world town planning day 2005 - convention proceedings

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��Curriculum Vitae :Dr. Morshidi studied Town and Country Planning at the Glasgow School of Art, Glasgow, Scotland between 1976 and 1980. After graduating with a BA (Hons) degree in Planning in 1980, he moved to University College Swansea, Wales to pursue his MSc (Econs) degree at the Centre for Development Studies. He began his academic career at the School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang in 1982, teaching subjects such as Urban Geography and Regional Development Planning. In 1986, Dr. Morshidi enrolled for a Ph.D. programme at the University of Southampton, England and his research focused on regional industrial development in Malaysia. He completed his Ph.D. three years later and resumed his academic career at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Since 1990, Dr. Morshidi’s research and publications has focused on the relationship between economic

globalization and urban transformation, with particular emphasis on Kuala Lumpur and its urban region. His teaching responsibilities are Urban and Metropolitan Geography, Geography of Services, and Industrial Geography. He is also active in contract research and consultancy work particularly for the World Bank, UNESCO-Bangkok and public agencies in Malaysia (in particular the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia). He has published widely (as author and co-author) on subjects such as urbanization, globalization, housing, industrial activities, tourism, the campus community, and issues and problems affecting graduates. Dr. Morshidi has also published articles on planning and geography in international journals such as Urban Studies, CITIES, Built Environment, Asia Pacifi c Viewpoint, Asian Geographer, Asian Profi le, and The Indonesian Quarterly.

URBAN COMPETITIVENESS AND LIVEABILITY IN THE

MALAYSIAN CONTEXT : INDICATORS, DETERMINANTS AND

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

PROF. DR. MORSHIDI SIRAT

DIRECTOR

NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

RESEARCH INSTITUTE

MALAYSIA


SPEAKER: PROF. DR. MORSHIDI SIRAT

PAPER 6: URBAN COMPETITIVENESS AND LIVEABILITY IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT: INDICATORS, DETERMINANTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Abstract:

It is frequently argued that economic globalization process has placed cities in a highly competitive framework of intercity linkages and networks. Within the context of this highly charged competitive endeavour, every city is obliged to provide a minimum package of enabling conditions that will serve the forces of economic globalization. However, striking the right balance between policies for competitiveness (which may not be sustainable in the longer term) and policies for liveability is of critical importance. For many cities, particularly those in the developing countries, the perplexing question is how to strike the right balance between these two sets of policies.

This paper explores the globalization-urban competitiveness-liveability nexus, focusing on the theoretical and practical aspects of applying it in the Malaysian context. While many cities, Malaysian cities included, have embraced the competitive spirit, ‘urban competitiveness’ as a concept has to be explicated. How does ‘liveability’ fit into an urban competitiveness model which has sustainability as its building block? How can this urban competitiveness-liveability framework be operationalised in the Malaysian context? What are the impediments and shortcomings? What are the implications for planning practice?

196

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

Paper 6


IntroductionIt has been argued that economic globalisation process has a tendency towards spatial and social selectivity (see Editorial Environment and Urbanization 2002). Spatially, global forces which drive globalisation are noted to be centred in cities and impacted different social groups in cities differently. This city-centered nature of economic globalization process is due to the fact that it is in cities that global operations and their activities such as the rise of advanced producer services, the ‘formation of powerful partnerships’, ‘the development of monumental real estate’, and ‘the emergence of new forms of local governance’ are located (see van Vliet 2002). The business environments preferred by global capital impact on the lives of citizens, on urban spaces, services, amenities and infrastructure (Douglass and Friedman, 1998). In other words, the role of cities is central to globalization process (Sassen 2002), and cities mediate the reciprocal relationships between economic globalization on the one hand and human development on the other (van Vliet 2002, p. 33).

Notably, intensifying economic globalization has resulted in ‘hyper-competition’ among cities for hyper-mobile or ‘vagabond’ global investment (see Douglass 2002). While it is generally perceived that competition among cities has potential benefits in terms of economic efficiency, it risks the longer-term economic resilience and viability of cities and regions (see Douglass 2002, p. 56). In this sense therefore while urban competitiveness is increasingly becoming the vital factor for survival (see Rondinelli 2001), globalization-urban competitiveness-liveability nexus must be giving due consideration and not mere lip service. Liveability is about the creation and support of humane living environments; there should be liveable places and communities in cities that offer a high quality of life. Webster and Muller (2000 cited in Morshidi et al. 2003, p. 26) observed that competitiveness assessment, as a formal function of government, is still rare in cities of the developing countries, thus the need for a manual containing operational guidelines to implement an agreed-upon realistic, practical approach to urban competitiveness assessment be developed. In this sense we are concerned about the embeddedness of liveability consideration in the urban competitiveness concept itself. It has to be recognized that cities cannot be competitive unless they can attract and retain people with the full range of necessary skills, unless they are places where people choose to live —providing excellent education, a clean and healthy environment, stimulating leisure and cultural opportunities and free from crime. In other words we see urban competitiveness and liveability are inseparable objectives, but how can they be optimally pursued? It is not about balancing these two objectives; it is about achieving these two objectives simultaneously.

It is acknowledged that liveability issues, such as quality of life among urban Malaysians and other urban indicators have been investigated by several agencies/authors in Malaysia, as a separate exercise and not as an over-compassing framework of urban competitiveness. The basic premise of this paper is that the question of dual objectives of increasing competitiveness and liveability should not arise for such an approach would result in tension. In this sense therefore, the primary objective of this paper then is to explore urban competitiveness, with liveability as a major component of the competitiveness assessment.

197


National ConventionWorld Town Planning Day 2005


This paper will proceed in the following manner. Immediately following the introductory section, a contextual discussion of the paper will be presented with the core conceptual building blocks elaborated upon. Subsequently, an attempt will be made to apply the urban competitiveness-liveability nexus in the context of cities in Malaysia, focusing on a framework that could be used in the assessment process. The discussion will revolve around issues relating to major determinants, appropriate indicators and measures of urban competitiveness and liveability. Concluding comments will necessarily focus on policy implications of the assessment framework. As noted earlier, a major portion of this paper is ‘lifted’ from Morshidi et. al. (2003). A revised version of the earlier paper is presented in this World Town Planning Day Convention in order to solicit comments and suggestions from practicing planners.

Unbundling Urban Competitiveness At the scale of urban areas or cities, the idea or notion of competitiveness refers to the reality of the urban economy and its capacity for action. It has to be noted that national competitiveness does not equate urban competitiveness; many of the elements that are important for the nation in terms of its competitiveness have little or no relevance for the city. Selling the city, city marketing, which is an example of place marketing, has become an important element in urban competitive strategies, with liveability as a primary objective (see Morshidi 2002, 1998). However, it is also important to realize that “the competitiveness of cities reflects not only their current capacity, but also is a function of their heritage, resulting in spatially differentiated pattern of competitiveness” (Rogerson 1999, p. 971).

Competitiveness: conceptualizing the concept for the urban or city levelBy way of a theoretical discussion, this section seeks to first, rationalize ways in which the concept of competitiveness is applicable at the urban or city level. Second, it seeks to identify the elements that constitute competitiveness at the city or urban level as opposed to the national and firm parameters and methodology at the level of individual cities for the purpose of monitoring urban economic growth over time.

‘The theory of competitiveness is very much derived from the empirical studies of US cities which operate in a free market system’ (Wong 2002, p. 1833). Nonetheless some very important empirical works on competitiveness have emerged in Europe recently. While it is important at this juncture to explain the notion of competitiveness it has to be noted that a proper discussion on this is beyond the scope of this paper. Here, an attempt is made to briefly describe the concept, their constituents, measurements in so far as these are pertinent and relevant to this paper.

Urban competitiveness: the conceptAccording to Kresl and Singh (1999, p. 1017) ‘from Adam Smith to Michael Porter, the policy literature has traditionally reserved the concept of competitiveness for the situation of individual firms or of national economies, with little or no attention being paid to the competitiveness of urban economies.’ This is unavoidably so for while most writers have generally agreed as to what competitiveness refers to at the national level following significant work by the WEF and the IMD, ‘it remains unclear just what competitiveness is when applied to places, which have objectives distinct from those of private-sector organizations’ (Malecki 2002, p. 929). Krugman (1996) asserts that ‘competitiveness is an attribute of companies,

198


Paper 6


not of cities, regions, countries or continents’ (see Begg 1999, p. 796). Similarly, according to Georghiou and Metcalfe (1993, p. 164) ‘competitiveness of the nations is nothing more than an appropriate aggregate of the competitiveness of the firms they contain’. Porter (1990, 1996) has developed a diamond shaped model comprising a system with four self-reinforcing determinants (i.e. factor conditions; firm strategy; structure and rivalry; demand conditions; and related and supporting industries) to explain the competitive advantage of cities, regions and nations. Begg (1999, p. 796) argues that given the regular use of Porter’s ‘diamond’ model as the underpinning for local economic development strategy, the reasoning therefore could also be applied to cities. In fact, Kresl (1995) has successfully conceptualized a framework for an ‘urban dimension of competitiveness’, which was subsequently fine-tuned (see Kresl and Singh 1999).

Interest in competitiveness in relation to urban areas or cities among policy-makers and academics has grown rapidly since the early nineties (see for example, Cheshire and Gordon 1995, 1996; Porter 1995; Bramezza 1996; Scott and Soja 1996; Jensen-Butler et al. 1997; Oatley 1998; Begg 1999; Cheshire 1999; Jensen-Butler 1999; Kresl and Singh 1999). Not surprisingly, since the early nineties a majority of studies on urban competitiveness ‘have largely been conducted in Western Europe and in North America’ (Srinivas 1999, p. 163). This is so because accelerating economic globalization process and gradual economic liberalization in the more advanced developing countries bring about pressures on cities in these countries to compete globally. In the developing world an attempt was made by Webster and Muller (2000) to apply the idea of competitiveness for urban regions experiencing ‘rapid socio-economic and technological change associated with globalization’. For reasons which will become apparent in this paper, attempts have been few and ad hoc in nature.

A survey of the literature pertaining to urban competitiveness and its applications in the policy arena clearly indicates that the exact meaning of this concept is vague and consequently there are multiple interpretations. Srinivas (1999, p. 164) for instance laments that ‘there is no universally acceptable or available definition of urban competitiveness’. This situation, according to Francis (1989 cf. Begg, 1999, p. 796), has ‘led to confusion in the policy debate’. Bramezza (1996, p. 2) concurs ‘that not many efforts have been made to define the concept of urban competitiveness’ and argues that there is a need to give the concept substance.

In trying to understand competitiveness as a concept, Begg (1999, p. 796) points out that at one level, it is equated, usually loosely, with the ‘performance’ of an economy. Here, we are referring to the city’s economy and it is an absolute measure. At another level, Begg (1999) reasons that because it relates to competition, it implies a comparative element, with the implications that to be competitive, a city has to undercut its rival or offer better value for money. In this sense, urban competitiveness is essentially about securing (or defending) market-share. For the purpose of this paper, urban competitiveness is taken to mean ‘the ability of a city to exploit or create comparative advantage, and thereby to generate high and sustainable economic growth relative to its competitors’ (D’Arcy and Keogh 1999, p. 917).

199




In addition to defining urban competitiveness, it is also important to isolate elements that can actually be used to explain the concept itself (Srinivas 1999, p. 164). In attempting to explain the determinants of urban competitiveness, Kresl (1995) argues for a dichotomy between ‘economic’ determinants (such as factors of production and infrastructure) and ‘strategic’ determinants which include policy factors and institutional design (Begg 1999, p. 800-801). Keun (2000, p.101) asserts that and this is the stance adopted in this paper: ‘... it is important not to judge urban competitiveness as merely an economic issue, but also a multifaceted issue comprised of a social, environmental, and ecological infrastructure that harmonizes people, enterprises, and ecology’. Based on this encompassing notion, Samsung Institute of Economic Research (1997 quoted in Keun 2000, p. 101) subsequently defined the term “urban competitiveness” as the ‘degree of a city’s capability and the comparative advantage to improve the economic conditions of the cities, to enhance quality of life, and its ability to link and mobilize these elements to human development’. Following the above, it is argued that a city with urban competitiveness is a good city for people, enterprises, and ecology’ (see Keun 2000, p. 101).

Conceptualizing urban competitiveness: influences, determinants and measuresThe economies of urban areas, in particular metropolitan areas, ‘will be driven in the twenty-first century by continued globalization of trade and investment, by the economic and trade policies of their national governments, and by the ability of enterprises located within their boundaries to compete internationally based on their capacity to provide quality goods and services rapidly through the world’ (Rondinelli 2001, p.3). These are important influences of city growth and development in the future. Arguably, a measure is needed to synthesize these influences and determinants in order to gauge their impacts on cities.

The Asiaweek (1998) for instance, has developed a methodology to rank cities based on their urban competitiveness and quality of life. In their survey of 40 Asian cities, they constructed 24 key indicator1 categories each representing the urban competitiveness or quality of life of these 40 Asian cities. Asiaweek’s ranking methodology was replicated by the Samsung Institute for Economic Research which conducted a survey for 30 world cities. In this particular exercise three key indicator areas which were more general in nature were utilized namely, economic factors, quality of life, and civic consciousness. Economic factors were further refined into four sub-categories while quality of life was further refined into five sub-categories. Compared to those of Asiaweek (1998) the Samsung Institute for Economic Research’s indicators was more general in nature.

1 (1) average life expectancy, (2) hospital beds per 1,000 people, (3) per-capita state expenditure for education, (4) class size of primary schools, (5) university-educated people as a percentage of total population, (6) sulfur dioxide in the air (PPM), (7) dust/suspended particles in the air (ug/m3), (8) average monthly rental per square meters, (9) ratio of housing price to income, (10) square meter of parks and fields per capita, (11) vehicles per kilometer of city road, (12) existence of a mass transit rail system, (13) number of movie theaters per 100,000 people, (14) unemployment rate, (15) GDP growth, (16) annual urban inflation rate, (17) vacation and public holiday per year, (18) criminal cases for every 10,000 persons, (19) number of telephones per 1,000 people, (20) average time taken to commute to work, (21) number of TV sets per 1,000 people, (22) percentage of population with sewerage, (23) percentage of population with piped water, and (24) average income (Asiaweek, December 11, 1998).

200


Paper 6


Rogerson (1999, p. 970) rightly notes that ‘...city ratings attract controversy’. He argues that there are two possible contentions arising from such an exercise and these could be summarized as follows: (i) ‘league tables [epitomize] the desire for what could be termed as a “reductionist view” of places and their living environments’ (‘offering simplicity at the expense of reflecting the multiple facets of a locality’); and (ii) problem arising from the disparity between ‘statistical indicators’ and ‘people’s perceptions of quality of life in a place’. In this context it is worth examining in some detail other important work such as that of Kresl and Singh (1999), Begg (1999), Webster and Muller (2000), and Deas and Giordano (2001) which have provided some important direction with respect to the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of this paper.

Kresl (1995) has conceptually identified two categories of determinants of urban competitiveness namely economy and strategy. According to Kresl (1995) economic determinants include factors of production, infrastructure, location, economic structure and urban amenities. Strategic determinants include governmental effectiveness, urban strategy, public-private sector co-operation and institutional flexibility. Following such conceptual framework, Kresl and Singh (1999) have developed ‘a measure of the competitiveness of an individual urban economy that is both quantitative and comparative’. Using data for the 24 largest US Metropolitan Statistical Areas (excluding the special case of Washington, DC) Kresl and Singh (1999) have successfully ranked these metropolitan areas according to their competitiveness measures. Subsequently, they described each urban economy from the standpoint of its competitive strengths and weaknesses, in comparison with those of 23 other large US urban economies. It is at this level that they are able to evaluate the city’s strategic performance and planning, and even to suggest the elements that should be included in its strategic plan. Based on this framework, ‘competitiveness is not an attribute that can be measured directly; all one can do is gauging its nature and magnitude by the shadow it casts…’ (See Kresl and Singh 1999, p. 1018).

