & inclusive city
Food security & nutrition
Poverty alleviation
Social inclusion
Community building
Economic
Productive city
Income generation
Local economic development
Emloyment generation
Ecological
Environmental healthy city
Greeningurban landscape
Urban biodiversity
Improved microclimate
Reduced ecological footprint
Waste recycling
Recreation & leisure
Figure 3.5 Urban agriculture as a tool for sustainable urban development
(adapted from Zeeuw)

26. 26
Urban farming can contribute to a food secure and inclusive city, a productive and
environmentally healthy city (fig. 3.5). Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the links
between urban agriculture and various policy target areas, such as the alleviation of
poverty, economic development, or environmental protection, in order to justify the
inclusion and mainstreaming of urban agriculture into municipal policies and public
support programmes (Zeeuw, et al. n.d.).
The most striking feature of urban farming, which distinguishes it from rural agriculture, is
its integration into the urban economic and ecological system (RUAF)19
. Urban farms and
gardens complement rural agriculture in local food systems and can also become an
important income supplement for households. Since food production is close to home and
market, it helps reduce energy for transportation and packaging costs. This is also helpful
in situations when supply chains from rural areas have been interrupted and cities are
unable to receive food imports (Worldwatch 2011). Another essential benefit of urban
agriculture is that it can contribute to waste management and nutrient recycling by turning
urban wastes into a productive resource, thus reducing the use of expensive chemical
fertilizers and improving local soil fertility (Veenhuizen and Danso 2007).
In his theory of Food Urbanism (2009), Jason Grimm showed that urban food system of
production, processing, distribution, marketing, consumption and waste management can
become infrastructure that transforms urban experience by thoughtful sensitive design and
planning. According to Grimm, food production can be integrated into the daily activities
of community residents through recreation and communal gatherings. Community gardens
can also provide beautiful and pleasing spaces, helping improve the air quality in urban
areas. And through cooperative market outlets, a larger series of food access points can be
developed, supplying healthy fresh and affordable food.
19
RUAF – Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security: What is urban agriculture?
http://www.ruaf.org/node/512

27. 27
3.2 Economic development
“To break dependence on oil, stop contributing to global warming, and build
resilient cities that can thrive in the new urban age of energy and climate uncertainty,
the bottom line for local governments is this: Reduce consumption, and produce
locally.” (Lerch 2009)
Towards a low-carbon economy
We are in the time of Peak Oil20
, and the time of cheap oil will end soon21
. Many experts
have been warning about the end of our civilization as we know it is today22
, the end of oil
age with its catastrophic consequences23
. The world economy heavily depended on high-
carbon fossil fuel is eventually coming into crisis as these fuels go exhausted. Moreover,
the problem is not only the depletion of oil, but also many environmental, political and
socio-economic issues related, especially the green house effect that leads to global
climate change. Thus, we need a thoughtful vision, a shift to new models of development
that are more sustainable, a green economy based on climate friendly low-carbon energy.
The concept of “Zero carbon”, one of the One Planet Living’s ten principles (box 3.2)
which aims at making building more energy efficient and delivering all energy with
renewable technologies, is being developed at the Masdar initiative24
. The European
Union25
is making real efforts to reduce green gas emissions with their “Roadmap for
moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050.” More and more, there is a growing trend of
transition to low-carbon city or post carbon city26
– “city on a path of resilience for a
world of energy and climate uncertainty”.
20
Peak oil (Wikipedia): the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after
which the rate of production enters terminal decline.
21
Peak oil - The end of oil (Kuhlman 2007) http://www.oildecline.com
22
Life after the oil crash (Savinar 2009)
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/Articles/LifeAfterOilCrash.htm
23
The Olduvai theory and catastrophic consequences (Leigh 2008)
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45518
24
Zero carbon city – Masdar initiative: http://www.masdar.ae/en/home/index.aspx
25
EU, March 2011: “Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050”
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm
26
Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty (Lerch 2009): http://postcarboncities.net

28. 28
The Japanese Ministry of Environment has pointed out three principles for a low-carbon
society: (1) Carbon minimization in all sectors, (2) Shifting from mass consumption
society toward simpler lifestyles that realize richer quality of life, (3) Coexistence with
Nature - maintaining and restoring natural environment that essential for low-carbon
society (Ministry of Environment - Japan 2007). Thus, building a low-carbon city requires
the efforts and active involvement of whole social system.
Figure 3.6 Benefits of a low-carbon transport system
(based on the CATCH27
factsheet series)
*ITS: Intelligent Transport System, applied ITC as smart logistics
Though Peak Oil can conceive quite catastrophic potential, it also opens some hopeful
possibilities, a chance to address many underlying social problems, and the opportunity to
return to simpler, healthier and more community oriented lifestyle (Kuhlman 2007). The
example of Cuba can serve as a positive and instructive model for a world facing Peak
Oil28
. Cuba is the only country that has faced such a crisis – the massive reduction of
27
CATCH (Carbon Aware Travel Choice) is an EU project with the ultimate aim to reduce CO2 emissions of
the urban transportsector by encouraging carbon-friendly travel choices. http://www.carbonaware.eu
28
See more: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (Documentary), Arthur Morgan
Institute for Community Solutions (2006): http://www.communitysolution.org
More lively urban
neighborhoods
Better neighborhood
accessibility
More efficient in terms
of energy/cost/time
Higher
security
More social
interaction
Social
equity
Better
health
Safer
roads
Less
congestion
More walking
& cycling
More public
transport
Use of
ITS*
Less private
vehicles
Less noise &
air pollution
Low-carbon
Transport System

29. 29
fossil fuels, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990. Cuba's transition to a low-energy
society has taken place by creating cycling culture, sharing public transportation and
turning from a mechanized, industrial agricultural system to one using organic methods of
farming and local, urban gardens. Lesson from Cuba’s survival gives us hope in the power
of community, and the effectiveness of their strategies, which can be summarize in three
words: curtailment, conservation and cooperation29
.
The guidance for low-carbon city development focuses on three key sectors of
transportation & urban structure, energy and greenery (Kamata 2011). As discussed in the
previous part, conservation of green spaces, farmland and urban greenery is essential as
carbon sinks for the city. Besides, shifting from urban sprawl and diffusive urban structure
to compact urban development is encouraged. Compact city in harmony with nature is an
urban model that consists of station-centered communities with a mix of houses, stores,
offices, and convenient facilities accessible mainly by public transportation, on foot, or by
bicycle (City of Nagoya 2009). Many benefits of a low-carbon transport system are
illustrated in figure 3.6.
Public transportation is key for low-carbon city; together with policies to support local
consumption of goods produced locally (Ecologist 2008). Many policies available to
alleviate energy insecurity can also help to mitigate local pollution and climate change, as
a “triple-win” outcome (IEA 2007). For examples, development in public transportation
does not only conserve energy, but also relieve congestion, improve air quality, provide
access for all (APTA 2008).
Energy conservation and renewable energy
In dealing with the energy issue, the first and foremost available strategy is energy
conservation, through reducing energy waste and increasing energy efficiency. We should
recognize the fact that in the mean time alternative energies can not replace fossil fuels at
the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them. Moreover, the
deepest roots of our current energy crisis lie on the patterns of wasteful production and
consumption (Capra 1988). Therefore, what truly matters is profound change in our
29
See more: Peak Moment TV program (2006) Learning from Cuba response to Peak Oil,interviewing
Megan Quinn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7i6roVB5MI

30. 30
values, attitudes and lifestyle. Energy conservation is our short-term key energy source
and will always be a good solution in the long run too.
Energy conservation brings many benefits. It is low cost and available at all levels. Using
less energy resource also means reducing pollution and environmental degradation, while
prolong fossil fuel supplies and buying time to phase in renewable energy. Saving energy
can start just right at each individual’s lifestyle. For examples: buy and use energy-
efficient devices, look for electronics that are rechargeable, walk or cycle for short trips,
consider car-pooling or take public transport for longer ones, eat lower on the food chains,
buy regionally and seasonally produced organic food whenever possible30
… The list goes
on, and every bit can help.
Many measures can also be done on the technical sphere, where there is a lot of space for
creative innovations. In housing, remarkable energy-saving can be achieved by improved
heat insulation or green building design which takes advantages of natural elements like
sun, wind, plants, trees, green-roofs… instead of using air conditioning. Many intelligent
lighting systems with energy-saving sensors have become widely used for hotels, official
buildings. In transportation, energy-saving techniques can be attained through increasing
fuel efficiency. In industry, the idea of co-generation, producing both heat and electricity
from one energy source can be well applied.
Eventually, we will use up non-renewable energy resources. From a long-term point of
view, renewable ones are what we should rely on. The Sun shines for all of us, and the
wind blows, free of charge. Although the equipments to collect solar and wind energy,
such as solar panels and wind turbines cost money, when considering that the resource is
taking for free, the overall cost of using solar and wind energy can make them smart
choices. Renewable technology cost trends typically show a steep decline during last
decades (NREL 2002), and that trends will continue to reach reasonable levels in the
future as their market’s expansion. Moreover, renewable energy are often clean, such as
wind and sunshine, they do not emit smoke or create pollution. Others, such as biomass,
almost always cause less pollution than fossil or nuclear alternatives.
30
See more in the article on The Ecologist Magazine: 30 steps to an oil free world
http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/360427/30_steps
_to_an_oilfree_world.html