Kresl and Singh’s (1999) work exemplified an approach whereby a small set of variables that can be taken as indicators of a city’s competitiveness are selected. The underlying rationale being that ‘an urban economy will be competitive relative to other urban economies to the degree that its growth in these variables, during a specific period of time, exceeds, or does not, that of its “frame of reference” urban economies’ (p. 1018). They subsequently formalized their conceptualization as follows:

Urban competitiveness ranking = (changes in manufacturing value added, changes in retail sales and changes in business services receipts)

Kresl and Singh (1999) use of the above three variables as indicators of urban competitiveness were justified and confirmed through relative weights based on discriminant analysis. In so far as the first indicator - the growth of retail sales – is concerned they argued that ‘relatively rapid growth of retail sales will be a function of growth of the urban economy’s population, of rising income of its inhabitants and of the degree to which it is an attractive location for non-inhabitants to visit for shopping, recreation, cultural events and dining. Again, each of these components will be indicative of competitiveness.’ The second indicator - the growth of manufacturing value added - is important to include for ‘relatively rapid growth of value added

201




in manufacturing will be reflective of investments in plant and equipment, in human capital and in infrastructure. This may reflect an expansion of the manufacturing sector or a concentration on higher valued-added activities, and as such will give an indication of the overall competitiveness of the urban economy’s manufacturing sector’. They justified the inclusion of the third indicator - the growth of business services receipts - on the basis that ‘services are essential to any expansion of economic activity and to any transformation of economic activity. While services as a category include several items – such as amusement, auto repair and personal services - which have little direct relation to economic competitiveness, business services expansion is reflective of an economy which is capable of restructuring itself in the contemporary context’. The logic of the framework’s conceptualization is that ‘[i]f the growth rate of these variables in one city is high relative to that of other cities... it is relatively competitive-that is, it is an attractive place to make goods, to provide services and to purchase goods and services’ (see Kresl and Singh 1999, p. 1019). They argued further that ‘[t]his competitiveness may be reflected in the growth of other variables, but in ways that may be unpredictable and will be difficult to use for comparative analysis’ (p. 1019). For instance, in the context of the relationship between population growth and growth of manufacturing and service employment they argued that ‘while one might assume intuitively that competitiveness would be positively correlated with growth in population, income and/or per capita income, this is not necessarily true’ (p. 1019). In their framework, they ‘allow these variables to enter the analysis only as [their] empirical work shows them to be predictable and significant-that is, as explanatory rather than as indicative factors’ (p. 1019).

Begg (1999) examined the various influences on urban economic performance which he interpreted as ‘competitiveness’ factors. These competitive factors were brought together in a schema shown graphically in Figure 1. Evidently, from the output side, ‘the ultimate target variable is the standard of living, adjusted to allow for non-pecuniary influences on the quality of life’ (Begg, 1999, p. 801). It is important to note that this is where ‘liveablity’ becomes relevant in the whole exercise on urban competitiveness assessment.

From the input side, Begg draws mainly from Porter’s four categories of determinants but adapted for variations across cities rather than nations. Begg (1999, p. 801-802) argues that some of these determinants are mutually reinforcing; others contradictory; certain characteristics may be favorable for a period, but turn sour subsequently. These four categories of determinants are sectoral trends, company characteristics, business environment, and innovation and learning.

202


Paper 6


The work of Deas and Giordano (2001), on the other hand, is clearly an attempt to link aggregate competitive performance of firms with place-specific ‘asset bases’ evident in cities. They argued that the degree of variation in the aggregate competitive performance of firms can be explained with reference to disparities in the place-specific ‘asset bases’ in cities. Having examined both the arguments for and against applying competitiveness at the geographical scales, in particular at the city level, Deas and Giordano have conceptualized a working model which attempts to accommodate elements of both arguments. They have tried to do this by using previous work by Kresl (1995) on ‘strategic determinants’ of urban competitiveness, that of Rapkin and Strand (1995), and that of Buckley et al, (1988) as reference points. Deas and Giordano (2001) have conceptualized the elements of the framework by ‘distinguishing between sources of competitiveness (the initial stock of assets present in a geographical unit), on one hand, and ‘outcomes of competitiveness (the result of attempts by firms to exploit these assets) on the other’.

‘[A]sset bases of a sample of cities and conurbations are identified, and the effectiveness with which these are translated into competitive outcomes by firms is considered. In attempting to assess the relationship between assets and outcomes, they have also attempted to consider the intervening impact of Buckley et al’s (1988, p. 177) `management process’, which originally is ‘the differential ability of firms to exploit resources at their disposal’. However,

URBANPERFORMANCE

Standard of living/ quality of life

Employment rate Productivity

Top-down Sectoral trends

and ‘macro’influences

Company characteristics

The business environment

Capacity for innovation and

learning

URBANPERFORMANCE



Top-down

Captures maininfluences onstructure of urbaneconomy

Refer to mix ofattributes of companies

Factors outside the directcontrol of the firm butexerting strong influenceon attraction of locality

Factors that inhibit orencourage capacities offirms to develope newprocesses or products

Sectoral trends and ‘macro’influences




learning

Figure 1: The urban competitiveness maze Source: Adapted from Begg 1999, p. 802.

203




Deas and Giordano have reconceived it to mean ‘the efforts of local policy actors to create, exploit, supplement, and replenish city asset bases, and to transform liabilities into assets’ (p. 1413). Figure 2 is a graphical representation of Deas and Giordano’s conceptualization of the relationship between “competitive assets’ and “competitive outcomes”.

Figure 2: The relationship between assets and outcomes.Source: Deas and Giordano 2001, p. 1413

The work of Webster and Muller (2000) is specific to the situation of cities in developing countries. Their technique revolves around four assessment categories namely economic structure, territorial endowment, human resources and institutional milieu. Economic structure includes key elements such as economic composition, productivity, output and value added, and investment, both foreign and domestic. Territorial endowment encompasses non-tradables associated with a given place, such as location, infrastructure, natural resources, amenity, cost of living and business dealings and the city’s image. Skill levels, availability, and costs of labor in the city make up the human resources category. Institutional and cultural milieu and where human resources are utilized would ultimately determine their value and ‘fit’ in the emerging socio-spatial and economic fabric of the cities. According to Webster and Muller (2000, p. 5) human resources, along with the institutional milieu are probably the most important factors in explaining competitiveness.

Policy/institutional environment (mix of agencies, input of resources)

Physical environment (land and buildings, infrastructure)

Social environment (cohesion or exclusion, interfirm relationships)

Economic environment (sectoral structure of economy)

Area-based outcomes (property rental levels)

Firm-based outcomes (net small firm formation, numbers of corporate headquarters)

Competitive assets

Competitive outcomes ‘Non

governance’

‘Durability’

‘Governance’ (local and nonlocal)

204


Paper 6


Webster and Muller (2000) proposed three assessment modalities – regional economics, benchmarking and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis (Table 1). ‘Regional economics ...focuses on quantitative analysis of a city region’s economy, and may include “snapshots” over time (time series)’ (Webster and Muller 2000, p. 6). Key variables in such an analysis may include but not particularly limited to economic structure, and cost of production. Benchmarking is a modality particularly suited in the assessment of the performance of urban systems, based on identification of comparable “mentor” cities and involving five processes (Webster and Muller 2000, p. 7). These processes are (i) refocusing goals (vision), objectives, and indicators, on outcomes, (ii) developing indicators to measure progress towards the desired state, (iii) relating performance to benchmarks, (iv) identifying factors underlying performance, and (v) guidance of programmatic and allocation decisions. Webster and Muller (2000, p. 7) noted that there are both advantages and disadvantages of this technique: its advantages lie in the fact ‘that it is dynamic – mentor cities keep changing – and it encourages visioning and performance monitoring’. ‘Its weakness is that it does little to identify means to achieve desired outcomes, other than observed apparent causal relationships (which may be difficult to identify) between policies, behavior, and outcomes in mentor cities’ (Webster and Muller 2000, p. 7). SWOT analysis is a well-known technique and is usually undertaken within the context of strategic planning at all levels. It involves three processes namely (i) identifying and assessing strengths and weaknesses in the existing urban system, paying particular attention to institutions, (ii) identifying and assessing external opportunities, and threats – nationally, regionally, and globally, and (iii) monitoring changes in the above conditions (Webster and Muller 2000, p. 8). SWOT analysis offers several advantages. For an analyst it helps him/her ‘in identifying realistic thrusts or niches for a city to pursue in a competitive, conflict ridden world under conditions of limited resources and rapid change’ (Webster and Muller 2000, p. 8). Table 1 offers Webster and Mueller’s step-by-step methodology for competitiveness assessment in developing countries.

205




Table 1: Urban competitiveness assessment process

Steps Activities/checklist

1 Determine issues and concerns relevant to competitivenessDoes a mission statement on competitiveness exist?

2 Conduct stakeholders focus groups on competitiveness of city (optional)• Guides where to look (but be careful)

3 Undertake pattern analysis of economic structure, specialization, labor force, investment• Utilize secondary data• Time series• Review surveys of informal sector

4 Identify comparable cities for benchmarking purposes

5 Undertake analysis of local endowments e.g., location, infrastructure, amenities• Compare with competitive cities

6 Identify pillars of economic strength (specialization, clusters: especially in share gaining activities)

7 Asses external drivers affecting city: opportunities and threats• Scenarios formulation (optional)• Domestic, regional, global

8 Assess internal strengths and weaknesses• Networks, institutions, champions• Identify levers that city controls and focus on these: often amenity and infrastructure• Undertake surveys, focusing on:• Key firms (anchors, emerging) and institutions (especially key technical educator)• Individuals (key stakeholders and champions) who will exert high leverage

9 Identify realistic competitive strengths and weaknesses

10 Develop competitiveness strategyE.g., learning region, cluster, low cost production, investment driven export base

11 Establish benchmarks, policy indicators, and monitoring mechanisms

Source: Adapted from Webster and Muller 2000, p. 9.

206


Paper 6


There are considerable academic debates with regards to the what, how and why of urban competitiveness. Interestingly, studies noted above have shown that the concept of competitiveness has relevance to urban economies and its management in this era of rapid global change. More importantly, the three conceptual and empirical works reviewed above presented us with a workable framework to operationalize urban competitiveness in the context of cities in a more advanced developing countries such as Malaysia. However, adaptations and modifications are at the level of the city (arising from financial and logistics limitations, and to some extent due to ignorance about the importance of statistics and data) inevitable as the many Malaysian cities are faced with several constraints, and foremost among these is the paucity of data.

Hypothesizing and Operationalizing Determinants, Indicators and Measures of Urban Competitiveness for Malaysian Cities/TownsDeterminants of competitiveness are elements that can be used to explain the concept of urban competitiveness itself, as well as to asses the relative degree of competitiveness of the individual city and to identify its strengths and weaknesses. The latter aspect is of particular importance in the context of recommendations for enhancing competitiveness of the individual city. Borrowing from Kresl and Singh (1999), the operational definition for urban competitiveness thus adopted was:Urban competitiveness = f (economic determinants + strategic determinants)

However, these economic and strategic determinants have been identified in this paper in terms of specific attributes and particular situation of the city under investigation and may not follow strictly Kresl and Singh (1999) criteria. Urban competitiveness is also viewed in terms of assets and outcomes (see Deas and Giordano 2001) or viewed in another way as the inputs and outputs respectively. Inputs or assets need to be utilized or exploited in order to bring about desired outcomes. The challenge is not so much on how abundant assets are translated into desired outcomes but more importantly the manner in which cities lacking assets could translate this situation into opportunities for itself.

At the outset it was noted that ‘[c]ompetitiveness is not an attribute that can be measured directly; all one can do is gauging its nature and magnitude by the shadow it casts...’ (Kresl and Singh 1999, p. 1017) through indicators. There are many ideas and definitions about what indicators are or should be. Consequently, while there are numerous indicators at the level of the city that could be considered as proxy measures of competitiveness at this geographical scale, it was expedient to select only a small set of indicators of competitiveness for each city under investigation based on previous research and theories. These are subsequently verified at the level of each city through a series of field investigations and interviews with government officials. Through this exercise the relevance of each measure of urban competitiveness was determined.

207




Indicators embrace social, economic and physical dimensions and this premise were applied in the context of urban competitiveness in this paper. In the course of choosing indicators, a ‘valuative-theoretical’ approach formed the basis of the exercise (MacRae 1985, p. 9 cited in Wong 2002). This approach emphasizes (i) the importance of the practical policy value of indicators, and (ii) integration of theory and measurement (see also Wong 2002, p. 1834). The indicators selected in the final analysis represent both inputs and outputs measures of urban competitiveness with the primary objective of being able to define policy problems and informing policy formulation (see Wong, 2002). This part of the investigation necessitated the need for quantitative approach, and in view of the fact that there were serious issues pertaining to data availability (in terms of quantity and quality) in some cities qualitative approach was employed. The qualitative approach was primarily discursive and speculative in nature.

In view of the fact that indicators are the information base that decision-makers utilize in order to decide on the action to take, indicators were chosen based on the following: they are as explicit as possible, easy to comprehend, and commonly agreed by all players at the city level. Subsequently, an indicator system was devised, which comprised a mechanism to make relevant information accessible to policy-makers.

The conceptual framework underpinning this paper is presented graphically in Figure 3. It depicts the three main components of the framework namely sources of urban competitiveness, the exploitation process embodying the various networks and relationships, and the competitiveness outcomes at the level of the firm, spatial and policy-making. Each component has its own differentiating elements, which were in effects key indicator categories of urban competitiveness.

If cities such as Kuala Lumpur, George Town, Johore Bahru and federal territory such as Labuan are to be conceived in terms of urban competitiveness notion then, these cities/federal territory must be good from the point of view of their inhabitants and enterprises in aspects broadly categorized by Kresl (1995) as ‘economic’ and ‘strategic’ determinants. While it is more challenging to develop determinants or urban competitiveness in the style of Begg (1999) or Deas and Giordano (2001), the paucity of data in these four cities make such framework unworkable.

Interestingly, cities/federal territory noted above have indicated in their respective strategic plan several goals and objectives which could then be taken as the starting point to develop appropriate determinants of urban competitiveness. Kresl’s (1995) classification of economic and strategic determinants may be useful as a reference point to begin to conceptualize these determinants around what were indicated in the various strategic plans. But Webster and Muller’s (2000) categories could be utilized to further refine these determinants minimizing overlaps between factors in the process. These determinants could in turn be used in order to assess the progress of each city‘s competitiveness and its merits over time. In other words, these determinants are used both as a standardized measure of achievement and as a basis for intervention for improvement (Rogerson 1999, p. 983).

208


Paper 6


Based on the four possible determinant categories noted above it is possible to identify several key indicators that could be isolated and reworked in order to generate relevant and manageable number of variables of urban competitiveness for the four cities. Once again, the number of variables that would be adopted finally depends very much on data situation in the four cities. Figure 4 summarizes the definitions of the various indicators based on a broad assessment of the situation of the four cities/federal territory after a series of field investigations and interviews.

Figure 3: Framework for conceptualizing urban competitiveness in terms of assets and outcomes

Source: Adapted from Deas and Giordano 2001 and Webster and Muller 2000.