31. 31
Renewable energies would bring a number of benefits to the economy. First, they help
increase the diversity of energy supplies, and thus lower the dependency on imported
fossil fuels and improve the security of energy supplies. Second, they help make use of
local resources to provide a cost-effective energy supply while reducing regional and
global greenhouse gas emissions. Since they are often flexible, small-scale designs, which
take the advantages of local conditions, they can be located close to the demand. Then,
transmission and distribution costs are reduced, as well as losses. Finally, from the social
point of view, renewable energies can create more domestic employment. Such benefits
have created a strong motivation for pursuing renewable energies. The investment costs of
renewable technologies have been reduced remarkably today and this makes renewable
energies more attractive, quickly developed and expanded (Nguyen 2005).
Future will belong to the age of Renewable Sources. It is also the scenario described in the
Energy [R]evolution report, by the European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace
(2007). The vision would be made by optimized integration of renewable energy,
developing smart consumption, generation and distribution systems and maximizing the
efficiency of building through better insulation. Solar façade would be a decorative
element on office and apartment buildings. Rooftop wind and solar would be placed so
that energy is generated close to the consumer. Clean electricity would also come from
offshore wind parks or solar power station in deserts. Electricity would be much more
prominent and become the principal source of energy for transportation, replacing gasoline
and diesel fuels. Hydrogen can become a way of back-up to store solar, wind energy to use
at night or during cloudy days (EREC & Green Peace 2007).
Shifting to low-carbon economy means shifting to more diversified systems which
maximize the use of locally available, environmental friendly resources. “It is encouraging
to know that we now have the technologies to build a new energy economy, one that is not
climate-disruptive, that does not pollute air and that can last as long as the sun itself”
(Brown 2008).
ICT for low-carbon urban development
From mobile phone, computer, software to internet, information and communications
technology (ICT) has become integrated in our everyday life and remarkably influenced
our society in many levels. Recently, ICT’s enormous potential in contributing towards a

32. 32
low-carbon society has been recognized and getting more and more attention. Using high
technology, optical fiber, ultra-high speed, ultra-low power consumption network, nearly
the most energy-efficient infrastructure, ICT can lead to smarter ways of doing and
significantly reduce carbon footprint in cities (Yamakawa 2008). Efficiency of production
and consumption can be improved. Movement of people and things can be reduced
through online shopping, e-service, online media, teleworking, virtual meeting. ICT can
also support smart and integrated city planning, environmental management, urban
monitoring.
Figure 3.7 ICT applications for a low-carbon city
ICT can play crucial role in helping to improve energy efficiency in power transmission
and distribution (smart grids), in smart buildings and factories, and in the use of
transportation to deliver goods (smart logistics). They can also help in dematerialization31
and shifting to a circular economy, where resources are efficiently used (WWF & Ericsson
2009).
31
Dematerialisation can be applied to a range of current everyday practices and ultimately reduce the
number of material objects that need to be produced. For example, online billing, online media replace
paper and CDs, thus reduce the emissions associated with their manufacture and distribution (GeSI 2008).
SMART
&
CONNECTED
CITY
E-Government
E-Commerce
E-Health
E-Services
Online
Media
Smart
Logistics
Smart
Buildings
SmartGrids
Teleworking
Paperless
office
E-learning

33. 33
3.3 Social connectedness and cultural vitality
“When you are connected to yourself, you live with integrity – you act on your
values and you are committed to truth and honesty. When you are connected to others,
you commit to living in community, to caring for the common good, and to working for
equality, justice and democracy. You commit to living joyfully with family, friends and
the wider community. When you are connected to the planet, you try to live more
sustainably, not using up or destroying nature.” (Andrews 2006)
Figure 3.8 Max-Neef’s fundamental human needs
“If the definition of a sustainable society involves meeting human needs, it is worth asking
what human needs are, and whether or not the system we are designing meets real human
needs in a synergistic and positively reinforcing way” (Holocene 2004). Figure 3.8 shows
the 9 human needs that have been identified by Manfred Max-Neef, a German-Chilean
economist and environmentalist, mainly known for his human development model based
on this theory. These fundamental human needs are understood as an interrelated and
Max-Neef's
Fundamental Human
Needs
Creation
Leisure
Freedom
Affection
ProtectionSubsistence
Understanding
Identity
Participation

34. 34
interactive system, not as a hierarchy (once the basic need for subsistence has been met) as
postulated by Maslow32
. According to this model, we can see that most of our needs are
related to the social (protection, affection, understanding, participation) and cultural
(recreation, creation, identity) aspects of life. It was also reflected in the core principle of
the Earth Charter “Respect and Care for the community of life: to care for the community
of life with understanding, compassion and love; to build democratic societies that are just,
sustainable, participatory and peaceful”.
Figure 3.9 Social and cultural intertwined dimensions of urban sustainability
Social and cultural sustainability has been considered as soft infrastructure which is vital
for a healthy community. The social and cultural intertwined dimensions of urban
sustainability embrace vision of a humane society, where compassion, mutual respect and
32
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Cultural Capital
Traditions
Ethics
Arts & Creativity
Recreation
History & heritage
Custom & lifestyle
Spiritual values
Sense of Place
Social Capital Equity
Social networks Inclusiveness
Shared knowledge Diversity & Tolerance
Understandings Compassion & Love
Mutual trust Care & Supporting
Connectedness Sharing
Social cohesion Peace & Security
Solidarity Democracy
Sense of Community Sense of Belonging
PUBLIC SPACES
Communication
Participation
Interaction
Empowerment
Adequate &
affordable housing
Health & child care
Volunteerism
Community gardens
Life-long education
Common houses
Festivals
Community celebration

35. 35
care are nurtured, where sharing33
and cooperation become a celebrated social priority34
.
“Where social capital is strong, communities exhibit high rates of volunteerism and citizen
involvement as well as greater inclusion of all sectors of society in the social and cultural
fabric. Also, a community that is rich in social capital provides a wealth of intelligence,
sensitivity, and wisdom that will underpin and support appropriate ecological, economic,
and social sustainability strategies” (Kingston 2010).
Social sustainability
According to the WACOSS’s model, socially sustainable communities are equitable,
diverse, connected, democratic and provide a good quality of life (Hodgson 2008). So, a
sustainable city is a just and inclusive city, where benefits of development would be
distributed fairly across society. It is a city for all, regardless of their status, gender, race,
ethnicity or religion. “An inclusive city provides the opportunities and support that enables
all residents to develop fully and allow them access to decent housing, transport,
education, recreation, communication, employment and the judiciary, as well as cultural
and religious expression. In an inclusive city, residents take part in decision-making that
ranges from the political to issues of daily life. Such participation injects a sense of
belonging, identity, place into residents, and guarantees them a stake in the benefits of
urban development” (UN-HABITAT 2010).
In an inclusive city, diversity is respected; people are tolerant of differences, and are open-
minded. This creates condition for true communication can develop. Communication leads
to trust, trust to sharing, sharing to co-operation and thus community solidarity is
strengthened.
As human beings, we all need meaningful relationships with others, the sense of
community, the sense of connectedness, knowing that another person cares, supports and
looks out for us. This corresponds with Maslow’s need for love/belonging and Max-Neef’s
need for affection and participation. People with a strong sense of community are more
likely to report being in good health and less likely to feel isolated than those that have a
weak sense of community (Jochmann 2010).
33
10 ways our wolrd is becoming more shareable (Gorenflo & Smith 2010)
http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/10-ways-our-world-is-becoming-more-shareable
34
Earth 2.0 – Sharing as one of the four chief operating principles of the Earth 2.0 upgrade
http://earth2channel.com/blog/post/28

36. 36
Research has shown that communities where there are high levels of volunteerism and
many opportunities for people to have contact with others outside of work or school have
more consensus and are more resilient (Hallsmith 2003). Thus, public spaces in city are
very important for communication, interaction and exchange to build sense of community.
Jan Gehl35
once said, “a sustainable city would be a very people-friendly city. It would be
a city with good public spaces and a city that is rather compact. It would be a city that
really invites people to walk and bicycle as much as possible.” Research also confirmed
that individuals in more walkable neighborhoods tended to have higher levels of trust and
community involvement, and also reported being in good health and happy more often
than those in the less walkable neighborhoods (Williams 2011).
Cultural sustainability
UNESCO (1995) defined the cultural dimension of community development36
as being
“the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features
that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts and letters, but also
modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and
beliefs.” The basic role of art, culture, and heritage has long been to bring beauty, depth
and meaning into our daily lives, they also nurture individual and community identity,
promote social cohesion, and contribute to the creation of social capital (Kingston 2010).
More and more, culture has been recognized as an essential dimension with the potential
to transform communities and individuals in positive and meaningful ways over the long
term.
Jon Hawkes (2001) wrote “The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in
Public Planning", recognizing that a community’s vitality and quality of life is closely
related to the vitality and quality of its cultural engagement, expression, dialogue, and
celebration37
. Current main themes of cultural sustainability are summarized in box 3.4.
35
Jan Gelh Interview (2008): Making healthy cities
http://sustainablecities.dk/en/actions/interviews/jan-gehl-making-healthy-cities
36
Sustainable Future - Culture and Knowledge Workshop
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/significant_projects/planning_studies/sustainable_future/workshop_
two/issues_brief
37
Models of sustainability incorporating culture:
http://www.creativecity.ca/se-newsletters/special-edition-4/models-sustainability.html

37. 37
Box 3.4 Key themes of cultural sustainability38
10 KEY THEMES OF CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
(Creative City Network, Canada 2007)
1. The culture of sustainability
Changing people’s behavior and consumption patterns, and adapting to a more
sustainability-conscious lifestyle.
2. Globalization & cultural identity
Protecting local culture from globalization and market forces.
3. Heritage conservation
Recognize the history of a place and its tangible and intangible attributes.
Revitalizing and re-using heritage buildings for cultural facilities.
4. Sense of place
Building sense of place through intimate connection with our natural environment
and history. The importance of heritage and symbols, and the role of the arts in raising
community awareness and interest in sustainability are recognized.
5. Indigenous knowledge & traditional practices
Recovery and protection of cultural health, history, and the culture of indigenous
knowledge in society. Storytelling is a tool to keep memories alive and celebrate history.
6. Community cultural development
Using arts and culture as community-building tools to promote sense of place,
empowerment, and public participation. Creative collaboration fosters social development
and change.
7. Arts, education & youth
The arts are seen as both development and communicative tools in communities and
schools, as they increase the effectiveness of teaching, research, policy, and actions toward
cultural sustainability and development.
8. Sustainable design
Sustainable design is seen as a component of cultural sustainability. Supporting
cultural identity can ensure the past is part of the present and will benefit the future.
9. Planning
A cultural lens is needed in city planning and design. This requires community
culture-based planning strategies that address civic identity, youth, multiculturalism, and
other aspects of communities.
10. Cultural policy & local government
The multidisciplinary nature of sustainable development requires that policies for
sustainability transcend boundaries and integrate cultural aspects.
38
Creative City Network, Canada 2007: Ten key themes of cultural sustainability
http://www.creativecity.ca/se-newsletters/special-edition-4/ten-key-themes-of-cultural-sustainability.html