Competitive

outcomes

Competitive

assets exploitation

Economic structure

Territorial endowment

Human resources

Spatial-based

outcomes

Firm-based outcomes

sustainability

public-private

Sources of Competitiveness Relationship

Outcomes of Competitiveness

Policy outcomes

Institutional or cultural milieu

209




Figure 4: Definition of indicators of urban competitiveness

Sources: Adapted from Deas and Giordano 2001, p. 1413-1414, and Webster and Muller 2000, p. 43.

Urban competitiveness measuresWhile the indicators listed in Table 2 are useful in order to assess urban competitiveness, city authorities trying to conduct this exercise would realize that a major obstacle would be finding appropriate data to measure most of these urban competitiveness indicators. Based on field interviews, there is a paucity of data with regards to productivity, output and value added and investment pattern at the level of these cities. There is also a serious lack of appropriate quantitative data to measure satisfactorily intangibles within the ‘institutional and cultural milieu’ category. Even if there are data available, these may not coincide with city boundaries (a good example is George Town, where most data and statistics relate to Pulau Pinang).

Table 2: Relevant indicators of urban competitiveness for selected Malaysian cities/federal territory

structural changes in industry

degree of concentration and diversity

centrality of industry (presence and quality of

local customers, local capable suppliers, local competitive, related industries)

labour force size and growth

skills and education profile

educational facilities and curricula

industrial structure and labour force fit (demand vs. supply ; employment growth by sectors vs. training)

demography location and access

analysis physical infrastructure amenity (climate and

natural amenity, environmental quality, cultural and recreation facilities)

cost structures (land and property markets, labour, living, taxes)

image (international, national, regional)

presence of specific agencies promoting urban growth and development

resources at the disposal of urban development agencies/units

specific incentives for firms operating within city boundary

entrepreneurship and dynamics of indigenous business activities (start-ups, innovation,, adaptation)

networks and interconnectivity

ECONOMIC

STRUCTURE

INSTITUTIONAL AND

CULTURAL MILIEU

TERRITORIAL

ENDOWMENT

HUMAN

RESOURCES

210


Paper 6


Key Determinants and Indicators Kuala Lumpur

George Town

Johore Bahru

Labuan

Economic structurei. economic composition √√ √ √ √ii. productivity √√ – – √iii. output and value added √√ – – √iv. investment pattern √ – – √Territorial endowmenti. location √√ √√ √√ √√ii. physical infrastructure √ √ √ √iii. amenity √ √ √ √iv. cost of living and business operations V √ √ √v. city’s image √ √ √ √Human resourcesi. skills level √ √ √ √ii. availability of labor √ √ √ √iii. costs of labor √ √ √ √Institutional and cultural milieui. business culture + + + +ii. governance and policy framework √ √ √ √iii. network behavior + + + +

Note: (√√) indicates availability and good time series data-sets, (√) indicates general availability, (+) not currently available but it is possible to conduct large-scale government survey, (-) not available.

Based on our interviews with local planning authorities it becomes apparent that another major problem in the process of measuring urban competitiveness is the quality of different data and their sources. Data are generated on infrequent or one-off initiatives of these planning authorities or other government departments. In the case of the former, data were generated when preparing master or structural plans. A major concern in the context of building up urban competitiveness measures and monitoring these over the years is the question of the availability of time series data. The availability of such data-sets would enable city authorities to update the indicators in the future.

Given the paucity of data for all cities/federal territory under investigation it has not been possible to construct a more exhaustive array of measures to assess urban competitiveness. But even with this limitation, it is still possible to build a picture (in a qualitative manner) of competitive assets for each city. The next question is how a city should exploit the availability or non-availability of competitive assets for reasonably balanced competitive outcomes in terms of positive impacts on firms, favorable physical infrastructures and human resource development that “fit” quite nicely with emerging urban economies.

211




Conclusions and Policy ImplicationsIt has been shown that urban competitiveness can be measured through various lenses, each with its particular strengths and constraints. It is also important to note that competitiveness categories are not separate or interchangeable but are mutually necessary for determining urban competitiveness. With respect to competitiveness indicators, the data and amount of time and resources available to conduct the assessment will determine how extensive or thorough the assessment on the various indicators should be.

Notably, each assessment method for determining urban competitiveness has its strengths and weaknesses and assessors (such as policy experts, local officials, city planners) have an array of established and rigorous methods to measure the status of a city’s competitiveness not among a group of competing cities but for each city over time. Indeed, as cities constantly change (global influences etc.), it is necessary for the measurement method to be dynamic and strategic.

It has to be stated that this paper is not about how Malaysian cities should compete with each other but more in terms of how each city could assess its level of competitiveness and subsequently monitor this over time. Pitted against its stated objectives, this paper has

(i) determined appropriate indicators of competitiveness (ii) identified major determinants of competitiveness (iii) explore ways and means to operationalise urban competitiveness framework

More importantly, this paper began with a call for a simple manual or guideline for the assessment of urban competitiveness. To this end, this paper has recommended a guideline or manual (with some best practice examples) on urban competitiveness assessment highlighting the need to begin the effort with a simple profiling of the Malaysian cities.

One of our hardest challenges going forward in adopting and subsequently implementing the above recommendations will be for city authorities to undertake the necessary surveys and generate relevant time series data. Arguably, many city authorities will have difficulty arguing that scarce funds should go to data collection and information generation. We need a change of mindset among city authorities to alter the balance between spending on data, and that for projects with immediate physical benefits. In the final analysis the existence and potential contribution of data collection and generation needs to be widely advertised, particularly to policy makers responsible for authorizing the funding that will be required to make it a true benefit to people entrusted with the job of ensuring that their city remains competitive in this global age.

Competitiveness assessment contributes substantially to effective and efficient urban management. Indeed it has been shown that high quality urban management is one of the primary factors for cities to become competitive. In other words, the central task of urban management is to improve the attractiveness of the city by exploiting its potentials and turning liabilities into assets in a strategic manner.

212


Paper 6


ReferencesAsiaweek (1998) How to make cities work, December 11.Begg, I. (1999) Cities and competitiveness, Urban Studies, 36, 5/6 May: 795–809.Bramezza, I. (1996) The Competitiveness of the European City and the Role of Urban Management in Improving the City’s Performance. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Buckley, P. Pass, C. and Prescott, K (1988) Measures of international competitiveness: a critical survey, Journal of Marketing Management, 42: 175–200.Cheshire, P. (1999) Cities and competition, Urban Studies, 36, 5/6 May, pp. 843–864.Cheshire, P. C. and Gordon, I. R. (1996) Territorial competition and the predictability of collective (in) action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20, pp. 383–399.Cheshire, P. C. and Gordon, I. R. (eds.) (1995) Territorial Competition in an Integrating Europe: Local Impact and Public Policy. Aldershot, Grower.D’Arcy, E. and Keogh, G. (1999) The property market and urban competitiveness: A review, Urban Studies, 36, 5/6, pp. 917–928.Deas, I. and Giordano, B. (2001) Conceptualising and measuring urban competitiveness in major English cities: an exploratory approach, Environment and Planning A, 33, 8, August: 1411–1429.Douglass, M. (2002) From global competition to cooperation for livable cities and economic resilience in Pacific Asia, Environment and Urbanization, special issue on Globalization and Cities, 14, 1, pp. 53–68.Douglass, M. and Friedman, J. (ed) (1998) Cities for Citizens : Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, J. Wiley, New York.Editorial (2002) Globalization and Cities, Environment and Urbanization, special issue on Globalization and Cities, 14, 1, pp. 3–12.Francis, A. (1989) The concept of competitiveness, in: Francis, A. and Tharakan, P. (eds.) The Competitiveness of European Industry, Routledge, London, pp. 5–20.Georghiou, L., and Metcalfe, S. (1993) Evaluation of the impact of European Community research programmes upon industrial competitiveness, R&D Management, 23, pp.161– 169.Jensen-Butler, C. (1999) Cities and competition: Equity issues, Urban Studies, 36, 5/6 May, pp. 865–892.Jensen-Butler, C., Shachar, A. and Weesep, J. Van (eds.) (1997) European Cities in Competition. Aldershot: Avebury.Keun, H. (2000) Globalization and inter-city cooperation in Northeast Asia, East Asia: An International Quarterly, Summer, 18, 2, pp. 97–114.Kresl, P. K. (1995) The determinants of urban competitions: A survey, in: Kresl, P. and Gappert, G. (eds.) North American Cities and The Global Economy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 45 –68.Kresl, P. K. and Singh, B. (1999) Competitiveness and the urban economy: Twenty-four Large US Metropolitan Areas, Urban Studies, 36, 5/6 May, pp. 1017–1028.Krugman, P. (1996) Making sense of the competitiveness debate, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12, pp. 483–499.Malecki, E. J. (2002) Hard and soft networks for urban competitiveness, Urban Studies, 39, 5/6: 929–945.

213




Morshidi, S. (2002) Proses Globalisasi dan Transformasi Bandar Raya. Isu, Peluang dan Cabaran bagi Kuala Lumpur. Siri Syarahan Umum Pelantikan Profesor, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.Morshidi, S. (1998) Globalising Kuala Lumpur: A liveable city?. Kinabalu, Jurnal Perniagaan dan Sains Sosial, 4, pp. 77–105.Morshidi Sirat, Abdul Aziz Majid, Hassan Naziri Khalid, Moha Asri Abdullah, Norizan Md. Nor and Ruslan Rainis , “Globalisation Process and Urban Competitiveness of Selected Cities and Large Towns in Malaysia”, Society, Space and Environment in a Globalised World, Wan Ruslan Ismail, Narimah Samat, Aziz Abdul Majid, Moha Asri Abdullah and Anisah Lee Abdullah (eds), Geography Section, School of Humanities, Univ Sains Malaysia and Persatuan Kebangsaan Geografi Malaysia, pp. 25–43.Oatley, N. (1998) Cities, economic competition and urban policy, in: Oatley, N. (ed.) Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd., pp. 3–20.Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.Porter, M. E. (1995) The competitive advantage of the inner city, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 55–71.Porter, M. E. (1996) Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies and regional policy, International Regional Science Review, 19, pp. 85–90.Rapkin, D. and Srand, D. (1995) Competitiveness: useful concept, political slogan or dangerous obsession?, in: National Competitiveness in a global economy, eds. D. Rapkin and W. Avery, Lynne Reinner, London: 1–30.Rogerson, R. J. (1999) Quality of life and city competitiveness, Urban Studies, 36, No. 5 – 6, pp. 969–985.Rondenelli, D. A. (2001) Making metropolitan areas competitive and sustainable in the new economy, Journal of Urban Technology, 8, 1:1–21.Samsung Institute of Economic Research (1997) Comparison of urban competitiveness of world cities, January.Sassen, S. (2002) Locating cities on global circuits, Environment and Urbanization, special issue on Globalization and Cities, 14, 1, pp. 13–30.Scott, A. J. and Soja, E. W. (1996) The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Srinivas, S. (1999) The information technology (IT) industry in Bangalore: A case of urban competitiveness in India, in: Chapman, G. P., Dutt, A. K. and Bradnock, R. W. (eds.) 1999. Urban Growth and Development in Asia. Volume 1: Marketing the Cities. Ashgate: Aldershot.van Vliet, W. (2002) Globalizing world: from engines of growth to agents of change, Environment and Urbanization, special issue on Globalization and Cities, 14, 1, pp. 31–40. Webster, D. and Muller, L. (2000) Urban competitiveness assessment in developing country urban regions: the road forward. Paper prepared for Urban Group, INFUD, Washington D. C., The World Bank. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_ change/urb_ economy/ pdf_urban_dev_finance/WorldBank_Webster_Urban%20Co.pdf. Accessed 7 November 2005.Wong, C. (2002) Developing indicators to inform local economic development in England, Urban Studies, 39, 10, pp.1833–1863.

214


Paper 6


Urban Competitiveness and Liveability in the Malaysian

Context:Indicators, Determinants and

Policy Implications

Morshidi Sirat17 November 2005

Context of the paper• Economic globalization process• Hyper competition among cities• Urban competitiveness is increasingly becoming

the vital factor for survival• Globalization-urban competitiveness-liveability

nexus must be viewed seriously• Need for operational guidelines to realize such

assessment• Liveability issues (QOL,urban indicators) have

been examined but not within a comprehensive framework of urban competitiveness

215




Premise

• Question of dual objectives of increasing competitiveness and liveability should not arise for such approach would result in tension

• Not a question of balancing these objectives

• Liveability should be considered as a main component of urban competitiveness

Objectives• To explore urban competitiveness, with

liveability as a major component of the competitiveness assessment in the Malaysian context

• To suggest a framework that could be used in the assessment process

• To identify major determinants, appropriate indicators and measures of urban competitiveness (and liveability)

• To highlight policy implications of the assessment framework

216


Paper 6


Unbundling Urban Competitiveness

• Reality of the urban economy and its capacity for action (performance of the urban economy)

• Competitiveness of cities reflects not only their current capacity, but also is a function of their heritage, resulting in spatially differentiated pattern of competitiveness

• So, what constitutes urban competitiveness?

‘... it is important not to judge urban competitiveness as merely an economic issue, but also a multifaceted issue comprised of a social, environmental, and ecological infrastructure that harmonizes people, enterprises, and ecology’.

217




• "urban competitiveness" as the ‘degree of a city's capability and the comparative advantage to improve the economic conditions of the cities, to enhance quality of life, and its ability to link and mobilize these elements to human development’.

Urban Competitiveness

• Influences– Globalization of trade and investment– Economic and trade policies of national

government– Ability of enterprises located within city

boundaries to compete internationally

218


Paper 6


• Determinants– Economic (factors of production, infrastructure,

location, economic structure and urban amenities)– Strategic (governmental effectiveness, urban

strategy, public-private sector co-operation, institutional flexibility)

• Indicators– Predictable and significant (that is, as explanatory

rather than indicative factors)

219




URBANPERFORMANCE








learning

URBANPERFORMANCE








learning

Figure 1: The urban competitiveness mazeSource: Adapted from Begg 1999, p. 802.



Social environment (cohesion or exclusion, interfirmrelationships)

Economic environment (sectoralstructure of economy)

Area-based outcomes(property rental levels)


Competitive assets

Competitive outcomes

‘Non-governance’

‘Durability’

‘Governance’(local and nonlocal)







Competitive assets



‘Durability’








Competitive assets



‘Durability’


Figure 2: The relationship between competitive assets and outcomes.Source: Deas and Giordano 2001, p. 1413

220


Paper 6


Establish benchmarks, policy indicators, and monitoring mechanisms11

Develop competitiveness strategyE.g., learning region, cluster, low cost production, investment driven export base

10Identify realistic competitive strengths and weaknesses9

Assess internal strengths and weaknesses Networks, institutions, champions Identify levers that city controls and focus on these: often amenity and

infrastructure Undertake surveys, focusing on: Key firms (anchors, emerging) and institutions (especially key technical

educator) Individuals (key stakeholders and champions) who will exert high leverage

8

Asses external drivers affecting city: opportunities and threats Scenarios formulation (optional) Domestic, regional, global

7

Identify pillars of economic strength (specialization, clusters: especially in share gaining activities)

6

Undertake analysis of local endowments e.g., location, infrastructure, amenities Compare with competitive cities

5Identify comparable cities for benchmarking purposes4

Undertake pattern analysis of economic structure, specialization, labor force, investment

Utilize secondary data Time series Review surveys of informal sector

3

Conduct stakeholders focus groups on competitiveness of city (optional) Guides where to look (but be careful)

2

Determine issues and concerns relevant to competitivenessDoes a Mission statement on competitiveness exist?

1Activities/check listSteps

Establish benchmarks, policy indicators, and monitoring mechanisms11

Develop competitiveness strategyE.g., learning region, cluster, low cost production, investment driven export base

10Identify realistic competitive strengths and weaknesses9

Assess internal strengths and weaknesses Networks, institutions, champions Identify levers that city controls and focus on these: often amenity and

infrastructure Undertake surveys, focusing on: Key firms (anchors, emerging) and institutions (especially key technical

educator) Individuals (key stakeholders and champions) who will exert high leverage

8

Asses external drivers affecting city: opportunities and threats Scenarios formulation (optional) Domestic, regional, global

7

Identify pillars of economic strength (specialization, clusters: especially in share gaining activities)

6

Undertake analysis of local endowments e.g., location, infrastructure, amenities Compare with competitive cities

5Identify comparable cities for benchmarking purposes4

Undertake pattern analysis of economic structure, specialization, labor force, investment

Utilize secondary data Time series Review surveys of informal sector

3

Conduct stakeholders focus groups on competitiveness of city (optional) Guides where to look (but be careful)

2

Determine issues and concerns relevant to competitivenessDoes a Mission statement on competitiveness exist?

1Activities/check listSteps

Table 1: Urban competitiveness assessment process

The Malaysian Context

221




Definition of urban Competitiveness

• UC = f (economic determinants + strategic determinants)

– Specific attributes and particular situation of cities/towns

– Assets and outcomes– (important: how cities lacking in assets could

translate this situation into opportunities for itself)

Indicators

• Social, economic and physical dimensions• Basis is a ‘valuative-theoretical’ approach:

emphasizing importance of the practical policy value of indicators Integration of theory and measurement

• Indicators are both inputs and outputs measures of urban competitiveness (with the obj of being able to define policy problems and informing policy formulation)

222


Paper 6


• Indicators – are the info base that decision-makers utilize

in order to decide on the action to take– are chosen based on the following:

• Explicit as possible• Easy to comprehend• Commonly agreed by all players at the city

level

• There should be an indicator system, comprising of a mechanism to make relevant info accessible to policy-makers.


Competitive assets exploitation

Economic structure


Human resources

Spatial-based

outcomes

Firm-based outcomes

sustainability

public-private



Policyoutcomes




Economic structure


Human resources

Spatial-based

outcomes

Firm-based outcomes

sustainability

public-private



Policyoutcomes



Economic structure


Human resources

Spatial-based

outcomes

Firm-based outcomes

sustainability

public-private



Policyoutcomes


Figure 3. Framework for conceptualizing urban competitiveness in terms of assets and outcomes

Source: Adapted from Deas and Giordano 2001 and Webster and Muller 2000.

223




• structural changes inindustry

• degree of concentration and diversity

• centrality of industry (presence and quality of local customers, local capable suppliers, local competitive, related industries)

• labour force size and growth

• skills and education profile

• educational facilities and curricula

• industrial structure and labour force fit (demand vs. supply ; employment growth by sectors vs. training)

• demography• location and access

analysis• physical infrastructure• amenity (climate and


• cost structures (land and property markets, labour, living, taxes)

• image (international, national, regional)

• presence of specificagencies promoting urban growth and development

• resources at the disposal of urban development agencies/units

• specific incentives for firms operating within city boundary

• entrepreneurship and dynamics of indigenous business activities (start-ups, innovation,, adaptation)

• networks and interconnectivity

ECONOMIC STRUCTURE INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL MILIEU

TERRITORIAL ENDOWMENT

HUMANRESOURCES

• structural changes inindustry

• degree of concentration and diversity

• centrality of industry (presence and quality of local customers, local capable suppliers, local competitive, related industries)

• labour force size and growth

• skills and education profile

• educational facilities and curricula

• industrial structure and labour force fit (demand vs. supply ; employment growth by sectors vs. training)

• demography• location and access

analysis• physical infrastructure• amenity (climate and


• cost structures (land and property markets, labour, living, taxes)

• image (international, national, regional)

• presence of specificagencies promoting urban growth and development

• resources at the disposal of urban development agencies/units

• specific incentives for firms operating within city boundary

• entrepreneurship and dynamics of indigenous business activities (start-ups, innovation,, adaptation)

• networks and interconnectivity

ECONOMIC STRUCTURE INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL MILIEU

TERRITORIAL ENDOWMENT

HUMANRESOURCES

Figure 4: Definition of indicators of urban competitivenessSources: Adapted from Deas and Giordano 2001, p. 1413-1414, and Webster and Muller 2000, p. 43.

++++iii. network behavior��ii. governance and policy framework++++i. business culture

Institutional and cultural milieu��iii. costs of labor��ii. availability of labor��i. skills level

Human resources��v. city’s image��iv. cost of living and business operations��iii. amenity��ii. physical infrastructure

��i. locationTerritorial endowment

�--�iv. investment pattern�--��iii. output and value added�--��ii. productivity��i. economic composition

Economic structure

LabuanJBGeorgeTownKLKey Determinants and Indicators

++++iii. network behavior��ii. governance and policy framework++++i. business culture

Institutional and cultural milieu��iii. costs of labor��ii. availability of labor��i. skills level

Human resources��v. city’s image��iv. cost of living and business operations��iii. amenity��ii. physical infrastructure

��i. locationTerritorial endowment

�--�iv. investment pattern�--��iii. output and value added�--��ii. productivity��i. economic composition

Economic structure

LabuanJBGeorgeTownKLKey Determinants and Indicators

Table 2: Relevant indicators of urban competitiveness for selected Malaysian cities/federal territory

Note: (��) indicates availability and good time series data-sets, (�) indicates general availability, (+) not currently available but it is possible to conduct large-scale government survey, (-) not available.

224


Paper 6


Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Measurement methods have to be dynamic and strategic in line with global challenges and changes

• Need for a manual or guideline for the assessment of urban competitiveness

• Challenges: need for comprehensive surveys to generate relevant time series data

• Will contribute towards efficient urban management (and subsequently competitiveness)

• Turning liabilities into assets in a strategic manner• Realization among policy-makers that large funds need to be

allocated for data gathering and analysis• UC does not necessarily mean competition between cities, but

more of a ‘report card’ for each cities to record its progress towards UC (and liveability)

225




��


��

KUALA LUMPUR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPEMENT

Y. BHG. DATO’ HAJI RUSLIN BIN HAJI HASAN

Mayor of Kuala Lumpur

Kuala Lumpur City Hall

Malaysia

read by

PUAN HAJAH ZAINAB MOHD. GHAZALI Director of Master Plan Department

Kuala Lumpur City Hall

Malaysia


SPEAKER: Y. BHG. DATO’ HAJI RUSLIN BIN HAJI HASAN

PAPER 7: KUALA LUMPUR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPEMENT

Abstract:The presentation will discuss the concepts of sustainable cities and liveable cities. The city is viewed as a living organism which has its organs, participatory processes, circulatory system and neural networks.

The vision and goals of the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 have been formulated with the aim of creating a sustainable city—a city which is able to sustain the quality of life and achieve a balanced development.

The Kuala Lumpur Local Plan is being prepared and sets of urban indicators are being developed to measure performances and progress in the implementation of the Structure Plan, benchmarked against the best in the world towards making Kuala Lumpur a world-class city.

228


Paper 7


Mr. Chairman – Y. Bhg. Dato’ Wan Mohamad Muktar b. Mohd. Noor, Distinguished Participants,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Firstly, I wish to commend the Department of Town and Country Planning of Peninsular Malaysia for organising this Convention. The theme for the Town Planning Day this year, “Indicators for Liveable Cities” is both timely and appropriate for Kuala Lumpur as we are currently preparing the Kuala Lumpur Local Plan after gazetting the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 (KLSP 2020) in November last year.

My presentation will discuss the concepts of sustainable cities and liveable cities. There have been rising concerns on sustainable development since Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992. Sustainable development has been defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainability is further defined to achieve a balanced development i.e. to strike a balance between physical, economic, social and environmental developments. Towards this end, the vision and goals for Kuala Lumpur stipulated in KLSP 2020 have been formulated with the aim of creating a sustainable city.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to view the city as a living organism as propagated by Mayor Bob Cools of Antwerp, Belgium:

“We must treat the city like a living organism… the urban phenomenon then, like life, is founded on a subtle balancing act. If we want a city to function properly as a society, then that balance must not be upset.”

B. Cools. 1997. “The Future of the City”

The metaphor of the city as a living organism is exemplified in the quote above. Using this metaphor - the brain and nervous system of a liveable city refers to participatory processes by which a city develops visions and plans, monitors the implementation of its plans and adjusts to changing circumstances. The heart is the common values and public space of a city that define its essential identity. The neighbourhoods, industrial clusters, downtown, parks and other hubs form the organs of a city. Similar to the circulatory system and neural networks that weave connections within a living organism, transportation routes, infrastructure, waste disposal, communication lines, water flows, and green space connect these nodes.

For the purposes of this presentation, liveability will be defined as ‘quality of life’. In this context, sustainability is the ability to sustain the quality of life we value or to which we aspire. In operational terms, it is often viewed as enhancing the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of current and future citizens.

229




As a liveable city, Kuala Lumpur has engaged active involvement of a diversity of citizens in visioning, planning, implementing and monitoring its development plans. I believe all citizens 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 capacity to participate constructively in the quest to improve the quality of life in the City.

To encourage and support participation, civic engagement and the fulfillment of government responsibilities, Kuala Lumpur City Hall shall continue to provide participatory mechanisms which will ensure that all voices are heard in identifying problems and priorities, setting goals and implementing programmes and projects. These mechanisms include participation at the preparation of development plans and annual budget for the City.

At every stage of preparation of the Structure Plan, we had invited views and comments from various government departments, professional bodies, institutions of higher learning and non-governmental organizations as well as our Advisory Board members of whom some are political representatives. These views, comments and proposals were gathered through meetings, workshops and seminars and had been considered in the formulation of the Draft Plan.

When the Draft Plan was ready, and based on the provisions of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982, members of the public were invited and encouraged to give their views, comments and proposals to ensure that the Plan accommodates the needs of all citizens in line with the vision and goals for the development of the City. The Draft Plan was then amended based on the views of the general public and gazetted for adoption by Kuala Lumpur City Hall. Currently we are at the early stage of Kuala Lumpur Local Plan preparation. The Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 only provides public participation after the completion of the draft plan. However, we have planned for public involvement in all the stages of the plan preparation.

Other than the development planning process, City Hall also provides opportunities for public to participate in the development control process. With the absence of local plan, in evaluating planning applications, which propose for changes in approved land use or increase in density, we have invited the adjoining landowners to give comments or objections. These comments and objections have been one of the major considerations when deciding on the development applications.

City Hall is sensitive to people’s needs, suggestions and grievances. We have provided the public simple procedures to ensure fair and swift action on suggestions and grievances. For this year alone (until October), our One Stop Complaint Centre has received 4,288 complaints through telephone, radio, Internet, letters, newspapers, facsimile and e-mails. Until today, 97% of the complaints have been investigated and remedial actions taken. Another step taken in responding to public complaints is the setting up counter service in all departments that have direct dealing with the public.

230


Paper 7


Ladies and gentlemen,

The monitoring capability of a liveable city is equivalent to the nervous system in a living organism. A liveable city develops the capability to measure progress towards its goals, to encourage experimentation and test new ideas, to learn from experience, to adapt strategies in order to take into account dynamic circumstances and shifting priorities, and to quickly respond to opportunities and challenges.

A liveable city contains an active public realm for reflecting the essence of itself, for creating and reinforcing a common identity, for dialogue about common values, for remembering history, for celebration and festivals, and for socialization of all groups of people.

City Hall is currently developing sets of urban indicators that will measure performances and trends in the 5 key areas such as city economy, city structure, city living environment, city image and city governance. The indicators will help to measure progress in the implementation of the KLSP 2020. In formulating the indicators, Kuala Lumpur will be benchmarked against the best in the world. These indicators will provide a comprehensive picture of the City, which provide a quantitative, comparative base for the condition of Kuala Lumpur, and show progress towards achieving world-class status.

In a world where globalisation has led to certain homogeneity in the appearance and character of major cities across the world, it is imperative that Kuala Lumpur seeks to define its own distinctive identity reflective of its tropical climate and multi ethnic population. This should be manifested in the built and natural environments and the everyday way of life of the City’s inhabitants as well as the various forms of cultural expression.

These can be achieved by using a combination of natural elements such as trees and physical ones such as buildings. The distinctive way of life in Kuala Lumpur, which stems in part from the ethnic and cultural diversity of its people and also from the blending of aspects of those cultures, should be jealously guarded and given greater emphasis. Cultures and the arts shall be enhanced while buildings and historical areas or architectural values shall be preserved as heritage and be promoted including as tourism products.

Buildings, areas and sites that have a particular historical or cultural significance within the context of their community shall be conserved. Similarly, new developments and streetscape projects incorporating architectural motifs reflecting ethnic and cultural character shall be encouraged. Landscaping shall also make use of indigenous trees and plants that are especially evocative of Malaysia’s tropical environment.

231




Until recently, Kuala Lumpur has been mainly preoccupied with development and the creation of wealth for its residents. Now we must endeavour to consolidate this achievement by improving the quality of life for its residents and developing a truly civic-minded community proud of its identity and mindful of its responsibilities to the rest of society. City Hall will take the lead to provide a safe and secure environment for the City’s residents, while creating a more caring society. We will widen the scope of its concerns to address the needs of the aged, disabled and disadvantaged in terms of support facilities as well as social programmes and infrastructure improvements aimed at enabling greater integration into the life of the City.

A more developed and sophisticated society which looks for cultural and artistic stimulus and a thriving cultural environment is the mark of a world-class city. Kuala Lumpur should be developed as a modern entity with a distinctive city identity and image which is endowed with a richness of arts and culture that is the pride of its residents and the nation.

The ethnic and cultural composition of a city determines its character as much as, if not more than, its physical manifestations, and should therefore form urban design considerations. Kuala Lumpur’s vibrant multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society will provide the stimulus to guide urban design initiatives to create a distinct and unique city identity, which will enable people to identify more closely with the City and each other, thus fostering a sense of community and social harmony.


A liveable city contains complete communities with mixed-use and affordable housing close to shopping, employment, cultural centres and pedestrian-friendly transportation networks; a vital inner city with public spaces and economic activity; industrial clusters with shared infrastructures; and green space including agricultural lands and parks.

To reinforce KLSP 2020 strategy of providing complete and integrated transport linkages, more intensive developments near to transit terminals shall be actively promoted. City Hall shall encourage mixed-use developments incorporating high density residential, high plot ratio commercial as well as community and business facilities, thus greatly reducing reliance on private transportation by making accessibility flexible and convenient. Pedestrian and traffic linkages, both within and from outside these areas, shall be improved to provide more convenient access to the transit terminals.

In order to moderate commercial development in the City Centre, City Hall shall not encourage land use changes to accommodate new commercial development to the exclusion of other uses. New commercial or mixed-use developments shall be considered in areas where high quality residences are proposed.

232


Paper 7


City Hall shall regularise and rationalise major commercial activities into special precincts. The area within KLCC shall be developed as the main commercial hub, and the area around Jalan Bukit Bintang enhanced as a premier tourist precinct. Part of the area on the former government quarters, next to the existing temporary market at Jalan Davis, shall be developed into a comprehensive market, hawkers and food centre which will also be a major tourist attraction. A main shopping spine will be established in the City Centre as a world-class shopping precinct with a national and international reputation.

The City Centre is the focus of local, national and international attention and, for many, defines the image of Kuala Lumpur. The City Centre symbolises the aspirations of the citizens and the vision of Kuala Lumpur to be A World-Class City. One of the strategies of KLSP 2020 is to create a complete living environment in the inner city that provides the very best business and working environments together with a vibrant commercial, financial and entertainment centres.

Particular emphasis shall be placed on attracting more people to live in the City Centre. This will reduce dependence on private transport, as more people will be able to travel directly to work either on foot or by public transport. A consequence of this strategy will be to create an increased liveliness in the City Centre.