38. 38
Hawkes’ model demonstrates that the contribution of culture to building lively cities and
communities plays a major role in supporting social and economic health (Duxbury and
Gillette 2007). According to him, the key to cultural sustainability is fostering
partnerships, exchange, and respect between different streams of government, business,
and arts organizations.
Spiritual values
“We need a spiritual compass to find our direction in life. A spiritual compass can help us
to navigate our path through confusion and crises, through the suffocating allure of
materialism, and through delusion and despair” (Kumar 2007).
Spiritual values are essential as an inner guiding light which helps us to develop our
worldview, to seek wisdom of truth and wholeness, to find meaning of our existence and
to connect with a greater transcendent reality.
“Justice and compassion spring from the hearts of people who recognize our profound
interdependence and interrelatedness with one another and the Earth” (Lamborn 2010).
Spiritual connection is the basis for love, compassion and community. Our desire to
deeply connect can be the most powerful force for good (Jones, Haenfler and Johnson
2007). People with compassion have deep concern for social equality and justice; they
want to see that all people and other existences are treated with dignity and love; they
become more tolerant, more embracing, always ready to reach out to help, to support, and
glorify others (Lin 2006).
The virtues of justice, humility, service and compassion can motivate us to address our
social and environmental challenges and to build a world of peace and harmony (Jones,
Haenfler and Johnson 2007). Therefore, creating a culture of sustainability which
cherishes those values of tolerance, love, care, respect… is essential in empowering and
transforming community towards a sustainable future.

39. 39
3.4 Good governance
“Good governance must be built from the ground up. It cannot be imposed,
either by national authorities, or by international agencies. Good governance is the fruit
of true dedication, selfless leadership, and a politics of integrity.” (Annan 1997)
Good governance plays a decisive role in urban management, planning and operating
towards sustainability. While government is an entity (an official governing organization),
governance refers to the process of decision making and the process by which decisions
are implemented (UNESCAP). These governing processes involve not only the state
(government), but also the private sector and the whole civil society.
Figure 3.10 Three interrelated actors of governance
All three interconnected actors are critical for urban sustainability. Government creates a
conducive political and legal environment; the private sector generates jobs and income;
and civil society facilitates political and social interaction - mobilizing groups to
participate in economic, social and political activities (UNDP 1997). Since each part has
weaknesses and strengths, it is important for good governance to promote constructive
interaction, partnership, cooperation and coherence among all three.
Box 3.5 describes an ideal image of good governance, adapted from UNESCAP and
UNDP. Main attributes of good governance are long term vision, openness - transparency,
responsibility - accountability, equity - inclusiveness, democratic participation - citizen
involvement, effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of the people.
State
(Government)
Civil Society
(NGOs, Community
groups)
Private Sector
(Businesses)
GOVERNANCE

40. 40
Box 3.5 Characteristics of good governance (UNESCAP39 & UNDP40
)
KEY ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
(UNESCAP & UNDP)
Participation
All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or
through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad
participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to
participate constructively.
Ruleof law
Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially.
Transparency
Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and
information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is
provided to understand and monitor them.
Responsiveness
Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all
stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.
Consensus oriented
Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a
broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how
this can be achieved.
Equity and inclusiveness
A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a
stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups,
but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well
being.
Effectiveness and efficiency
Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet
the needs of society while making the best use of resources.
Accountability
Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organisations are
accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders.
Strategic vision
Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance
and sustainable development. There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and
social complexities in which that perspective is grounded.
39
UNESCAP, Good governance:
http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
40
Governance for sustainable human development (UNDP 1997): http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy

41. 41
These features assure that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities and the needs
of future generations are taken into account, and the voices of the most vulnerable in
society are heard in decision-making. Good governance also contributes to peace and
security because it gives societies sound structures for inclusive, equitable economic and
social development. “In post-conflict settings, good governance can promote
reconciliation and offer a path for consolidating peace” (Annan 1997).
Good governance demands the consent and the participation of the governed and the full
and lasting involvement of all citizens (Annan 1997). Key strategies for cultivating good
governance include developing more decentralized state, active civic organizations, and
responsible private sectors (Wheeler, Wheeler and Church 2005).
Decentralization is an important strategy to attain citizen involvement and government
responsiveness. Since power and decisions are closer to local people, decentralized
government is more knowledgeable and accessible. It can respond faster, more effectively
to people’s needs, with more accountability and transparency. Resource use would be
more equitable and the gap between the rich and the poor would be narrowed (Wheeler,
Wheeler and Church 2005).
As Kofi Annan once said (1997), good governance has to begin with the will of the
people. The will of the people must be the basis of governmental authority. That is the
foundation of democracy. Democratization is definitely vital in building good governance,
but it requires mature civic awareness, ongoing education, the development of government
structures, institutions, and time. “Once established, democracies need to be tended
carefully in order to stay healthy and provide good governance for the people” (Wheeler,
Wheeler and Church 2005).
Nowadays, the development of ICTs promises a huge potential of facilitating governance
processes. Core components of e-governance include e-participation, e-administration and
e-service delivery41
. E-governance can enhance government and public institution
efficiency, transparency and accountability by providing better public service and
information delivery to citizens and others. Moreover, e-governance fosters greater
interaction between authorities and citizens, thus encouraging more public participation
and involvement. Various online tools can be used, such as RSS feeds, tag clouds,
41
Governance assessment portal: http://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/e-governance

42. 42
interactive map, webcasts for information; blogs, online polls for consultation; e-petitions,
wikis, forum and virtual worlds for participation (WEF 2011). Social networks also
support e-governance with more equity, decentralization and democratization.
On the other hand, e-governance can make a significant positive impact on reducing
carbon dioxide emissions through the dematerialization of public service delivery. Many
paper-based services can be digitalized and situations where face-to-face interaction has
been previously required (to prove identity) can be done virtually (GeSI 2008).

43. 43
4. Urban Sustainability & Public Perceptions
“If you want to build sustainable cities you have to take into consideration the
thoughts and values of the city´s inhabitants.” (Paul Sinclair)42
4.1 Results from global online survey
The global online survey was launched on 10th
of May, 2011 at the link below and since
then it has been promoted through social networks, blogs and mail groups such as Wiser
Earth, Facebook, LinkIn, YES Alumni, ERM, Scribd…
• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey
Sample of the questionnaire from this global online survey is attached in the appendix I.
The last respondent was recorded on 13th
June, 2011.
Profile of respondents
Total: 175 respondents
Figure 4.1 Profile of respondents by gender and age
42
Professor of African and Comparative Archaeology at Uppsala University, mentioned in Mistra article on
the Urban Mind research, “The evolution of cities — a mental process”.
Female
65%
Male
35%
2%
58%
29%
7%
3% 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
< 18 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

44. 44
There are 175 responses in total from all over the world (table 4.1), in which 61
respondents (35%) are male and 114 respondents (65%) are female. Most of the
respondents are from Asia and Europe (fig. 4.2).
Table 4.1 Respondents’ distribution by country
Asia Europe North America
Bangladesh 1 Albania 3 Canada 5
India 6 Austria 3 USA 20
Indonesia 1 Belgium 2
Japan 5 Czech 1 Latin America
Jordan 1 Denmark 1 Brazil 2
Kazakhstan 1 Estonia 1 Costa Rica 1
Kuwait 1 Finland 4 Ecuador 1
Malaysia 1 France 1 Mexico 2
Myanmar 1 Germany 34
Philippines 1 Ireland 1
Saudi Arabia 1 Italy 1
Singapore 2 Kosovo 2
Thailand 3 Netherlands 3
Vietnam 44 Romania 2
Russia 2
Africa Spain 1
Zimbabwe 1 Sweden 1
Switzerland 2
Australia Ukraine 1
Australia 6
Figure 4.2 Distribution of respondents by region
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Asia Europe Africa North
America
Latin
America
Australia
39.43% 37.71%
0.57%
14.29%
3.43% 3.43%

45. 45
Figure 4.3 Profile of respondents by professional sector
The respondents come from diverse professional sectors as displayed in fig. 4.3, in which
the highest share is environment/conservation (nearly 30%).
Respondents’ perception on a dream city
City size - Population
Figure 4.4 Respondents’ choice on the population of their dream city
1.14%
1.14%
1.71%
2.29%
2.86%
4.57%
6.29%
7.43%
11.43%
13.71%
17.71%
29.71%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Media
Services - Entertainment
Banking - Finance
Agriculture- Forestry
Medical - Health care
Government
ICTs
Non-profit, NGOs
Engineering - Industry
Education - Academic
Other
Environment - Conservation
17.71%
24.57%
19.43%
16.00%
17.71%
2.86%
1.71%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
<10,000
10,000-100,000
100,000-500,000
500,000- 1 million
1- 5 millions
5- 10 millions
>10 millions