City Hall’s basic responsibility is to ensure that there is an adequate mix of housing that meets the needs of its population and is commensurate with the City’s population income distribution. As land and housing costs continue to rise in Kuala Lumpur, there will continue to be a section of the population who are unable to afford low cost housing. At least in the foreseeable future, therefore, there shall be a need for City Hall to provide public housing for rental at subsidised rates.


A liveable city is connected through the flow of resources that sustain its activities including water, materials, sewage, and waste; through access to energy resources; through green corridors for biodiversity habitat and recreation; through access to the communication systems including information and communication technologies; through a transportation network that prioritizes walking, public transportation and efficient movement of goods, and enables pedestrian-friendly communities.

Comprehensive and efficient transportation system networks with good inter and intra city linkages are essential enabling factors to ensure Kuala Lumpur’s position as an international commercial and financial centre. If current trends continue, motorised trips by car in 2020 are expected to be almost double those of 1997. Increasing road capacity by constructing new roads and widening existing roads do not, in the long run, resolve the situation but simply postpone the problem until more roads need to be built. Most areas in the City, especially the City Centre, are now built up and land acquisition for road development is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.

233




City Hall is, therefore, moving towards a Travel Demand Management strategy that aims to redirect movement patterns from private to public transport by integrating transport modes, extending and promoting public transport and discouraging the use of private transport. The public transport system in the City must be competitive, convenient, user-friendly and accessible to all income groups.

The City has the basic structure with a comprehensive road and rail network that has been built up since 1984. The programme now is for Kuala Lumpur to develop, refine and integrate this transportation system to serve the City and its population until 2020.

The rail network is the most efficient means of providing high capacity rapid public transport. The major growth areas in Kuala Lumpur are now well linked to the City Centre except those on the east-west axis. The feasibility of a new Damansara - Cheras LRT line linking growth areas in the east and west shall be investigated together with new rail links to serve district centres, comprehensive development areas and growth areas.


Management of solid waste is one of the critical elements in ensuring a liveable city. The use of landfill sites for the disposal of solid waste is uneconomical in terms of land use and is environmentally undesirable in Kuala Lumpur. Using incinerator with high technology component on pollution control, which is clean and efficient as adopted in various cities may help in solving the problem of getting large areas for sanitary landfills. However toxics release through incineration need to be kept at the minimum to ensure public safety.

Thus, there is a need for a comprehensive solid waste management plan in order to achieve a balanced and sustainable living environment. The present strategy of “reduce, recycle and reuse” to help reduce the demand for solid waste disposal facilities should be an important part of this plan.

Green Lung represents one of the main functions of green area in reducing level of pollution, enhancing air quality, creating cooling effect to the environment and making the city liveable. The City needs a continuous open space utilizing road, rail and river corridors, infrastructure and utility reserves, parks, plazas and widened landscaped street verges. This corridor will connect major parks and provide a focus for the residential communities through which it passes.

In order to enhance the quality of life in the City to a level commensurate with its vision to be a World-Class City, City Hall aims to tranform Kuala Lumpur into a Tropical Garden City. Landscaping and beautification programmes carried out in recent years have proved to be extremely successful and have helped to transform the City’s environment especially in the City Centre. In order to fully realise the objective of creating a Tropical Garden City, City Hall will continue to intensify and broaden the landscaping and beautification programmes that are important in providing identity, structure and landscape amenity to the City.

234


Paper 7


Kuala Lumpur now has an area of more than 1,500 hectares of open spaces and recreational areas to cater for the needs of 1.4 million people. This means it has achieved the open space/population ratio of 11 hectares per 10,000 people, compared to 6 hectares per 10,000 people in 1980.

We shall continue our effort to create more open space to achieve higher quality living environment.


Viewing the city as a living organism also means that we need to view the efforts in improving the liveability of Kuala Lumpur in a holistic manner. Our programmes in providing physical facilities must be in tandem with social, spiritual and economic programmes because failure in any one of these aspects will jeopardize our vision.

Obviously striving towards making Kuala Lumpur A World-Class City is by no means an easy task. It requires concerted efforts and support of all stakeholders; the corporate citizens, the non-governmental organisations, developers, professional organisations and others to assist Kuala Lumpur City Hall with new ideas and solutions to help provide better quality of life of the City. With greater efforts, courage and commitment together with the support and cooperation of all concerned, I am confident that our vision of making Kuala Lumpur A World Class City for all will be a reality.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention.

235




� ��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

* The capital city* An international city* The country’s commercial

and financial hub* The nerve centre for

politics, religion, sports, education, health, arts and culture, tourism

* The gateway to Malaysia

� ��

236


Paper 7


� ��

� �� * GDP growth of 4.2% p.a. (1995 –

2000) vs national GDP 4.7% p.a.* Per capita GDP more than twice

that of national per capita GDP both in 1995 and 2000

* Total employment 0.84 mil. in 2000

* 83% employment in tertiary sector

* Population growth rate decline (1991 – 2000) due to out-migration

� ��

� ��

The City: 243 sq. km. 1.42 mil. pop. (2000)

The Conurbation: 4,000 sq. km 4.3 mil.pop. (2000) 9 local authorities

KLIA

Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur

PutrajayaPutrajayaCyberjayaCyberjayaPort Klang

237




� ��

� ��

Kuala Lumpur A

World Class City

� ��

� ��

� � ��

238


Paper 7


� ��

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Physical Development

EconomicSustainability

Social / SpiritualDevelopment

Environmental Protection

��

��

� ��

� ��

Development of quality

Transparency Comfort

FairnessFriendliness

Safety

Equity Liveliness

239




� ��

� ��

National ContextInternational Context

Regional Context Local Context

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

��

240


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

241




� ��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

242


Paper 7


� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

243




� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

244


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

245




� ��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

246


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

247




� ��

��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

248


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

249




� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

2

1

3

250


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

251




� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

252


Paper 7


� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

253




� ��

��

* Light Rapid Transit

* Monorail

* Express Rail Link

* Inter city commuter

* Bus

* Integrated Ticketing System

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

254


Paper 7


� ��

��

��

� � ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� ��

��

��

� � ��

255




� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

• Improve quality of the housing environment

• Improve and redevelop dilapidated housing areas.

• Upgrade the quality of existing old housing stock.

• Ensure private flatted housing and public housing are properly maintained.

• Upgrade the standards of low cost housing.

��

256


Paper 7


� ��

• Eradicate all squatter settlements and longhouses

• Encourage the buildingof low-medium andmedium cost houses

• Ensure adequateprovision of housing for special needs groups

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

257




� ��

• promote landscaping and beautification programs

• landscape of parks, river and other utility reserves.

• control development at hill slopes.• control discharge of untreated

domestic wastewater into riversand drainage system

• undertake measures to reduceair pollution.

• increase public awareness andinstill responsibility amongst allstakeholders.

� ��

� ��

��

��

258


Paper 7


� ��

• develop sufficient infrastructure andutilities to meet future needs

• develop an integrated ICT infrastructure

• mitigate flash floods• utilise ex-mining ponds for flood

retention and recreational purposes• develop a consolidated sewerage

reticulation system• ensure efficient and effective waste

disposal and management• promote 3R (reduce, recycle and

reuse) in waste management

��

� ��

� ��

��

259




� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

260


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

261




� ��

��

��

� � ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

262


Paper 7


� ��

��

��

� ��

� � ��

� ��

• protect and enhance major gateways and vistas• retain and enhance important views of city skyline and landmarks• retain major treed areas and hill ridges as visual backdrops• create green and pedestrian networks

��

263




� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� ��

264


Paper 7


� ��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� ��

265




� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

266


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

267




� ��

� ��

Public NoticePublic NoticeBasic

Information Surveys

Basic Information

SurveysPublic

Participation Workshops 2

Public Participation Workshops 2





Public Participation

AsasRujukan

Inception Report

Findings Report

Interim Local Plan

Draft KLLP

Goal Formulation

Data Collection

Preliminary Proposal

FormulationDraft KLLP Formulation

Studies

Output AsasRujukanAsasRujukan

Inception ReportInception Report

Findings ReportFindings Report

Interim Local Plan

Draft KLLP

Goal Formulation

Goal Formulation

Data Collection

Data Collection


Formulation


FormulationDraft KLLP FormulationDraft KLLP Formulation

Studies

Output

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

268


Paper 7


� ��

��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

269




Refer Plan No:CC-G4

Elevated

Highway

GOLF

JALA

N TU

N R

AZAK

JALAN U THANT

JALAN LANGGAK

JAL

AN

T

AM

AN

U

T

HA

NT

JALA

N

MA

DG

E

PERSIARAN STONOR

JALAN

JALAN MADGE

JALA

N

AMPANG

PE

GA

WA

I

JALA

N 3

/76B

JALA

N 3

/76B

JelatekStation

Pasar KeramatStation

DamaiStation

Proposed

Office & Apartment

(PHILEOLAND BHD)

Royal Selangor

Golf Course

Pal

estin

e

Pu

teri

Isla

m

FERNLEACOURT

Government Quarters

ProposedApt.

FairviewInt.

School

IranDAMAISURIA

Iraq

Australia

Apt. U/C

Indonesia

British

Nethe

rland

Ne

w

Ze

aland

CanadaUSA

VILLA U THANT 1

ProposedApartment

Nigeria

Japan

SE

RIS

KA

Iraq

Om

an

Germ

any

Proposed

Office

Ram

a V -Thai

Restaurant

Apt. U /C

(GTY S/B)

Fella Design

Furniture

Indonesia

PETRONAS

Istana Perlis

Ista

na

Ter

eng

gan

u

Bombay Palace

Res taurant

Apt. U /C(E&O

Developers)

Germany

Apt. U/C(Dunia

Damai S/B)

Col

ombi

a

Kuwait

Pro

pose

dS

em

i-D

Proposed Office(Indah Mahsuri SB)

Singapore

Korea

MBSBU/C

Libya

Pak

ista

n

Ibusawat Telekom

20s Office U/C(NOVUS CORP S/B)

VILLA U-THANT

Kg. Datuk Keramat Malay Reserve

Proposed

Serv ice

Apartment

LUTH

PNB

SH

ELL

AMPANGPLAZA

CROWN

PRINCESS

HOTEL

LEE GARDEN

Italy

Irel

and

Leisure Holiday

Ista

na

Sh

arif

Ali

DESAANGKASA

GEM

Hoc

k

Cho

on

Oly

mp

ia

Spo

rt C

lub

Audio Tech. Inst.

AM

BA

SS

Y B

US

INE

SS

PA

RK

U/C

Ghana

8 A

MP

AN

G H

ILIR

Mal

aysi

a In

stitu

te

of M

ana

gem

ent

RoadhouseGri ll

Res taurant

Vic

toria

S

tatio

n

VILLAAMPANGRussia

Sa

yfol

inte

rna

tiona

lS

choo

l

China

Gov

ernm

ent

Qua

rter

s

WISMA PERKESO

SRIMAHKOTA

Swedish

MON-CHIQUE

Rubber Research Institute

CHINESE

CHAMBER

SU

CAS

A

Tha

iland

Police Quarters

191

JALA

NA

MP

AN

G

British

DE

SA

U

TH

AN

T

LANSONPLACE

GLO

VE

RC

LOS

E

P roposedApt.

Russ ianCulturalCentre

Pro

pose

d O

ffic

e B

uild

ing

(Ko

nsor

tium

Ent

erpr

ise

(M)

S/B

)

Apt . U/CMasbe

Capital S/B

ProposedApartment(Tenaga Nasional

Properties S/B)

Prop. Apt.(Pelangi

Ist imewa S/B)

ProposedApartment

Res taurant

Carlos

Hac ienda

INMIND

Klang RiverKlang River

TAN

& TAN

CALTEX

ESSO

ED

EN

VIL

LAP

etro

nas

Qua

ters

Mil itary, Nav al , Ai r A tache ofMy anmar

Proposed Apartments

VIL

LA P

UT

RA

PU

TR

I

DE PALMA

P ergabungan P ersatuanP eladang

VILLABLANCA

MICASA HOTEL

APARTMENT Uru

gua

y

Switzerland

Persatuan

Karate - Do

Office U/C

(MHY Hold ings)

VIL

LAB

OL

TO

N

Gov

ernm

ent

Qua

tersREGAL

VILLA

Ken

ya

P roposedApt.

Laos WIC

KH

AM

RE

SID

EN

CE

Ex- S

hell

& 7-E

levenP

ropo

sed

Apa

rtmen

t

WISMAINAI

Office U

/C

(Sok

a Gakk

ai)

1 Storey

3 Storey

4 Storey

5-10 Storey

2 Storey

11-15 Storey

BUILDINGHEIGHT

16 Storey and Above

GURNEY

HEIGHTS

Condo

Wilayah Persekutuan Boundary

Strategic Area Boundary78

L.A.D

5643

5644

56465645

543

6091

564563

1643

566

2642444387139891

DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR

Map No: WMM-H4-004

A B C D E F G H I J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

DETAIL PLAN

Elevated Highway

LRT Route

SCALE 1 = 5,000

K IBLAT292°30'

LRT Station

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� mengandungi:

��

mengandungi:��

��

��

��

��

��

WANGSA MAJU -U-

KUALA LUMPUR LOCAL PLAN2005 -2020


BOLLARDS

LANDSCAPED PLAZA

TRAFFIC CALMING

SUNKEN PLAZA WITH WATER FEATURE

STREET LIGHTING WITH BANNERS

FOOD KIOSK & PAVILLION STRUCTURES

BOLLARDS

KEY PLAN

- -

WANGSA MAJU -MALURI

LOCAL PLAN2005 -2020LOCAL PLAN2005 -2020LOCAL PLAN2005 -2020


BOLLARDS

SUNKEN PLAZA WITH

WATER FEATURE

LIGHTING WITH

BANNERSFOOD KIOSK &

PAVILLION STRUCTURES

BOLLARDS

KEY PLAN

- -

mengandungi:��

mengandungi:��

� ��

WANGSA MAJU

-MALURISTREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT OF

JALAN U-

THANT

KEY PLAN

16m

3.5m 2.5m 3m 2.5m 3.5m

Pedestrian PedestrianCycle CycleCar

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

INSERT

PLANMap No : SZP-URBANDESIGN-02

Expressway

Kg Baru Air Panas

Tmn. Air Panas

Diamond Square

Condo

.

Apt.Genting Court Apt.

Tmn. P. Ramlee

Hindu B

urial

Sch

ool

JKR Quarters

SH

SH

Kampung Chong Hwa

Police Station

Court Mammorth

Jalan 1/23F

JALAN ANGSANA

WANGSA MAJU


JALAN U-

THANT

KEY PLAN

16m

3.5m 2.5m 3m 2.5m 3.5m

Pedestrian PedestrianCycle CycleCar

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

INSERT


WANGSA MAJU


JALAN U-

THANT

KEY PLAN

16m

3.5m 2.5m 3m 2.5m 3.5m

PedestrianCycle PedestrianCycleCar

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

KUALA LUMPU

R LOCAL PLAN

2005 -2020

INSERT


Expressway

Kg Baru Air Panas

Tmn. Air Panas

Diamond Square

Condo

.

Apt.Genting Court Apt.