46. 46
Results of respondents’ perception on the size of their dream city in terms of population
are shown in fig. 4.4. The responses are various, with the highest share (24.57%) for cities
with population of 10,000 – 100,000 inhabitants. It is interesting to note that nearly one-
fifth of the respondents (17%) even chose the smallest size available (cities with less than
10,000 inhabitants). Only few respondents chose cities with more than 5 millions
inhabitants to megacities and mostly people who chose these options also come from cities
with large population (Mexico, Madrid, Almedabad, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh).
A city with sense of place
Figure 4.5 shows respondents’ perception on sense of place with nearly all features listed
received ticks from more than 50% respondents, among that, local nature and urban
designs get the highest rates of around 70%. It is sense of belonging that make people feel
emotional attached to a place and the identity that make one city different from the others.
Many factors contribute to sense of a place, such as its people (sense of community), its
culture, tradition, customs and history, its nature, its architectures…
Figure 4.5 Respondents’ perception onsense of place
Respondents perceive variously on sense of place. Some likes a quiet and ancient city (M,
18-30, HCMC)43
, some likes a “simple and less complicated” one (F, 18-30, Amman),
some likes a more international one (F, 31-40, Helsinki), and another prefers a city with
good sense of humor and fun (F, >60, Eugene). One respondent (F, 18-30, Brisbane)
43
Note: content in the blankets gives briefly reference to the respondent quoted (gender, range of age,
city/ country)
51.43%
62.29%
63.43%
69.71%
71.43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Localfood and tradition
Senseof community
Cultureand historic preservation
Urbandesigns
Localbiodiversity and natural landscape

47. 47
associates sense of place with “high levels of creativity and encouragement of exploration
and development of creative and spiritual life”, others (F, 18-30, New York) with “well
integrated living, entertainment and business districts” or “strong sense of safety and trust,
no fear of violence” (F, 18-30, Berkeley).
A human friendly city
Openness and friendliness are very important factors of a desirable city. A respondent
from Berlin (F, 18-30) perceives this attribute as “a social spirit to remove negative
thoughts/feelings and actions”, and another respondent from Brisbane (F, 31-40)
associates it with “assumption of genuine respect for all”.
Even a nearly perfect city in terms of environmental quality and economics may be
undesirable if it is not human friendly.
This attribute is strongly confirmed from the results illustrated in fig. 4.6, with all listed
features of a human friendly city received ticks from more than 70% respondents. In
which “embracing cultural diversity, welcoming to people of diverse cultures and
backgrounds” has the highest record of nearly 90%.
I love cities where people giveyou hospitality, synergies... Cities, where people
shows love andoptimism on their faces... I also love to have big or very big green
spaces in city. It’s so kind to see peopleof different ages and different social
classes, all together. Because it doesn't matter if you are a pooror a rich one, life
is a miracle and everyone have the full right to enjoy it.....
(F, 18-30, Tirana, Albania)
I do live inTrento which could be even considered a perfect city BUT people are
not really friendly and open. Besides that, although the CITY is very nice, it's
inside a country and a context. The country has severalproblems which end up
to influence it as well. In an even more idealistic consideration, althoughTrento
could be a perfect city I suppose it's also from the human nature to miss what
you don't have... especially considering relationships with friends and family
(who lives in a very imperfect city, in the other side of the world...)
(F, 31-40, Trento, Italy)

48. 48
Figure 4.6 Respondents’ perception on a human friendly city
This attribute does not only manifest through the characteristics of the people (open-
minded and helpful) but also from well and thoughtful urban designs of public spaces,
which encourage social interaction and cultural exchange. Respondents suggested for a
human friendly city included “technology and housing design that forces people to
interact, affordable housing that prevents the rich living in one area and the poor in
another - mixed income housing” (F, 18-30, New York), “affordable living and living
wages available to all, free (government funded) access to basic services” (F, 31-40,
Berkeley). A human friendly is also a city of tolerance, with “dedication to helping those
in economic need or otherwise suffering, creative ways of handling conflict” (F, 31-40,
Philadelphia).
A green city
It seems that a green city needs no explanation. “Green”, nature and environmental quality
is one core pillar of sustainability. It is also desirable by most of us.
71.43%
72.00%
86.86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Open-mindedandhelpfulpeople
Havinggreat public spaces
Embracingcultural diversity
I had a chance to live one year in Cottbus in Brandenburg and I loved it, for
many reasons. People travelling by bike, amazingsurroundingof the city,
many cultural events organized by University and/or the city itself. The
development is to be seen in there...many green areas, many quiet areas. The
impact of the university is very visible. I would love to live in such a city.
(F, 18-30, Prague, Czech)

49. 49
Figure 4.7 Respondents’ perception on a green city
Figure 4.7 shows high agreement on that. The models of urban garden, green roofs are
also highly welcomed (86%). Respondents added some more models such as “abundant
local food crops grown commonly in public spaces” (F, 31-40, Berkeley), “buildings that
are covered in greenery – green façade, vertical gardens and fly-over gardens” (F, 18-30,
New York).
A regenerative city
It is quite encouraging to see that nearly all sustainable listed features for a regenerative
city received high rates of ticks (more than 70%), in which the two most equally
concerned are waste recycling and renewable energies (82%).
Figure 4.8 Respondents’ perception on a regenerative city
72.57%
86.29%
87.43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Freshair andclean water
Urbangardens,plantpotson balconies,
greenroofs
Manyparksin the city, lots of treeson the
streets
72.00%
74.86%
75.43%
82.29%
82.29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rainwaterharvesting
Energyconservationandenergyefficiency
Greenbuildingsusinglocal, renewable
materials
Renewable energies
Separatingandrecycling/composting
wastes

50. 50
One respondent from New York (M, 31-40) recommended his favorite Hammarby
Model44
, a district project in Stockholm, Sweden which attempts at a balanced, “closed-
loop urban metabolism”, considering the unified infrastructure of energy, water and waste.
A smart and connected city
Figure 4.9 shows results of public perceptions on a smart and connected city with models
of using ICTs such as E-governance, to improve public services and interactions between
citizens and government, making government more accountable, transparent and effective;
and applications of ICTs in urban management such as transportation.
Figure 4.9 Respondents’ perception on a smart and connected city
It turned out that the most concerned was given to the feature of “active citizen
participation in decision making” (72%), followed by e-governance (67%). Though the
44
A Hammarby Project, Stockholm, Sweden: In addition to the Hammarby Model infrastructure, the
presence of urban-scaled density, access to multiple modes of transit with an emphasis on reduced car
commuting, preservation and restoration of existing natural systems, and progressive construction and
housing policies make Hammarby Sjostad an effective demonstration that ecological and urban go together
by means of comprehensive planning.
http://www.aeg7.com/assets/publications/hammarby%20sjostad.pdf
54.86%
67.43%
72.57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Useof ICT, GPS in traffic management, lighting
systems…
E-governance
Activecitizen participation in decision -
making
Waste treatment is one of the most important issues nowadays and it should
be applied in every city. As an incentive to separate the waste, Germany got it
with the system of "pfand": asmall charge when you buy bottles of glass or
plastic and you get the money back when you give back the bottles. It can
alienate poverty a little, it encourages the waste separation and millions of
bottles are reused (for plastic bottles, it's a rare thing!!).
(F, 18-30, Cottbus, Germany)

51. 51
applications of ICTs in urban management promise high potential, this idea was interested
to only more than half of the respondents.
A bicycle friendly city with walkable neighborhoods
Again, like in the case of a regenerative city, nearly all main features of a bicycle friendly
city with walkable neighborhoods are highly welcomed (more than 70%), with the most
agreed was attributed to a diverse and efficient public transportation (87%).
Figure 4.10 Respondents’ perception on sustainable urban mobility
This model also received many comments from respondents, mostly expressing their
supporting. Some respondents expected their dream city with no cars (M, 18-30, Vienna),
or with bicycles even for long distances (M, 41-50, Stockholm), or suggested road designs
that enable people to walk/use bicycles (F, 31-40, Tampere).
51.43%
69.71%
72.57%
75.43%
87.43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Carsharing or car rental models
Pedestrianiseddowntown
Bicyclesfor shortdistances
Services, transportstationsinwalkable
distances
Diverse andefficientpublictransit
Less cars and more green spaces! Social, cultural,
leisure infrastructure for everybody, not only in the
city center!
(M, 31-40,
Bremen, Germany)
I would love to visit Curitiba in Brazil. They learned the hard way how to
live in community and take care of their city because it belongs to
everyone. Jobs are close people's homes so the distance that they walk or
take a bike ride is minimum.
(F, 18-30, Guayaquil, Ecuador)

52. 52
An interesting city
A desirable city would be an interesting city with diverse activities of services,
entertainment and recreation, a city where community arts, music, dance and celebrations
are fostered, a city encourages innovations and creativity. The results from figure 4.11
shows that high percentages of respondents share these ideas.
Figure 4.11 Respondents’ perception on an interesting city
Respondents suggested city to have its own libraries and museums (M, 18-30, HCMC),
arts and creativity education and training (M, 31-40, New York), putting universities in the
centre to encourage young people into the city (F, 18-30, New York).
A just and inclusive city
65.14%
74.29%
76.00%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
A city of innovationsandcreativity
Livelyurbanlife
Communityarts,music,dance and
celebrationsare fostered
A city that enables (young) people to start theirsmall and
medium sized enterprises or projects - small shops, local
products, local art productions...
(M, 18-30, Bern,
Switzerland)
Well I guess better cities is where people are treated thesame and have
equal opportunities. It is the city where justice is not in the handof a
particular person, it is where a law goes over everyone no matter who he is
or from where he comes from.
(F, 18-30, Amman, Jordan)