Tmn. P. Ramlee

Hindu B

urial

Sch

ool

JKR Quarters

SH

SH

Kampung Chong Hwa

Police Station

Court Mammorth

Jalan 1/23F

JALAN ANGSANA

LANDSCAPED PLAZA

TRAFFIC CALMING

STREET

� ��

PelanPelan TempatanTempatan Kuala LumpurKuala Lumpur

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil


Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil


Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil


� ��

270


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil


Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil

Pusat Bandaraya

Damansara

Penchala

Sentul

Maluri

Sungai Besi

Seputeh

Bandar Tun Razak

Bukit Jalil


� ��

��

SENARAI PROGRAM & PROJEK

MENGIKUT TEMA

Pelan Tindakan Pembangunan 2006 -2010

JULAIi 2005

SENARAI PROGRAM & PROJEK

MENGIKUT TEMA


JULAIi 2005

SENARAI PROGRAM & PROJEK MENGIKUT KATEGORI

PEMBANGUNAN


JULAI 2005

SENARAI PROGRAM & PROJEK MENGIKUT KATEGORI

PEMBANGUNAN


JULAI 2005

271




� ��

��

��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

272


Paper 7


� ��

� ��

273




��


��Curriculum Vitae :Dr. Andrew Colin Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in the School of City and Regional Planning, University of Cardiff, United Kingdom. He is the module leader for Environmental Assessment; Environmental Management and Regulation; Environmental Management in Practice; Planning and Government. Prior to this he was a lecturer in Environmental Planning and Policy, Department of City and Regional Planning in the same University.

His research interests are in environmental regulation, business responses to sustainable development, and food regulation. He is a member of the Environment Research Group. His principal research areas have been into the making of environmental and sustainability policy, the

implementation of policy and its evaluation. He has been involved in a number of research projects in this area including Technological Transformations in Food Production and Consumption Systems and Reducing Wales’ Ecological Footprint.

Among the recent publications which he has co-authored are Reducing Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint and The Environmental Impacts of Consumption at a Sub-national Level: The Ecological Footprint of Cardiff.

AN EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

Dr. ANDREW FLYNN

Senior Lecturer

Cardiff University,

United Kingdom


An Evaluation of the Ecological Footprint for Different Types of Urban Development Impacts

1.0 IntroductionEcological Footprint analysis was initially pioneered in the early 1990s (see Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Following its early conceptual development, Ecological Footprinting has gained interest amongst academics and practitioners internationally (e.g. Environment Waikato, 2003; EPA Victoria, 2003; James and Desai, 2003; WSP Environmental and Natural Strategies, 2003a and 2003b; NAfW, 2004; NRG4SD, 2004; Aall and Norland, 2005). The starting point for the Ecological Footprint concept is that there is a limited amount of bioproductive land on the planet to provide for all human resource demands. Sustainable development requires that we live within the carrying capacity of the earth, allowing our economies to develop whilst still ensuring that human needs are met.

1.1 What is Ecological Footprint analysis?The Ecological Footprint is an aggregated indicator of demand on nature and is measured using a standardised area unit termed a ‘global hectare’ (gha), which is usually expressed on a per capita basis (gha/cap). The Ecological Footprint is derived for a defined population for one year by estimating the area of land required to support their resource consumption. For example, the demands of that population in terms of their food, travel and energy use. This demand on nature can be compared with the available Earth’s biocapacity, which translates into an average of 1.8 gha/cap in 2001 (WWF, 2004). However, humanity is currently using 2.2 gha/cap which indicates a situation of ‘overshoot’ where nature’s capital is being spent faster than it is being regenerated (WWF, 2004). Overshoot may permanently reduce the Earth’s ecological capacity.

As the Ecological Footprint relates to the consumption activities of a defined population it has potentially many applications. For example, the Footprint has been applied to organisations, cities, regions and individuals. Local, regional and devolved governments have shown a

SPEAKER: DR. ANDREW FLYNN

PAPER 8: AN EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACTSAbstract :

The ecological footprint is assessed as an awareness raising tool. The idea of a footprint resonates with the public, policy makers and businesses. It helps to communicate to people, and for them to appreciate, the link between their local consumption acts and global environmental impacts. The potential of the ecological footprint to compare different types of environmental impact is explored. Strategic issues such as transport, waste and energy all adversely affect the environment, and with a footprint, policy makers can clearly identify the impact that each of these individual issues will have. The paper evaluates the potential that the ecological footprint offers for policy makers to prioritise their actions in a more informed and integrated manner.

276


Paper 8


strong interest in the Footprint and the Welsh Assembly Government has formally adopted the Ecological Footprint as one of its headline indicators for sustainability (NAfW, 2004). This paper analyses the environmental impacts of resource consumption at a sub-national level. The unit of analysis is Cardiff, the capital city of Wales. Cardiff provides an interesting case study because it is caught up with Welsh-wide debates on the value of the Footprint, and as a city, which has been subject to recent rapid growth has shown considerable interest in resource consumption.

1.2 Ecological Footprint Analysis: strengths and limitationsAlthough the Ecological Footprint is being widely used and applied in the UK and elsewhere, the concept has faced a number of criticisms. Amongst the main points, critics have argued that the Footprint does not accurately reflect the impacts of human consumption (see van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999; Lenzen and Murray, 2001; Femg, 2002); it does not allocate responsibilities of impact correctly (see Herendeen, 2000; McGregor et al, 2004); and does not provide decision makers with a useful tool for policy making as there is limited understanding of how different consumer activities relate to impact (see van Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999; Ayres, 2000; van Kooten & Bulte, 2000; Moffatt, 2000; Femg, 2002). A more recent critique of the Ecological Footprint concept can be found in McDonald and Patterson (2004, pp. 5254) and a more general debate can be found in Ferguson (2001) and Van Vuuren and Smeets (2001).

In the following sections we address some of these issues. The focus of this paper is with the value of the Ecological Footprint for decision-makers. Here, though, it is worth noting that at its most informative the Footprint method provides valuable insights into natural resource use and an estimate of the land area required to support that level of consumption. As the Ecological Footprint aggregates the impacts of different consumption activities into a single measure it also offers policy makers the potential to clearly identify and compare the environmental impact of different activities such as transport, waste and energy. More promising still, the Footprint provides the potential for policy makers to prioritise their actions in a more informed and integrated manner. Policy makers can thus potentially measure the effectiveness of policies to pursue sustainable development. One reason why the Ecological Footprint may be helpful to policy makers is because of its communicative power. The Footprint personalises sustainability by assessing the impact of consumption from a consumer perspective (i.e. it takes into account the impact of residents within a defined boundary rather than the industries in a particular locality). It can therefore be a useful tool from which to communicate to people, and for them to appreciate the link between their local (consumption) activities and global environmental impacts.

2.0 The decision to measure Cardiff’s Ecological FootprintAs part of the ‘Reducing Wales’ Ecological Footprint’ Project (see Barrett et al, 2005), an Ecological Footprint study was undertaken of Cardiff, the capital city of Wales (see Collins et al, 2005). Between January 2003 and January 2005, a partnership including the BRASS Research Centre at Cardiff University, Cardiff Council, and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the World Wildlife Fund, Cymru undertook a collaborative project to measure Cardiffs Ecological Footprint. Cardiff Council had specific reasons for wanting to undertake a Footprint study. First, the Council’s Local Sustainability Strategy and Community Strategy endorsed the Footprint and the Council wanted to mainstream the project and its outcomes into existing policy.

277




Second, policy officers wanted a clearer picture as to the scale of the environmental challenge that the City faces if it is to become more sustainable. The Footprint study would provide an initial benchmark for the City, and future Footprinting exercises could then be used to track the Council’s performance. Third, the Footprint would provide the Council with a resonant tool and metaphor from which to promote awareness of sustainable consumption and lifestyles. Finally, data developed within the project and the overall Footprint results would provide policy officers with additional evidence from which to inform debate and policy development within the Council. More specifically, the team of sustainability officers within the Council hoped that the Footprint study could answer the following questions: What is Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint per capita? What is the Footprint made up of? What are the most significant areas of resource use within the City? Is the Council prioritising the right areas to reduce the City’s Footprint? Are the Council’s current policies sufficient to move the City towards more sustainable consumption? How can the data derived from the Footprint study be used to inform policy, manage resources more sustainably and raise awareness of sustainable lifestyles? To provide credible answers to these questions required that the process of data collection and analysis needed to be as transparent as possible and engage with key council officers to ensure as far as possible that they regarded the Footprint results as legitimate. (This process is explained fully in Collins et al, 2005).

The methodological approach to Footprinting that we have undertaken is designed to capture the resource use and environmental impacts that residents generate via their direct consumption and has a number of distinct advantages for policy makers. First, as the method uses standardised, official and annual statistics, this increases its robustness and reliability as an indicator. This also encourages the development of comparative (national and international) studies that can promote methodological innovation because of their comparability. Second, by using localised and detailed household expenditure data, Footprints can be generated at regional and local levels. Finally, by allocating the Footprint to final demand categories (e.g. transport, energy use, waste) the method highlights consumer responsibilities, which in turn are valuable in developing policy scenarios.

3.0 Ecological Footprint of Cardiff, the capital city of WalesCardiff is a major European city and in 2001, the year that the Footprint was calculated, the city had 307,300 residents, 10% of the total population of Wales (2:9 million) (ONS, 2001). As the capital city for Wales, Cardiff is also the centre for economic growth in the South-East Wales sub-region but also increasingly for Wales as a whole. Over the last decade Cardiff has enjoyed significant growth, including the development of retail, housing and leisure in its suburbs and the redevelopment of its Bay area. The city has a thriving retail sector and is one of the most consistently successful retail locations in the UK. Cardiff has also become an increasingly prosperous city with total employment increasing from 149,000 in 1991 to 173,200 in 2001 (Cardiff Council, 2002a). Following the decline of the City’s heavy industry in the later 20th Century, the public, service and finance sectors now dominate Cardiff’s economy, with just 10.3% of the total workforce being employed in manufacturing. Major events such as the 1999 Rugby World Cup, FA Cup Final, Worthington Cup and Wales Rally GB (formerly Network Q Rally) have raised the profile of the city internationally with over 10.6 millions tourists visiting Cardiff in 2001 (Cardiff Council, 2002b).

278


Paper 8


The overall Ecological Footprint for Cardiff was 1.72 million global hectares in 2001 - the year for which the most recent household expenditure data was available at a sub-national level. Cardiff’s Footprint is equivalent to 82% of the total area of Wales (2.1 million hectares). On a per capita basis, the Ecological Footprint of an average Cardiff resident is 5.59 global hectares, and is greater than the Footprint of an average UK and Welsh resident (5.35 gha/cap and 5.25 gha/cap respectively). The magnitude of these figures show that the level of consumption by Cardiff residents is currently inequitable as they are using resources more than three times the average ‘earthshare’ of 1.8 gha/cap. In terms of equity, Cardiff’s residents would need to reduce their ecological demand by 68% to reach the average ‘earthshare’.

In Figure 1 and Table 1 below we highlight respectively how the relative size of the different components in the Footprint and its total size are inextricably linked to the lifestyles of Cardiff residents. Figure 1 illustrates that almost one quarter of the Cardiff Footprint is made up of consumption of Food and Drink, and that together with three other components - Travel, Energy and Consumables - contribute 70% of the total Footprint. That four factors can so dominate the Cardiff Footprint is indicative of how contemporary patterns of consumption have major implications for resource use.

Figure 1: Major components of Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint

a) includes catering servicesb) includes transport services and air travelc) Capital Investment or Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) relates principally to investment in tangible fixed assets such as plant and machinery, transport equipment, dwellings and other buildings and structures.d) includes non-profit institutions serving households, valuables, changes in inventories and overseas tourists in the UKe) includes central and local government. The Footprint calculations assume shared responsibility, i.e. equal values for UK, Wales or Cardiff.

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� 279




From an ecological perspective, Figure 1 raises major challenges with regard to the long-term sustainability of the Cardiff lifestyle. The results suggest that fundamental changes need to be made to consumption practices if the size of the Footprint is to be reduced. Is it possible, for instance, to shrink the relative size of the food and drink component? To simply replace energy inefficient products in the kitchen with more efficient ones is at best likely to slow the rate of growth in the food Footprint. Decoupling consumption and resource use will, on the Footprint results, require a more fundamental change to social practices, for example, in relation to the type, preparation and use of foods by manufacturers and in the home.

Since consumption is embedded deep within current social practices and institutional structures, the Footprint results provide a challenge to the way in which Cardiff residents live their lives. Indications of the scale of resource use and how different components make up the Footprint result are contained in Table 1 below. The results are classified by COICOP1 final demand categories to aid comparison with other work on resource use. What both Table 1 and Figure 1 also suggest, however, is that it is not simply that residents must change their behaviour if the Footprint is to be minimised. Rather the structures of provision of goods and services need to be radically reshaped to reduce the scale of resource use and thus of the Footprint.

1COICOP stands for Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose and can be used to analyse household expenditure on goods and services.

280


Paper 8


Table 1Ecological Footprint (EF) for Cardiff, Wales and the UK in 2001, broken down by COICOP category for household consumption (all numbers in global hectares per capita, gha/cap)2

COICOP Consumption Category EF of EF of EF of Cardiff Wales UK Household consumption Food & Drink gha/cap gha/cap gha/cap01.1 Food 0.759 0.748 0.77101.2 Non-alcoholic beverages 0.050 0.048 0.05002.1 Alcoholic beverages 0.090 0.083 0.07811.1 Catering services 0.431 0.411 0.439 Subtotal Food & Drink 1.33 1.29 1.34 Energy Domestic fuel consumption 0.57 0.512 0.54604.5 Electricity and gas distribution 0.42 0.405 0.358 Subtotal Energy 0.99 0.92 0.90 Travel Private transport (car fuel) 0.285 0.276 0.28707.1 Purchase of vehicles 0.125 0.109 0.11607.2 Operation of personal transport equipment 0.150 0.130 0.10307.3 Transport services 0.091 0.066 0.092 Aviation 0.336 0.198 0.124 Subtotal Travel 0.99 0.78 0.72 Infrastructure (Housing) 04.1 Actual rentals for housing 0.032 0.034 0.03304.2 Imputed rentals for housing 0.072 0.076 0.07504.3 Maintenance and repair of the dwelling 0.054 0.057 0.067 Subtotal Infrastructure 0.16 0.17 0.18

2For more detailed results see Barrett et al (2005) and Collins at el (2005).

281




Consumables & Durables Consumables 02.2 Tobacco 0.024 0.024 0.02409.5 Newspapers, books and stationery 0.027 0.026 0.02912.1 Personal care 0.024 0.023 0.028 Durables 03.1 Clothing 0.023 0.022 0.02903.2 Footwear 0.011 0.010 0.01205.1 Furniture, furnishings, carpets and other floor 0.049 0.049 0.057 coverings05.2 Household textiles 0.012 0.013 0.01305.3 Household appliances 0.091 0.095 0.11505.4 Glassware, tableware and household utensils 0.007 0.007 0.01105.5 Tools and equipment for house and garden 0.019 0.019 0.01705.6 Goods and services for routine household 0.008 0.008 0.009 maintenance06.1 Medical products, appliances and equipment 0.008 0.008 0.01008.2 Telephone and telefax equipment 0.0002 0.0002 0.000509.1 Audio-visual, photo and inf. processing equipment 0.076 0.072 0.06909.2 Other major durables for recreation and culture 0.010 0.012 0.02009.3 Other recreational items & equipment 0.200 0.200 0.18712.3 Personal effects n.e.c. 0.083 0.080 0.123 Subtotal Consumables & Durables 0.67 0.67 0.75

Services 04.4 Water and miscellaneous services supply dwelling 0.024 0.021 0.01806.2 Out-patient services 0.003 0.002 0.00606.3 Hospital services 0.004 0.004 0.00408.1 Postal Services 0.001 0.001 0.00208.3 Telephone and telefax services 0.019 0.018 0.02309.4 Recreational and cultural services 0.042 0.042 0.04310.0 Education 0.017 0.013 0.02611.2 Accommodation services 0.055 0.053 0.07112.4 Social protection 0.017 0.017 0.02512.5 Insurance 0.038 0.037 0.04612.6 Financial services n.e.c. 0.019 0.018 0.03312.7 Other services n.e.c. 0.017 0.017 0.022Subtotal Services 0.26 0.24 0.32

Holiday ActivitiesResident holidays abroad 0.103 0.101 0.122

282


Paper 8


Non-household consumption Capital Investment a) Gross fixed capital formation 0.744 0.744 0.744

Government b) Central government 0.241 0.241 0.241Local government 0.167 0.167 0.167

Subtotal Government 0.41 0.41 0.41

Credits for recycling -0.030 -0.027 -0.108Other c) -0.031 -0.031 -0.031 TOTAL Ecological Footprint (gha/cap) 5.59 5.25 5.35

a) Capital Investment or Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) relates principally to investment in tangible fixed assets such as plant and machinery, transport equipment, dwellings and other buildings and structures.b) The Footprint calculations have assumed shared responsibility; therefore the Footprint per capita is the same for the UK, Wales and Cardiffc) ‘Other’ includes non-profit institutions serving households, valuables, changes in inventories and overseas tourists in the UK; the latter results in an overall negative Footprint.