53. 53
A desirable city would be not only human friendly but also humane; an inclusive city
which embraces all its people, regardless of their race, gender, age, or social and economic
status. Figure 4.12 shows a high agreement of respondents on features of an inclusive city,
with the highest interested was attributed to education and job opportunities for all, special
assistance for people with disability (88%), followed by good quality, affordable housing
available for the poor (75%) and good health care and public services accessible to all
(74%).
Figure 4.12 Respondents’ perception on a just and inclusive city
Respondents’ suggestions for an inclusive city included encouraging citizens in
collaboration, in taking parts of planning the local education, health-care and politic
activities (F, 18-30, Chiang Mai), public transport suitable for people with disability (F,
31-40, Tampere), high salaries for socially concentrated jobs (F, 18-30, Berlin) and an
efficient social work system (M, 18-30, HCMC).
More respondents’ ideas on their desirable city
73.71%
74.86%
88.00%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Good health careand public services are
accessibleto all
Good quality, affordable housing available
for the poor.
Education and job opportunities for all.
Assistancefor people with disability.
No cars/only public transport (generated by renewable energies), cradle
to grave- management concerning products,general environmental
awareness among citizens, urban gardening all along city (everyone
responsible for own food)
(F, 18-30, Berlin, Germany)
Minimize home sizes. Reduce consumerism. Take a step back
and have jobs that pertain to local growth, development and
prosperity.
(F, 31-40,
Sacramento,
USA)

54. 54
I'm a public librarian. I think places like public libraries are vital to
healthy cities. We grant peopleof diverse ages, social and economic
backgrounds the opportunity a sharedspace for cultural enrichment,
educational advancement and the evolution of community.
(F, 18-30, Philadelphia, USA)
I am living in Hanoi. I want our city to be greener by fewer motorbikes
& cars, instead, more bicycles should be used. Moreover, there should be
more trees on the streets, more public parks and our city should keep
the lakes as they are specialty of Hanoi. Better governance via less
corruption &better management systems are required for traffic,
health care, etc.
(F, 18-30, Hanoi, Vietnam)
Decentralization: Localgovernment is fully and
independently responsible for governing and managing local
city with meaningful participation of its ownpeople.
(F, 18-30, Chiang Mai,
Thailand)

55. 55
Respondents’ perception on the significance of urban aspects
What aspect of a city that makes people love to live there? What matters most to them?
Figure 4.13 presents the average results of respondents rating the significance of some
main urban aspects on the scale of 1-5 (1: least important, 5: most important). The results
show that all aspects listed are important to people, according to respondents’ perception
(all average points > 3.3). What matters most to people does vary. However, on average,
good public services, health care, education, nature & green, good governance and sense
of community weight the higher points.
Figure 4.13 Respondents’ perception on the significance of various urban aspects
[Scale of 1 (least important) - 5 (most important)]
Besides those factors rated, some respondents also gave more comments on the features of
a city that they like and what matters most to them.
3.379
3.444
3.740
3.753
3.844
3.846
4.145
4.349
0 1 2 3 4 5
Historyand culture
Urbandesign
Livelyurbanlife
Economicopportunities
Sense of community
Goodgovernance
Nature andgreen
Goodpublicservices,healthcare,
education
Safety and goodgovernance, equity, and job
opportunities are of great importance to me.(F, 31-40,
Mexico City)

56. 56
Unfortunately nothing else matters when deciding in which city I
live than a job :/ But naturally if I would not need to think of a
job, theother matters would become more important.
(F, 31-40, Ciudad
Colon, Costa Rica)
For me, thepeople in the community are taking chargeof their
own spiritual and materialdevelopment andare contributing to
the process of decision making, change etc.
(F, 18-30, Melaka, Malaysia)
I've lived in several cities. Munich was the best life, but the weather was
crappy and the culture could have been better. Plus, it lacked inclusiveness
and community. But for transport, health, economy, design, greenness, parks,
and resource care it was far better than Buenos Aires, NYC, San Jose, Costa
Rica, and Washington DC. NYC is the best by far for culture,design, and
neighborhoodiness, economy is generally great too, green stuff is so-so.
Buenos Aires was not so good apart from design, economy (when I was
there), and culture is great. San Jose is not so goodbut at least has the basics
covered with healthand water quality, but people are friendly and the
lifestyle is laid back. Economy is so so.
A combination of parts of all those cities could be included in my ideal city.
(M, 31-40, New York, USA)
A city where I want to live the most is close to my family, relatives and
friends. It should close to the beach,or mountain, or fountain, forest, the
field, farm...
(F, 18-30, Bien Hoa, Vietnam)

57. 57
4.2 Results from surveys inHCMC
4.2.1 Results from online and offline questionnaires
The questionnaire in Vietnamese exclusively prepared for residents of HCMC was
launched both online (link below) and offline (distributed in papers for people writing
their opinions and then collected) on 28th
of May 2011.
• https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey/survey-for-
hcmc/vietnamese-version
The last online respondent was recorded on 16th
of June, 2011.
Sample of the questionnaire from this survey for HCMC is attached in the appendix II.
Profile of respondents
Total: 78 responses, in which 26 online and 52 offline respondents45
, (39 male and 39
female). Respondents’ ages range from 19 to 66 years old (fig. 4.14), in which most of
them are in the age range of 18-40.
Figure 4.14 Profile of respondents by gender and age
45
The number of offline respondents was higher than 52. However, because some responses were not
appropriate (lack of respondents’ information or only few questions were answered), these have to be left
aside.
Female
50%
Male
50%
32.05%
35.90%
8.97%
16.67%
6.41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60

58. 58
Figure 4.15 Profile of respondents by professional sector
Respondents’ professions are varied as illustrated in figure 4.15.
Respondents’ perception on a desirable city
City size - Population
Figure 4.16 Respondents’ choice on the population of their desirable city
Results of respondents’ perception on the population of their desirable city are shown in
fig. 4.16 with the most favorite attributed to 500,000 – 1 million inhabitants (61.54%).
Only 9% of respondents prefer small city with less than 500,000 inhabitants.
Architect
9%
Business
9%
Education
21%
Engineering
29%
Office
14%
Other
14%
Services
4%
8.97%
61.54%
29.49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
< 500,000
500,000 - 1 million
> 1 million

59. 59
Table 4.2 presents people’s responses on 19 features of a desirable city with 5 options: like
very much, like, don’t care, don’t know and don’t like.
Table 4.2 People’s responses on characteristics of a desirable city
Characteristics of a desirable city
Like very
much

Like

Don’t
care

Don’t
know
(?)
Don’t
like

1. Many gardens, parks, trees on the streets 86% 14%
2. Urban designs are harmonious with natural
landscape and surroundings.
65% 35%
3. Urban heritages are well preserved. 56% 33% 9%
4. Original, having identity.
63% 32% 5%
5. Sense of place, sense of belonging (landscape,
people, gastronomy, culture…)
55% 40% 4% 1%
6. Strong community sense, supporting and loving
community
71% 28% 1%
7. Friendly and open-minded people. Diversity and
differences are respected.
58% 35% 8%
8. Many public spaces for community activities,
cultural and social exchanges…
49% 47% 4%
9. Interesting urban life, many entertainment and
recreational areas, theatres, restaurants…
42% 49% 6% 1%
10. Slumless. City has good quality social housing
program. Everybody has a decent place to live.
51% 41% 6%

60. 60
Characteristics of a desirable city
Like very
much

Like

Don’t
care

Don’t
know
(?)
Don’t
like

11. Social justice: Every citizen is respected and
treated equally. Inclusive city which cares for the
marginal groups and has policies to assist the
poor, people with disability, especially in terms of
accessibility to education, health care and job
opportunities…
65% 33% 1%
12. A humane economy: social responsible
enterprises which have safe working conditions for
labors, reasonable working time, holidays and
decent wages
54% 37% 6% 1%
13. A green economy: green business with
environmental consciousness, energy and
resource saving, using renewable energies, local
and natural materials.
51% 38% 6% 4%
14. E-governance: more transparent, effective and
responsive, increasing interaction between
citizens and decision-makers. Public and
administrative services are made quickly by
internet.
47% 40% 9% 3% 1%
15. Wastes are classified, then go for composting
or recycling
59% 36% 1% 1%
16. Urban designs encourage rainwater infiltration
to replenish groundwater and mitigate urban flood.
Rainwater harvesting can also be done at
household scales.
64% 22% 6% 8%
17. Diverse, developed and convenient public
transportation system.
69% 29% 1%
18. Pedestrianized downtown. Encouraging
bicycling culture (healthy, environmental friendly,
energy saving, less traffic).
58% 29% 12% 1%
19. Urbanization is controlled. Good urban
planning, preserving farm land, green spaces for
microclimate regulation.
49% 42% 5% 4%

61. 61
Results from table 4.2 show that, most of the ideas for a sustainable city are desirable,
especially these features of greening in the city, urban design that are harmonious with
natural landscape and the surrounding (100%), social justice (98%), sense of community
(99%), waste recycling (95%) and convenient public transport (98%).
However, there are still respondents with no interest (don’t care), though in small
percentages, particularly in issues of urban heritage preservation (9%), openness,
friendliness, tolerance of differences and embracing cultural diversity (8%), e-governance
(9%), bicycling culture and walkable downtown (12%).
The features that some people still have no ideas (don’t know) are rainwater infiltration
(8%), green economy (4%), control of urbanization (4%) and e-governance (3%).
More comments from respondents
Most of respondents dream of a city that is green, clean, beautiful, safe, slumless, no more
traffic jam and flooding, convenient public transit, a city with high level of public
awareness, diverse play grounds for children, democratization in community…
Respondents’ perception on Saigon - Ho Chi Minh city
What people like best about Saigon - What people like best about Saigon do vary. For
some respondents, it is just because Saigon is their hometown where their family and
friends are living, their birthplace with memories from childhood. For some other
respondents, it is Saigon’s people, those open-minded and friendly Saigoneses that they
like the best. Some respondents expressed their nostalgia of an old Saigon, with graceful
colonial buildings, old big trees along old green streets, while others prefer a modern,
dynamic Saigon. In general, people love Saigon because of its interesting and diverse
urban life and services, its promising opportunities for jobs, education, and recreation.
What people do not like most about Saigon - What people do not like most about Saigon
is quite united, with high consensus of opinions on problems of traffic jam, pollution and
flooding. Most of respondents shared the same disappointment on the city too much
crowded and overloaded infrastructure, bad transport system. Noise, wastes, lack of green,
bad planning and low public awareness were also mentioned.