The results in Table 1 show that food and drink consumption is the largest single category with a Footprint of 1.33 gha/cap and is responsible for almost a quarter of Cardiff’s total Ecological Footprint. Cardiff’s Footprint figure for food and drink is larger than that for Wales and the UK, (see Table 1). The reason why this figure is so large relates to the scale, type and pattern of food and drink consumption. Consumption at home accounted for 68% of the Footprint figure for food and drink. For instance, much of the food will be grown or reared in an energy intensive manner and then manufactured or processed, which in turn requires substantial amounts of energy. A further reason as to why the food and drink Footprint figure is so high is that residents are also consuming large amounts of food and drink outside the home. ‘Catering services’ accounted for almost one third of the Footprint figure for food and drink. This will include food that is intensively produced and prepared, and then eaten in restaurants, fast food outlets and canteens. These activities cumulatively can involve relatively large amounts of energy and land use and result in a high Footprint.

Travel and energy consumption each have a Footprint of 0.99 gha/cap and are each responsible for almost one fifth of Cardiff’s total Footprint. Cardiff’s Footprint figure for transport is significantly larger than that for Wales and the UK, 0.78 gha/cap and 0.72 gha/cap respectively. The size of Cardiff’s passenger transport Footprint is surprising as it has a relatively compact city centre containing key retail and civic amenities. There are also good surface rail and bus networks. However, undermining these positive features has been the development of dispersed neighbourhoods, and retail and leisure amenities on the fringe of the city that tend not to be well linked to public transport and so encourage increased car travel. The Footprint results show that Cardiff residents place a heavy reliance on private modes of travel. Travel by private transport includes ‘car fuel’, the purchase, and the operation of vehicles, and together these are responsible for 57% of the total travel Footprint. Car fuel alone accounted

283




for almost 30% of the total transport Footprint figure. In comparison, public ‘transport services’ accounted for only 9.2% of the transport Footprint figure. Another significant factor contributing to the size of Cardiff’s transport Footprint is residents air travel. ‘Aviation’ does have a large ecological impact and is responsible for 44% of residents travel Footprint (0.34 gha/cap). This number is much higher than those for Wales and the UK (see Table 1). The close proximity of two international airports (Cardiff and Bristol) which both operate budget airlines means that Cardiff residents are taking advantage of air travel. This increase in holidays abroad is reflected not only in the ‘aviation’ Footprint result but also in the Footprint for Cardiff ‘residents’ holidays abroad’ (0.103 gha/cap), though the figure excludes the impact of travel to the holiday destination. As the City’s affluence continues to grow, it is likely that the Cardiff Footprint will increase in these specific areas.

Cardiff’s domestic fuel consumption accounted for 58% of the Footprint for domestic energy (0.57 gha/cap). The other 42% is due to the consumption of electricity and the distribution of natural gas (0.42 gha/cap). Both figures are higher than the respective numbers for Wales and the UK. Cardiff’s increase in young and affluent professionals and the rise in the development of single occupancy and executive type dwellings may provide a possible explanation as to why Cardiff has a relatively large Footprint for domestic fuel consumption. These residents tend to have high levels of disposable income and are more likely to purchase and use more household electrical items and heattair condition their homes all year round.

Residents’ consumption of consumables and durables has an ecological impact of 0.64 gha/cap, equivalent to more than one fifth of residents total Footprint. This Footprint figure is the same for Wales but lower than that for the UK. However, on closer examination the results also provide indications of the environmental impacts associated with the increasingly affluent lifestyles of those who live in Cardiff. Residents’ consumption of ‘other recreational items and equipment’ is the largest single sub-category and is responsible for more than one third of Cardiff’s Footprint for consumables and durables. This COICOP sub-category includes equipment and items for sports, games, hobbies, camping, outdoor recreation, gardening and also pet products and veterinary services. This Footprint figure may be a reflection of the increasing number of households in Cardiff with high levels of disposable incomes who may be more likely to purchase high cost items and equipment for recreation and outdoor activities.‘Audio-visual equipment’, ‘household appliances’ and ‘personal effects n.e.c.’ when combined are responsible for more than a quarter of the consumables and durables Footprint. The COICOP category ‘audio, visual equipment’ includes photographic, media and information processing equipment and their repair. ‘Household appliances’ includes all major and small household appliances (e.g. fridges, freezers, microwaves, ovens, washing machines, toasters, kettles) and their repair. ‘Personal effects n.e.c.’ includes jewellery, watches and personal items such as suitcases, handbags and wallets. Again, this figure may be a reflection of the increasing number of households with high levels of disposable incomes who will purchase and use more of these items per household and replace them on a more frequent basis.

Finally, of the ‘other’ consumption categories, Gross Fixed Capital Formation (capital investment) has the largest Ecological Footprint, with an impact of 0.74 gha/capita. Gross Fixed Capital Formation relates principally to investment in tangible fixed assets such as plant and machinery, transport equipment, dwellings and other buildings and structures. The Footprint

284


Paper 8


figure for Cardiff is the same for Wales and the UK, as it is assumed within the Ecological Footprint model that residents have equal responsibility for such shared investments. Whilst on the ground of equity it may make sense to apportion amongst all citizens investments in physical infrastructure, in terms of consumption practices it does appear anomalous when applied to a capital city like Cardiff. By European standards Cardiff is a small city but because it is a capital city will be over endowed with the infrastructure of a capital - everything from administrative buildings to cultural assets such as museums and galleries. This will inevitably skew the consumption opportunities, and thus practices, of the city’s residents.

Waste Satellite AccountThe Ecological Footprint for waste is not included in the ‘standardised’ Footprint calculations but instead is treated as a satellite account. The reason for this is that the impacts of household consumption can only be counted once, either as ‘inputs’, when products are bought or consumed, or as ‘outputs’, when these products are discarded. As the Footprint methodology used here considers the environmental impacts of consumables, double counting would occur if the impact of waste from these consumables was included in the final result. Nevertheless, both in terms of their value for policy makers and communicating to citizens, the environmental impact of resource use, it is very important to calculate this satellite account.

The Footprint figure for waste only provides a partial picture of the impact of waste as it refers only to household waste and excludes other waste such as construction, demolition and commercial waste. Cardiff’s waste has a Footprint result of 0.81 gha/cap, 17% larger than that for Wales and the UK. ‘Credits for recycling’ produces a negative Footprint of -0.03 gha/cap as recycled materials re-enter the economy (see Table 1). These results show that Cardiff residents are wasteful and that as of 2001 only a low level of recycling was taking place. Table 1 provides some indication as to sources and composition of residents household waste: ‘food’ consumed at home and in ‘catering services’, ‘newspapers, books and stationery’, ‘Personal care’ items, ‘clothing’ ‘footwear’, ‘furniture, furnishings, carpets and other floor coverings’ and ‘household textiles’.

Tourism Satellite AccountTourism also takes the form of a satellite account and can be calculated using two different methods; top-down and bottom-up. The ‘top-down’ approach uses modelled expenditure data, the ‘bottom-up’ approach uses locally specific data. The top-down approach enables the Ecological Footprint to be calculated using expenditure data for overseas tourists in the UK. These data include all tourist activities with monetary transactions and can be found under ‘Non-residential household expenditure in UK’ in the COICOP breakdown of final household consumption (ONS, 2003b). We aggregate the data into five main categories of tourist expenditure; catering and accommodation services, clothing, other products, transport services (UK), and other services. When using the top-down approach for Cardiff, two key assumptions are that overseas and domestic tourists in Cardiff have the same expenditure and therefore the same consumption pattern. Based on these expenditure data the Ecological Footprint of Cardiff’s tourists was calculated as 280,000 global hectares in total or 8.5 global hectares per tourist (see Table 2).

285




Whilst the top-down approach is useful in providing an indication of tourists’ impact during their stay in Cardiff it does not account for ‘overseas’ tourist travel to the UK. This was calculated using the bottom-up approach as Cardiff specific data on overseas tourist travel to the UK was available from a 2001 Cardiff Visitors Survey. Using the bottom-up approach, visitors’ air travel to the UK created an additional Footprint of 5,536 global hectares. This is equivalent to 0.17 gha per tourist. For the purposes of reporting the Ecological Footprint, this figure is expressed as an average per tourist, as the impact of air travel has been shared between Cardiff’s overseas and domestic visitors. When added to the total top-down Footprint figure, the Ecological Footprint for all Cardiff tourists is 286,000 global hectares, or 8.67 gha/tourist. This suggests that the impact of a Cardiff tourists’ consumption activities is considerably higher than that of a Cardiff resident (5.59 gha/cap), and is equivalent to 17% of the total Footprint for Cardiff residents in the same year (1.7 million global hectares). Table 2 below shows the overall Footprint figure for tourists combining both approaches and breakdown by activity. Tourist consumption of catering and accommodation services and other products have the largest ecological impact and together account for 85% of the overall tourist Footprint. Tourist total travel was responsible for almost 10% of the tourist Footprint figure.

Table 2 Ecological Footprint results for Cardiff tourists.Component areas Ecological Footprint [gha/tourist] Catering and accommodation services 4.90Other services 0.31Clothing 0.16Other products 2.50Transport services (UK only) 0.63Total (excl. travel to UK) 8.50Transport (to the UK) 0.17Total (incl. travel to UK) 8.67

Tourism is an important part of Cardiff’s development strategy. The city offers a number of tourist products relating to culture, sport and leisure. These results draw attention to the environmental pressures that are attributable to Cardiff promoting itself as a tourist destination.

4.0 Responses to Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint ResultsFrom an academic and policy perspective it is important to be able to assess the rigour of the Footprint as a tool and how it may work alongside or compete with other organisational decision-making tools to assess environmental or sustainability impacts. For example, environmental or sustainability appraisal tools require professionals to make judgements about the impacts of a policy, programme or plan on the environment. By way of contrast, the Ecological Footprint has the potential to provide environmental data in a user-friendly form so that decision makers could, if they wished, claim to make a more ‘objective’ or ‘informed’ judgements.

286


Paper 8


During the Cardiff Footprint study, the Council was kept informed of progress made on data collection and given the opportunity to ask questions as to how the Footprint findings would relate to policy. The approach used to collect data for the Cardiff project has been significantly different to that which has been used to construct Ecological Footprints for local and regional governments elsewhere in the UK as it has involved a continuous process of checking the quality of data used in the Footprint calculations. This has required researchers at Cardiff University to liase closely with officers when interpreting local data and considering its appropriateness and use in the Footprint calculation. Although this aspect of the Cardiff study has been extremely resource intensive and required a great deal of investment by the three partners involved, it has assisted in ensuring that the Footprint calculation is as accurate as possible and has raised the credibility of the whole process within the Council.

Considerable effort was also devoted to developing with Council staff the outlines of policy scenario options. The work remains at a preliminary stage but does illustrate the potential of the Footprint to provide policy relevant environmental information. The scenario results were presented and discussed in a series of workshops conducted during the summer of 2004. The aim of the workshops was threefold. First, to present preliminary Footprint results and check the appropriateness of any assumptions made in the calculations. Second, to encourage policy officers to think differently as to how they could address issues relating of sustainability in their area of work. Third, to see how different policy areas inter-relate, for example, food, energy and waste and consider whether current targets are ineffective or failing to address the most significant issues. The workshops also had the potential to help formulate targets based on the best available evidence in areas where Council policy is poor, for example climate change, energy and food, and what direction policy needs to take to achieve a reduction in the Cardiff Ecological Footprint.

Case study housingThe ecological footprint results for Cardiff based upon the number of houses is shown in the table below.

Table 3 Ecological Footprint of Cardiff’s housing (Breakdown A). Total housing Housing footprint % total housing footprint [gha] per capita [gha] footprintExisting housing stock [gha/cap] 47,938 0.156 98.7New houses [gha/cap] 615 0.002 1.3Total Housing EF [gha/cap] 48,553 0.158 100

The Table shows that Cardiff’s existing housing stock is responsible for 98.7% of Cardiff’s housing ecological footprint (0.156 gha/capita). During 2001 there were a total of 1406 house building completions - 0.015 completions per capita (see Table 8.5). New housing has a footprint of 0.002gha/capita and is responsible for 1.3% of the total impact of Cardiff’s housing stock. What the data does reveal is the impact of the housing infrastructure but not its energy use. An area for future research is therefore to investigate in more detail where the greatest footprint returns might be gained. Is it best to invest in innovative energy efficient new homes to retrofit existing stock? A full answer to this question can only be gained with a more detailed picture of Cardiff’s housing stock.

287




Ecological Footprint for different types of housesAlthough a considerable amount of energy is required to build and maintain a home, the consumption of energy whilst living there is also important. Therefore the consumption of domestic energy should be considered alongside scenarios that deal with the building materials used in constructing homes.

This scenario compares the ecological footprint of an average Cardiff dwelling with a house built to 2002 Building Regulations, a house achieving a Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE) Eco Homes ‘excellent’ rating and a house at the BedZED eco-village development3 which has been designed not to consume any fossil energy (see Weidmann, Barrett & Cherrett, 2003). A typical house in Cardiff is also assessed to give an indication of the performance of the majority of Cardiff’s existing housing stock.

Table 5 provides a summary of the four housing types for which ecological footprints for ‘building materials’ and ‘domestic energy use’ have been calculated.

Table 4: Data on Cardiff’s dwelling stock and house building completions, 2001. Total Per CapitaDwelling stock 127,476 0.41House building completions 1,406 0.015

Data sources: Welsh Housing Statistics 2001 (http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypublicationsforwales/housing/housing.htm); ONS “Dwelling Stock by Country and Region”;ONS Statistics on Housing (http://www statistics.gov.uk/statbase/datasets2.asp?th=3&B 1=Show+Linked+Datasets) http://www.cic.org.uk/information/state.htm

What we can now do is to use the Ecological Footprint to explore scenarios of the impacts of different housing types and the potential reductions of the Ecological Footprint if more sustainable homes were built in Cardiff. The first scenario is concerned with the ecological footprint of different types of dwellings and the second with the ecological footprint of new

3http://www.bioregional.com, follow link to ‘BedZED & Eco-Village Development’.

288


Paper 8


Table 5: Housing types and their energy consumption patterns.