62. 62
Respondents’ perception on HCMC’s urban performance
With the scale of 1 (bad) to 10 (excellent), people were asked to give their assessment on
HCMC’s performance in various urban aspects. The results of this evaluation are
illustrated in figure 4.17 below.
Figure 4.17 Evaluation HCMC’s performance on various urban aspects
[Scale of 1 (bad) - 10 (excellent)]
Figure 4.17 shows that, in general, HCMC got quite low scores on its functioning,
particularly in environmental quality, transportation, urban management and
infrastructure. Job opportunities and economic development is the only aspect which was
perceived as good.
3.99
4.16
4.53
4.97
5.07
5.21
5.30
5.56
5.90
5.95
6.44
6.45
6.53
8.23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Environmental quality
Transportation
Urban management
Infrastructure
Social justice
Green and public spaces
Urban heritage conservation
Identity
Architecture,designs, landscape
Sense of community, supporting and caring
Health care
Education
Opennessand friendliness
Job opportunities, economic development

63. 63
4.2.1 Results from interviews in slum areas
The fieldwork study at some slum areas in Ho Chi Minh City, interviews of slum dwellers,
had been conducted from 11th
to 22nd
of May 2011. The questions are flexible to be
appropriate in their specific contexts and situations (semi-structure), the main outline of
question sample is attached in appendix III.
Profile of interviewees
Total: 57 interviewees (43 female and 14 male).
Profile of respondents by gender, age and occupation is illustrated in figure 4.18 and
figure 4.19. Their ages range from 16 to 81 years old. Some photos from the interviews are
shown in figure 4.20.
Figure 4.18 Profile of respondents by gender and age
Figure 4.19 Profile of respondents by occupation
Female
75.44%
Male
24.56%
15.79%
14.04%
22.81%
26.32%
21.05%
0%
10%
20%
30%
16-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60
15.79%
19.30%
31.58%
33.33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Hired labors, workers
Small business (informal sector, street
vendors,tailors…)
Housewives
Other (jobless, retired…)

64. 64
Figure 4.20 Photos from interviews in the slum areas (HCMC, May 2011)

65. 65
Slum-dwellers and the urban aspects that matter most to them
When asked what their dream in life is, many interviewees referred to a decent house, or
even a small shelter on their own land, a more stable life, earning enough money to sustain
their living.
Figure 4.21 Interviewees’ priorities on top 3 of urban aspects matter most to them
[Sum of points on priority, top 1st = 3 points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point]
Interviewees were asked to give their priorities on top 3 of the aspects of a living place
that matter most to them. The factors listed are as the same as the list in figure 4.13 for
global online survey with 2 more additions (safety, security and no flooding) suggested by
the slum-dwellers themselves. Their responses were converted into points (top 1st = 3
points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point) and then sum of all the points for each aspect was
calculated and presents in figure 4.21. Results from figure 4.21 show that interviewees put
the highest weight on economic opportunities (jobs), followed by safety and security, and
sense of community. Observation from fieldstudy in these slum areas also showed that
nearly most of the interviewees have to struggle in life with very low condition of living.
Therefore, this implies that sustainability would be a very far away dream if the basic
subsistence needs have not been met.
0
1
2
3
12
16
22
31
49
74
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Historyand culture
Urbandesign
Nature andgreenspaces
Urbanlife,entertainment,recreation
Urbangovernance,transparent,accountable
Noflooding
Publicservices,healthcare and education
Sense of community
Safety,security
Economicopportunities

66. 66
5. Conclusions
“Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision fails due to lack
of direction. Vision with action can change the world.” (Shahmardaan n.d.)
From the principles of Earth Charter or One Planet Living to models created by think tank
of Philips Center or Ecocity Builders, sustainability has been envisioned in an integrated
framework of interrelated dimensions. Cities and human systems are considered as parts of
larger natural ecosystems and socio-economic communities, in which all things are linked
to each other in the web of life. Thus, urban sustainability can only be achieved with a
systems approach which recognizes this profound interconnectedness. Urban sustainability
visions are not fixed images but rather flexible and evolutionary perspectives.
The core philosophy of sustainability lies in the appreciation of nature as the symbol of
integrity, stability and beauty. Thus, a sustainable city would be a green city, in which
nature is well protected and integrated harmoniously in urban design and planning.
Moreover, there is no concept of waste in nature, energy and materials flow and regenerate
through ongoing cycles. Thus, a sustainable city would be a regenerative city, which
applies nature’s wisdom in its waste recycling and using local, renewable material and
energy. Respecting nature, living more simply within the Earth’s limits and reducing our
impact on the Earth’s resources, this implies the moderation in population reproduction,
economic production and consumption. These are crucial steps towards a low-carbon
economy, particularly in the context of Peak Oil, climate change and resource depletion.
Written beautifully in the Earth Charter, the key principle of sustainability is “care for the
community of life, with understanding, compassion and love”. Sustainability cherishes
sense of community, social capital, solidarity and a culture of peace with mutual respect,
sharing and caring. Cooperation rather than competition with nature and with each other is
advocated. Above all, happiness, which is the real meaning of life, does not lie on
materials terms alone but rather on our spiritual and social relationship in community.
A sustainable city would be a human friendly city. This human friendliness does not come
only from its open-minded, helpful and friendly people but also this attribute can be

67. 67
manifested and fostered by thoughtful urban design and planning, which encourage social
interaction and cultural exchange through public spaces, walkable neighborhoods…
Any imbalance or injustice implies unstability and high potential risk of collapse, thus it
can not sustain in the long run. Beside ecological balance, a sustainable city would be a
city of social and economic justice because equity is another primary principle of
sustainability. A sustainable city would not only be human friendly but also humane; an
inclusive city which embraces all its people, regardless of their race, gender, age, or social
and economic status. On the other hand, culture of sustainability appreciates tolerance of
differences, and diversity is seen as source of richness rather than conflicts.
Ideals of democracy, accountability, transparency and inclusive decision making are
essential attributes of good governance, which in turn plays a vital role as guiding forces
for cities on the journey toward sustainability. Since actors of governance comprise not
only the government but also the private sector and civil society, active citizen
participation is vital to the success of urban sustainability. Nowaday, with the
development of web 2.0, e-governance and other ICT applications in urban management
and operation promise huge potential in improving public services as well as enhancing
citizen participation and interaction in decision making.
*****
The global online survey and the questionnaire for HCMC’s residents present quite
promising results, in which urban sustainability models are welcomed by most of
respondents. It confirms that a sustainable city is also a desirable and loveable city.
On the other hand, reflection on reality of HCMC’s urban performance presents quite a
pessimistic picture. Many problems of traffic, pollution, flooding, overload infrastructure,
noise, lack of green and public spaces, corruption and bad planning pose great challenges
to sustainable development of this crowded, soon-to-be megacity. HCMC in perceptions
of respondents is still far away from urban sustainability visions. This also reminds us that,
although compact development is a good and efficient model, it would functions positively
only when there is reasonable size of population within its carrying and management
capacity, plus good governance and urban planning that harmonious with local nature.

68. 68
In addition, observation from the field study at some slum areas in HCMC also shows that
there are many people still live in very bad conditions and everyday still have to struggle
to survive. When basic subsistence needs have not been met yet, sustainability is only a
very far away dream, which sometimes seems to not exist in their perception. Therefore,
poverty alleviation, public empowerment and awareness raising are first basic steps on the
way toward future urban sustainability, before we can go any further.
Good leadership with urban sustainability vision is required for future success of a city.
Moreover, active citizen participation is also vital. Thus, capacity building for local
managers, officers, education and public awareness raising in general can be powerful
tools for positive social change and for nurturing a culture of sustainability.

69. 69
References
Andrews, C. (2006). Slow is beautiful - New visions of community, leisure and joie devivre. New
Society Publishers.
Annan, K. (1997, July). UNDP. Retrieved June 2011, from International Conference on Governance
for Sustainable Growth and Equity: http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/icg97/ANNAN.HTM
APTA. (2008). Public transportation – Benefits for the 21st century. Retrieved November 2008,
from American Public Transportation Association:
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/twenty_first_century.cfm
Baxter, K., Boisvert, A., Lindberg, C., & Mackrael, K. (2009). Sustainability Primer. Retrieved June
2011, from The Natural Step - Canada:www.thenaturalstep.org/canada
BioRegional and WWF. (2011). One PlanetVision. Retrieved June 2011, from
http://www.oneplanetvision.org/
Brown, L. (2008). Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. Earth Policy Institute. .
Bugliarello, G. (2008, August 22). Urban Sustainability. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from SciTopics:
http://www.scitopics.com/URBAN_SUSTAINABILITY.html
Callenbach, E. (1992). The Fate of Our Citiesis the Fate of the Earth. In B. Walter, L. Arkin, & R.
Crenshaw, Sustainable Cities - Concepts and Strategies for Eco-City development. Eco-Home
Media.
Capra, F. (1988). The Turning Point - Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. Bantam Books.
City of Nagoya. (2009, November). The 2050 Nagoya Strategy for Low-carbon City. Retrieved June
2011, from Climate Neutral Network:
http://www.unep.org/CLIMATENEUTRAL/Default.aspx?tabid=1055
Cunningham, W. P., Cunningham, M. A., & Saigo, B. W.(2003). Environmental Science - A Global
Concern (7th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Duxbury, N., & Gillette, E. (2007). Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability - Exploring
Concepts, Themes and Models. Creative CityNetwork of Canada.
ECI Secretariat. (2011, March). The Earth Charterand the Green Economy. Retrieved June 2011,
from The Earth Charter International:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/details.php?id=867
Ecocity Builders.(2010). Ecocity Builders. Retrieved May 2011, from
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org

70. 70
Ecologist, T. (2008, May). 30 Steps to an oil free world. Retrieved June 2011, from The Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/360427/
30_steps_to_an_oilfree_world.html
Edwards,A. R. (2005). The Sustainability Revolution - Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. New Society
Publishers.
EREC & Green Peace. (2007). Retrieved October 2008, from Energy [R]evolution – A Sustainable
World Energy Outlook:
http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf
G. Tyler Miller, J.(2004). Environmental Science - Working with the Earth (10th Edition).
Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
GeSI.(2008). SMART 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age. The Climate
Group - the Global eSustainability Initiative (GeSI).
Girardet, H. (2010). Regenerative Cities. Retrieved April 2011, from World Future Council:
www.worldfuturecouncil.org
Goldsmith, E. (2000). Hell on Earth: mankind and the environment. Retrieved 2005, from Edward
Goldsmith: http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page64.htm
Grazia, B.-F. (2009). Engaging indigenous peoples and local communities in the governance of
protected areas . Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Indigenous and Community ConservedAreas:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/presentation_governance.pdf
Haines, S. G., Aller-Stead, G., & McKinlay, J. (2005). Enterprise-Wide Change Superior Results
Through Systems Thinking. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hallsmith, G. (2003). The Key to Sustainable Cities - Meeting Human Needs, Transforming
Community Systems.New Society Publishers.
Hodgson, N. (2008). The WACOSS social sustainability assessment framework. Integral
Sustainability Symposium. http://integral-sustainability.net/wp-content/uploads/sas4-2-
hodgson.pdf.
Holmgren, D.(2002). Permaculture - Principles & Pathwayd Beyond Sustainability. Holmgren
Design Services.
Holocene. (2004). Holocene. Retrieved June 2011, from
http://www.holocene.net/sustainability/human_needs.htm
IEA. (2007). World Energy Outlook 2007. Retrieved November 2008, from International Energy
Agency: http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/WEO2007SUM.pdf
Jochmann, C. (2010). How to Build a Sense of Community. Retrieved June 2011, from
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-build-a-sense-of-community-a181853
Jones, E., Haenfler, R., & Johnson, B. (2007). The Better World Handbook. New Society Publishers.

71. 71
Kamata, S. (2011). Low carbon city development guidance. The Urban Sector Week 2011. World
Bank.
Kingston. (2010). Sustainable Kingston Plan - Designing our community's future together.
Kingston.
Kuhlman, A. (2007). Peak Oil – The End of Oil Age. . Retrieved October 2008, from
http://www.oildecline.com.
Kumar, S.(2007). Spiritual Compass- The three qualities of life. Green Books .
Lamborn, K. (2010). Visions of Sustainability: A Dream for My Students. Journal of Sustainability
Education .
Lerch, D. (2009, May). Post Carbon Cities - Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty. Retrieved
June 2011, from Post Carbon Cities: http://postcarboncities.net/pcc-presentations
Lin, J.(2006). Love, Peace, and Wisdom in Education - A Vision for Education in the 21st Century.
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development. Wiley .
Ministry of Environment - Japan. (2007, December 2011). Building a Low Carbon Society.
Retrieved June, from Ministry of Environment - Japan:
www.env.go.jp/earth/info/pc071211/en.pdf
Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems – Principles and Practices.
Island Press.
Nguyen, Q. K. (2005). Long termoptimization of energy supply and demand in Vietnam with
special reference to the potential of renewable energy. Oldenburg University .
NREL. (2002). Energy Analysis Office Report. Retrieved October 2008, from National Renewable
Energy Laboratory USA: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2002.ppt
Outhwaite, A. (2009, January). Backcasting . Retrieved 2011, from Arising Beyond Sustainability:
http://wearearising.org/2009/01/13/backcasting
Roseland, M. (2005). Toward Sustainable Communities - Resources for Citizens and Their
Governments. New Society Publishers.
Shahmardaan, B. R. (n.d.). Making Your Vision A Reality. Retrieved May 2011, from
http://www.shahmardaan.com/vision.htm
Sterry, M. (2010, December). Bionic City. Retrieved June 2011, from Earth 2.0:
http://earth2channel.com/magazine/article/22
SymbioCity. (2009). Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.symbiocity.org/

72. 72
The Philips Center for Health & Wellbeing.(2010, September). Insigt on Livable Cities Series - 1st
Edition. Retrieved May 2011, from The Philips Center for Health & Wellbeing: http://www.philips-
thecenter.org/
UNDP. (1997, January). Governance for sustainable human development. Retrieved June 2011,
from http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/
UN-HABITAT. (2010, March). Bridging the urban divide: Inclusive cities. Retrieved June 2011, from
UN HABITAT: www.unhabitat.org/documents/SOWC10/R11.pdf
Veenhuizen, R. v., & Danso, G. (2007). Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban
Agriculture. FAO.
WEF. (2011, January). Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government. Retrieved June 2011,
from World Economic Forum: http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-government
Wheeler, B., Wheeler, G., & Church, W. (2005). It's All Connected - A comprehensive guide to
global issues and sustainable solutions . Facing the Future: People and the Planet.
Williams, R. B.(2011, May 28). Wired for Success- Why we need livable, "walkable" cities.
Retrieved June 2011, from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-
success/201105/why-we-need-livable-walkable-cities
Worldwatch. (2011, June 16). Farming the Cities, Feeding an Urban Future. Retrieved June 2011,
from World Watch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org/farming-cities-feeding-urban-future-0
WWF & Ericsson. (2009). Communications Solutions for Low Carbon Cities. WWF.
Yamakawa, T. (2008). Aiming to Realize Low–Carbon Society via ICT. ICT Symposiumon ICTsand
Climate Change. Kyoto.
Zeeuw, H. d., Dubbeling, M., Veenhuizen, R. v., & Wilbers, J. (n.d.). Key Issues and Coursesof
Action for Municipal Policy Making on Urban Agriculture. Retrieved June 2011, from RUAF
Foundation - Resource Center for Urban Agriculture & Food Security: http://www.ruaf.org

73. 73
APPENDIX I
Sample of Global Online Survey
Link: https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilityvision/urban-survey
What kind of city/community do you want to live in? How do you envision it? Please feel free to
share with us your ideas. We're eager to hear from you! Many thanksin advance. :-)
About You
Your age
Your gender
Where do youlive? (Name of the city/community and the country, for example: Hanoi, Vietnam)
Your occupation or profession: Which sector do you workin? (or if you are a student: What is
your majorfield of study?)
Characteristics of Your Desirable City
Please relax and give us opinions about the city of your dream. :-)
Size - Population
A City with Sense of Place. Sense of belonging, place attachment and identity (Please tick all
options that apply)
• Caring, familiar neighborhood with a strong sense of community
• Strong sense of place by culture and historic preservation
• Strong sense of place bylocal biodiversity and natural landscape
• Beautiful urban designs that are harmonious with surroundings
• Original local food and traditions
• Other:

74. 74
A Human Friendly City(Please tick all options that apply)
• Great public spaces for lively human interaction, social and cultural exchange.
• Welcoming to people of diverse cultures and backgrounds
• Open-minded and helpful people
• Other:
A Green City (Please tick all options that apply)
• Many parks in the city,lots of trees on the streets
• Urban gardens, plant pots on balconies, green roofs, community gardens...
• Fresh air and clean water
• Other:
A Regenerative City(Please tick all options that apply)
• Renewable energies are used
• Energy conservation and energyefficient appliances are used
• Many green buildings usinglocal, renewable materials
• Wastes are separated at sources and then go for composting or recycling.
• Rainwater is collected to avoid urban flooding andfor groundwater renewal.
• Other:
A Smart and Connected City (Please tick all options that apply)
• E-governance (use of ICT toimprove public services and interactions between citizens and
government, making government more accountable, transparent and effective).
• Active citizens participation in decision - making
• Use of ICT, GPS in traffic management, lighting systems...
• Other:
A Bicycle-Friendly City - Walkable Neighborhoods (Please tick all options that apply)
Well-organized, diverse and efficient public transport system
• Bicycles are usedfor short distances. There is encouraging cycling culture.
• Services, transport stations are in walkable distances
• City centre is pedestrianised
• Car sharing or car rental models are available
• Other:

75. 75
An Interesting City (Please tick all options that apply)
Lively urban life with diverse activities of services,entertainment and recreation
• A city of innovations and creativity
• Community arts, music, dance and celebrations are fostered
• Other:
An Inclusive City - Social Justice (Please tick all options that apply)
• Good quality, affordable housing available for the poor.
• Education andjob opportunities for all. Special concern and assistance for people with
disability.
• Good health care and public services are accessible to all.
• Other:
What aspect of a city that makes you love to live there?What matters most to you? Please rate
the following aspects (1: least important, 5: most important)
1 2 3 4 5
Economic
opportunities
Caring and friendly
people, strong sense
of community
Beautiful urban
designs
Natural landscape,
green spaces
History and cultural
tradition,
celebration
Good urban
governance,
transparent,
accountable
Good public
services, health care
and education
Lively urban life

76. 76
More comment (Optional):Anyideas to make better cities that you want to share with us? Or
where in the world do you want to live, and why? Please feel free to leave your comment here.
Submit
Powered by Google Docs

77. 77
APPENDIX II
Sample of Survey in HCMC
BẢN THĂM DÒ ÝKIẾN VỀ ĐÔ THỊ VÀ PHÁT TRIỂN
Chân thành cảm ơn bạn đã chịu khó dành chút thời gian cho bản thăm dò ý kiến này!
Tên của bạn: __________________________________
Tuổi: ____ Nam Nữ
Nghề nghiệp: __________________________________
I. Thành phố mơ ước.
Bạn thíchsống trong một thành phố:
1. a. nhỏ, < 500.000 dân b. trung bình, 500.000 – 1 triệu dân c. lớn, > 1 triệu dân
Đặc điểm của thành phố
Rất
thích

Thích

Không
quan
tâm

Không
biết
(?)
Không
thích

2. Nhiều vườn hoa, công viên, cây xanh trên đường phố
3. Thiết kế đô thị hài hòa với địa thế, cảnh quan thiên
nhiên và không gian xung quanh
4. Những di sản đô thị cổ được gìn giữ, bảo tồn tốt
5. Có bản sắc riêng, những nét cảnh quan, kiến trúc, văn
hóa đặc thù mà không thể tìmthấy ở những chỗ khác
6. Thân quen, gần gũi (cảnh vật, con người, ẩm thực, văn
hóa…), nơi mà bạn có cảmgiác thuộc về nó
7. Cộng đồng thương mến, mọi người chia sẻ, tương trợ
lẫn nhau
8. Người dân thân thiện, cởi mở với người ngoài, với cái
mới. Sự đa dạng và khác biệt được tôn trọng

78. 78
Đặc điểm của thành phố
Rất
thích

Thích

Không
quan
tâm

Không
biết
(?)
Không
thích

9. Nhiều không gian công cộng cho những sinh hoạt
chung, gắn kết cộng đồng, trao đổi văn hóa…
10. Đời sống đô thị phong phú, nhiều khu vui chơi, giải
trí, rạp hát, quán ăn...
11. Không có những khu ổ chuột. Thành phố có những
chính sách nhà ở xã hội chất lượng tốt. Mọi người dân
đều có chỗ an cư lạc nghiệp.
12. Công bằng xã hội: Mọi công dân được tôn trọng, đối
xử bình đẳng trước chính quyền và pháp luật. Thành phố
quan tâmvà có những chính sách hỗ trợ người nghèo,
người khuyết tật, nhất là những cơ hội tiếp cận về giáo
dục, y tế, việc làm…
13. Kinh tế nhân bản, các doanh nghiệp có trách nhiệm
xã hội, môi trường làmviệc an toàn cho người lao động,
thời gian và điều kiện làm việc, chế độ lương, nghỉ phép
hợp lý.
14. Kinh tế xanh, các doanh nghiệp xanh với ý thức về
môi trường, chú ý đến tiết kiệm năng lượng, tài nguyên,
sử dụng năng lượng tái tạo, tận dụng vật liệu tự nhiên
của địa phương.
15. Chính phủ điện tử: giúp cho việc điều hành được
hiệu quả, minh bạch, tăng mức độ tương tác giữa người
dân và chính quyền. Các dịch vụ công và hành chính
được thực hiện nhanh chóng qua internet.
16. Rác được phân loại, làm phân bón hay tái chế
17. Đô thị được thiết kế khuyến khích thẩm thấu nước
mưa xuống đất để bổ sung vào nguồn nước ngầmvà
giảmngập lụt. Nước mưa cũng có thể được thu gomvà
tận dụng ở quy mô gia đình.
18. Hệ thống giao thông công cộng phát triển, đa dạng,
tiện lợi.
19. Khu trung tâm là phố đi bộ. Việc đi xe đạp được
khuyến khích (vừa giúp người dân khỏe vì vận động,
vừa giảmô nhiễm môi trường từ khói xe, giảm tiêu thụ
nhiên liệu, giảm kẹt xe…).

79. 79
20. Đô thị hóa được kiểm soát và quy hoạch tốt, gìn giữ
đất cho nông nghiệp, cho những khoảng xanh, giúp điều
hòa vi khí hậu.
21. Có những điều gì khác về thành phố mơ ước của mình mà bạn muốn chia sẻ thêm? Hơi riêng
tư một chút, ước mơ lớn nhất hiện tại của bạn là gì? (Không bắt buộc)
II. Sài Gòn - Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh
22. Những điều gì của Sài Gòn khiến bạn yêu nhất?
23. Những điều gì của Sài Gòn khiến bạn không thích nhất?

80. 80
24. Chấm điểm Tp. HCM - Với thang điểm 10, bạn hãy cho điểm Sài Gòn về những mặt sau (tất
cả đều là tương đối, ở đây không có đúng hay sai nên bạn cứ đánh giá theo quan điểm của mình.
Bạn có thể để trống ở những mục nào bạn còn phân vân):
Phương diện Điểm
Cơ hội việc làm, phát triển kinh tế
Kiến trúc, cảnh quan
Việc bảo tồn các di sản đô thị
Chất lượng môi trường
Cơ sở hạ tầng
Giao thông
Giáo dục
Y tế
Mảng xanh và những không gian công cộng
Công bằng xã hội
Sự gắn kết trong cộng đồng, tinh thần tương thân tương ái
Sự cởi mở, thân thiện
Bản sắc riêng
Quản lý đô thị
25. Câu hỏi thêm (không bắt buộc): Bạn có ý tưởng, giải pháp nào cho những vấn đề đô thị của
Sài Gòn mà bạn muốn chia sẻ? Theo bạn chúng ta cần làmgì, cần có những chính sách gì để
thành phố ngày càng trở nên tốt đẹp hơn? Bạn lạc quan hay bi quan khi nghĩ về tương lai của
thành phố?

81. 81
English Version of the Vietnamese Questionnaire
SURVEY ON URBAN AND DEVELOPMENT
Thank you for taking your time to answer this survey!
Your name: __________________________________
Age: ____ Male Female
Occupation: __________________________________
III. A Desirable City.
You like to live in a city:
2. a. small, < 500.000 inh. b. medium, 500.000 – 1 mio. inh. c. big, > 1 mio.
inh.
Characteristics of a desirable city
Like
very
much

Like

Don’t
care

Don’t
know
(?)
Don’t
like

2. Many gardens, parks, trees on the streets
3. Urban designs are harmonious with natural
landscape and surroundings
4. Urban heritages are well preserved
5. Original, having identity
6. Sense of place, sense of belonging (landscape,
people, gastronomy, culture…)
7. Strong community sense, supporting and loving
community
8. Friendly and open-minded people. Diversity
and Differences are respected
9. Many public spaces for community activities,
cultural and social exchanges…
10. Interesting urban life, many entertainment and
recreational areas, theatres, restaurants…
11. Slumless. City has good quality social housing
program. Everybody has a decent place to live.

82. 82
Characteristics of a desirable city
Like
very
much

Like

Don’t
care

Don’t
know
(?)
Don’t
like

12. Social justice: Every citizen is respected and
treated equally. Inclusive city which cares for the
marginal groups and has policies to assist the
poor, people with disability, especially in terms of
accessibility to education, health care and job
opportunities…
13. A humane economy: social responsible
enterprises which have safe working conditions
for labours, reasonable working time, holidays and
decent wages
14. A green economy: green business with
environmental consciousness, energy and resource
saving, using renewable energies, local and
natural materials.
15. E-governance: more transparent, effective and
responsive, increasing interaction between citizens
and decision-makers. Public and administrative
services are made quickly by internet.
16. Wastes are classified, then go for composting
or recycling
17. Urban designs encourage rainwater infiltration
to replenish groundwater and mitigate urban flood.
Rainwater harvesting can also be done at
household scales.
18. Diverse, developed and convenient public
transportation system.
19. Pedestrianized downtown. Encouraging
bicycling culture (healthy, environmental friendly,
energy saving, less traffic).
20. Urbanization is controlled. Good urban
planning, preserving farm land, green spaces for
microclimate regulation.
21. Is there anything else you want to share about your desirable city? What is your dreamnow?
(Optional)

83. 83
IV. Saigon – Ho Chi Minh City
22. What do you like best about Saigon?
23. What don’t you like most about Saigon?
24. Evaluating HCMC - With the scale of 10, please assess Saigon in terms of these following
aspects (there is no wrong or right answer, just freely give the score according to your personal
view):
Aspects Score
Job opportunities, economic development
Architecture, designs, landscape
Urban heritage conservation
Environmental quality
Infrastructure
Transportation
Education
Health care
Green and public spaces
Social justice
Sense of community, supporting and caring
Openness and Friendliness
Identity
Urban management
25. More comment (optional): Do you have any ideas, solutions for HCMC’s urban issues that you
want to share? What do we need to do, which policy we should have to make our city better? Are
you optimistic or pessimistic when thinking about the future of the city?

84. 84
APPENDIX III
Semi-structure Interviews in Slum Areas ofHCMC
Place and date of visit
Name of interviewee
Age: How old are they?
What is their occupation?
Period of time living there: How long have they livedin the place?
Housing Ownership: (If rented, how much do they have to pay per month?)
How many people living in how many square meters?
Sense of community: How do they experience sense of community here? Is sense of community
important to them?
Water: Do they use tap water (municipal water), groundwater (their own well)? Do they have to
buy water from private sources?
Electricity: Do they have municipal electricity? (Their awareness/experience on renewable
energy,energy conservation, energy-efficient appliances)
Wastes: How wastes are treated? Do they have municipal collecting or do they dump the wastes
nearby?
Green space (observation).
Mobility modes (observation and asking questions)
Urban flooding: Have they experienced urban flooding in the area? (Have they heard about
Climate Change?)
Internet: Do they connect tointernet? If yes, how do they think about e-government?
Recreation, entertainment: What do they do in their free time? (How is the public space in their
area? Do their communities offer any activities?)
Safety and security in the area?
Do they have health care insurance?
How do they care about their children education?
Social justice: Have they received any support from local government? Have they experienced
any injustice? Have their voice heard?

85. 85
Urban governance: How does local government in the area function? Are they transparent,
accountable, responsive? Is there public participation in decision-making?
Their top 3 priorities (1st = 3 points, 2nd = 2 points, 3rd = 1 point)
1 2 3
Economic opportunities
Sense of community
Urban design
Nature and green spaces
History, culture and tradition
Urban governance,
transparent, accountable
Public services, health care
and education
Urban life, entertainment,
recreation
Safety, security
No flooding
What is their dream in life now?
Suggestion for the city: Do they have anything they want the city to improve? What is their hope
for the future of the city?