Housing type acronym Description of housing type Energy consumption pattern‘Cardiff average’ Based on BRE data for 100 Cardiff average consumption homes pattern‘2002 regulation’ Built to 2002 Building Cardiff average consumption Regulations with slightly reduced energy consumption‘Eco-home’ BRE EcoHomes with Reduced consumption mainly ‘excellent’ rating due to technical efficiency improvements‘BedZED’ BedZED eco-village Clearly reduce consumption development due to specific BedZED conditions

Data on building materials used for the different home types are estimates from BRE and Bioregional Development Group or were calculated from the actual material consumption of the BedZED scheme. The results in Figure 2 show that the ecological footprint for building materials used to construct a ‘2002 regulation’ and ‘EcoHome’ are larger than the ‘Cardiff average’ home. This is because some of the materials used have a slightly higher embodied energy content, for example insulation materials. The building material footprint of a BedZED home is lower than the other home types (0.089 gha/capita compared to 0.160 gha/capita). This is because a BedZED home has an estimated lifespan of 90 years compared to the average Cardiff home which is estimated to be 60 years.

289




Figure 2 Ecological Footprint for building materials for different home types compared to the average Cardiff home.

Figure 2 also shows that a home based on 2002 Building Regulations and an EcoHome has a lower ecological footprint for domestic energy use compared to an average Cardiff home. This is because these types of homes use energy efficient lighting and appliances, good insulation and condensing boilers. Homes built using 2002 Building Regulations use 23% less energy compared to the Cardiff average. EcoHomes use 59% less energy compared to the Cardiff average. The ecological footprint of domestic energy use for a BedZED home is 70% less than an average Cardiff home. This is because a BedZED home uses 92% less energy for space heating and hot water, and 38% less energy for cooking, lighting and appliances.

The results from this scenario show that the greatest reductions can be achieved with domestic energy use (see Table 6)

Table 6 Ecological Footprint for domestic energy consumption for different home types compared to the average Cardiff home. Building Materials Domestic energy use % change % change2002 Regulation + 3 -26EcoHome + 1 -43BedZED -43 -70

Ecological Footprint for new houses in Cardiff

Cardiff’s Unitary Development Plan (2001-2016) states that between 2001 and 2016, an additional 16,800 dwellings will be built in Cardiff. Three scenarios have been developed for 2016 to assess the effect that different housing types could have on the ecological footprint of new homes in Cardiff:

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

290


Paper 8


Scenario A: 2002 regulationScenario B: ‘Eco-Homes’ Scenario C: BedZED standard

For each of these scenarios, population growth or changes in household size have not been modelled. Table 7 shows the ecological footprint of all new homes for each of the three scenarios. The results show that if all 16,800 new homes were based on the 2002 Regulations, this would create an additional footprint of 6,914 global hectares. If all new homes used the BedZED standard the ecological footprint of new homes could be reduced by 45 per cent.

It should however be noted that this scenario only relates to new built homes. Without any modifications to Cardiff s existing housing stock, the percentage reductions for the total housing stock footprint would be 0.03% in the case of EcoHomes and 0.99% in the case of BedZED homes (see Table 7).

Table 7 Ecological Footprint for new homes built in Cardiff (Scenario A, B and C).

Total housing Footprint per capita footprint [gha] [gha/cap]

Scenario A: 2002 regulation type 6,914 0.0225Scenario B: Eco-Homes type 6,822 0.0222Scenario C: BedZED type 3,841 0.0125

Table 8 Ecological footprint for Cardiff’s housing stock, 2016.

Total housing footprint Footprint per (ghalcap] capita [gha]

Existing housing stock plus new 309,912 1.009homes (2002 regulation type)

Existing housing stock plus new 309,820 1.008homes (Eco-Homes type)

Existing housing stock plus new 306,839 0.999homes (BedZED type)

Case study tourism developmentAs we have already seen tourists do make an impact on the Ecological Footprint of Cardiff. The City is now embarking on a major new high profile development called International Sports Village (ISV) in Cardiff Bay. Cardiff has ambitiously proclaimed itself as one of Europe’s fastest growing cities, and much of that growth has been dependent on developments in Cardiff Bay. The area had once housed dockside facilities and industrial premises but over the years these had declined and the land had become derelict.

291




Today there only remains one large area of underdeveloped land in the Bay area and this has been earmarked for site for the International Sports Village (ISV). The ISV is considered to be “a key development in the context of Cardiff as a European Capital celebrating its centenary as a city in 2005” (Ove Arup 2001, p5). The Peninsula site was chosen because of “its combination of land and water resources creating a setting for an imaginative complex” (Ove Arup, 2001 p4). In addition to creating a landmark sports tourism destination for national and international events, the ISV complex is to be an important component of economic regeneration by creating jobs in the area.

Promoters of the ISV envisage that the development will attract further development and inward investment which will be important in capitalising on the investment potential from future events in South Wales, including the Ryder Cup in 2010 (Ove Arup, 2001). In addition to use by local residents in Cardiff and the surrounding area, it is also anticipated that the ISV development will promote itself as “an urban ‘Centre Parcs’ role as it will provide long stay accommodation so that visitors will have full use of the site’s extensive sports, leisure and entertainment facilities as well as providing a convenient base for exploring the rest of Cardiff and the surrounding area.” (Ove Arup 2001, p5)

Development at the ISV has a number of parallels to the rest of the Bay but also some distinctive features. Once again there are some exceedingly high expectations for the site and according to one consultancy: “the International Sports Village will unquestionably become part of and play a key role in one of the most exciting visitor destinations in Europe” (B3 Burgess Partnership 2002, p13). Or from another consultancy: “The development [the ISV] will create a landmark sports tourism destination for national and international events” (Ove Arup 2001, p5). Within the ISV there is to be a flagship project that will be the focus of development activity. A key part of the ISV is to build a new fifty metre swimming pool to replace the Wales Empire Pool that was lost to give way to the development of the Millennium Stadium in the centre of Cardiff in the mid 1990s. The pool had symbolic, sporting and recreational value and because of this significance, undertakings were given that it would be replaced. Once more consultants claim that the “Re-location of the Wales Empire Pool to ... [the ISV] site will act as a catalyst for the remainder of the proposed ISV development” (Ove Arup 2001, p4).

As we have already seen we might expect tourists to be making significant ecological impacts.

In identifying the potential ecological pressures that will arise from tourists visiting International Sports Village we need to assess the number of visitors and the resources that they will consume for example, food and drink, transport and waste. It is estimated that the development will attract over two million visitors a year. The figure is almost equivalent to one fifth of Cardiff’s total visitor figure for 2001. Overall, we should anticipate little difference between the resources consumed of those who already visit Cardiff and those who will visit International Sports Village. Nevertheless, there will be some differences, for example, the ISV visitor is assumed to travel less on the site because it is so compact compared to the City’s other tourist attractions; while it is thought that the Cardiff visitor will consume more food in a day because they will be staying longer in the City. A comparison of the results for visitors to the City and to ISV is provided below.

292


Paper 8


Table 8: Summary of Ecological Footprint results for Cardiff and ISV visitor

Cardiff Visitor ISV Visitor Component EF/visitor/day % % EF/visitor/day % %Activities [gha] (incl air) (excl air) [gha] (incl air) (excl air)Travel 0.000502 92.3 - 0.000059 77.9 -(excl air) 0.000043 - 51.1 0.000054 - 76.5

Food 0.000024 4.3 27.7 0.000015 19.7 20.9Energy 0.000018 3.3 21.2 0.000002 2.4 2.6Infrastructure - 100.0 - 0.000001 - Totala) (incl air) 0.000544 100.0 0.000076 100.0 Totala) (excl air) 0.000085 0.000071 100.0Totala) (incl air) (all visitors/yr) 2,111,388 56,896 Waste 0.000007 0.000007 EF: Ecological Footprint; gha: global hectarea)Infrastructure is excluded from the total footprint figure as the equivalent data for Cardiff was not available.

Even, though, the ISV visitor footprint is small compared to that produced by the Cardiff visitor what the results show is that they will, nevertheless, add to the size of the Ecological Footprint. For policy makers the benefits of the results are. twofold. First, they can recognise that development strategies, in this case to boost tourism, will have ecological effects and those can then be factored into decision making. Second, since the proposal is still in the very early stages of development it is possible to monitor how the Ecological Footprint results for ISV might change. For example, if the mix of developments should change this will have effects on the number and types of visitor, and the ecological impacts can be calculated. Similarly, if there should be improvements in public transport, this too can be taken into account. So, what the Ecological Footprint has the potential to provide, is a robust means to assess the environmental effects of a changing development strategy

Conclusionsin presenting the Ecological Footprint results for Cardiff a set of priorities have emerged. The ‘big hitters’ ecologically for Cardiff’s residents are consumption of food and drink, passenger transport particularly in relation to air and car travel, domestic fuel consumption and waste. Tourism is also a priority area as tourists are also having a large impact in those areas where Cardiff’s Footprint is already under considerable pressure, namely food, transport and waste. For these activities and others as well, this study shows that development trends in the City are exacerbating the problem of a large Footprint.

The study has provided policy officers for the first time with evidence on the ecological impact of residents’ consumption and the environmental implications of various policies and policy options. In some policy areas, especially where there are already existing models and world views, professionals have reacted with at best caution to the fmdings. In other policy areas different responses can be envisaged. Where professional groups have been weak or under threat, the Footprint results could be used to bolster positions and be much more enthusiastically embraced.

293




The Ecological Footprint results will enable the Council to think in a more integrated way as it shows that at present the activities of one part of the organisation are putting costs on to another. For example, promoting Cardiff as an events city is positive from an economic perspective but by following resource use, the Footprint study has clearly shown that the Council will have to pay for the collection and disposal of waste. These costs did not appear to have been taken into account in event planning or tourism promotion. The Footprint results have also highlighted issues surrounding planning decisions being made on proposed developments and whether long term ecological costs were being considered. For example, the development of flats on Brownfield sites and whether residents would have access to public transport or have adequate facilities for recycling waste. Within the Council, staff and elected members have also recognised the value of the Footprint as an aid to decision making on sustainability issues and have gone so far as to make suggestions for further areas of research including commuting, schools and food procurement.

The novelty of the Footprint methodology used in the Cardiff study, is that comparable Ecological Footprints can be calculated on a sub-national level and for different socio-economic groups. Previously it has not been possible to compare the Ecological Footprints of a city, a region or devolved country and a nation (e.g. Cardiff, Wales and UK). The use of economic input-output analysis, the detail of disaggregation by consumption category and the expanded use of household expenditure data all extend the potential for applications of the Ecological Footprint concept and helps to inform scenarios, policies and strategies on sustainable consumption.

For Cardiff, the results from this study have demonstrated that the Ecological Footprint is a useful tool by which the Council and other organisations can consider the longer term and global impacts of the City’s growth and development. The Footprint allows the identification of areas of priority for policy and can help officers and local politicians to contribute to more informed debates about a vision of a sustainable Cardiff. Even so, interest in the Footprint results is variable, in part depending upon calculations of whether particular interests will be furthered or stifled by promoting the Footprint. For example, in novel policy areas for the Council, such as food or climate change, some officers have been keen to utilise the results of the Footprint and champion it as a tool as a way of bolstering their position and the credibility of the Footprint within the organisation. Meanwhile, other officers have felt that the Footprint results may challenge long held policy objectives or favoured policy evaluation tools and have sought to dismiss or discredit the findings. The debates that the Footprint process has provoked have subjected the methodology to considerable scrutiny.

As officers within the Council have become more confident in the robustness of the Ecological Footprint as a tool and the legitimacy of its data, they have been keen to engage in evaluations of different policy options. Here the Footprint provides an innovative perspective on environmental pressures and is able to communicate them to officers in a readily understandable form. On its own, though, the Ecological Footprint will not change decisions within the Council (or any other organisation). Economic factors continue to dominate and the interpretation of the Footprint results or the development of alternative developmental perspectives based on the Footprint currently remain within the shadow of a pro-growth agenda.

294


Paper 8


References

Aall, C. and Norland, I.T., 2005. The Use of the Ecological Footprint in Local Politics and Administration: Results and Implications from Norway. Local Environment, 10:159–172.

Ayres, R.U., 2000. Commentary on the utility of the Ecological Footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32: 347–349.

Barrett, J., Birch, R., Cherrett, N. and Wiedmann, T., 2005. Reducing Wales’ Ecological Footprint - Main Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, published by WWF Cymru, Cardiff, UK. http://www.walesfootprint.org

Cardiff Council, 2002a. Economic Development Plan 2003–2004 (Cardiff Council, Cardiff).

Cardiff Council, 2002b. City and County of Cardiff STEAM Report 2001, Numeric Executive Summary (reissued April 2002).

Collins, A., Flynn, A. and Netherwood, A,. 2005. Reducing Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint- Main Report. BRASS, Cardiff University; published by WWF Cymru, Cardiff, UK. http://www.walesfootprint.org

Environment Waikato, 2003. Regional Ecological Footprint. Internet site http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/eco-footprint-sep03/index.html. Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton East, New Zealand.

EPA Victoria, 2003. EPA Victoria and Eco-footprint, Environment Protection Authority, Victoria, Australia. http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/eco-footprint

Ferguson, A.R.B., 2001. Comments on eco-footprinting. Ecological Economics, 37:1–2

Ferng, J.J., 2001. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate Ecological Footprints associated with production activity. Ecological Economics, 37:159–172.

Ferng, J.J., 2002. Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints. Ecological Economics, 40:53–69.

GFN, 2004. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=nrb

Herendeen, R.A., 2000. Ecological Footprint is a vivid indicator of indirect effects. Ecological Economics, 32: 357–358.

295




James, N. and Desai, P., 2003. One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway - A WWF-UK One Million Sustainable Homes Campaign Report; BioRegional Development Group, Surrey, UK, June 2003. http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/thamesgateway.pdf.

Lenzen, M. and Murray, S.A., 2001. A modified Ecological Footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics, 37:229–255.

McDonald, G.W. and Patterson, M.G., 2004. Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecological Economics, 50:49–67.

McGregor, P.G., Swales, J.K. and Turner, K.R., 2004. The impact of Scottish consumption on the local environment: an alternative to the Ecological Footprint? Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde. Quarterly Economic Commentary - Economic Perspectives, 29(1):29–34.

Moffatt, I., 2000. Ecological Footprints and sustainable development. Ecological Economics 32:359–362.

NAfW, 2004. Sustainable Development Indicators for Wales 2004. National Assembly for Wales, Statistical Bulletin 18/2004. http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypubstatisticsforwalesheadline/content/sustainable/ 2O04/hdw20040323-e.htm.

NRG4SD, 2004. International Seminar on Sustainable Development Indicators - Bases for developing common indicators at a regional level. Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (NRG4SD), ENCORE, Basque Government; Carlton Hotel, Bilbao, Basque Country, November 9-10, 2004. http://www.nrg4sd.net/ENG/Events/ Other/BilbaoNov2004.htm.

ONS, 2001. Census 2001: The most comprehensive survey of the population. Office for National Statistics, London. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census200l/

ONS, 2003a. Detailed household expenditure by UK Countries and Government Office Regions 2001–02; revised September 2003. Office for National Statistics, London.

ONS, 2003b. United Kingdom Input-Output Analyses, 2003 Edition. Editor: Sanjiv Mahajan. Office for National Statistics. London. Download of Input-Output Supply and Use tables at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/inputoutput

van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘Ecological Footprint’. Ecological Economics, 29:61–72.

296


Paper 8


van Vuuren, D.P. and Smeets, E.M.W., 2001. Ecological Footprints: reply to A.R.B Ferguson. Ecological Economics, 37:2–3.

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC).

Wiedmann, T. and Barren, J., 2005. The Use of Input-Output Analysis in REAP to allocate Ecological Footprints and Material Flows to Final Consumption Categories. REAP Report No. 2, Stockholm Environment Institute, York, UK.

Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., and Wackernagel, M., 2005. Allocating Ecological Footprints to Household Consumption Activities by Using Input-Output Analysis. Ecological Economics, article in press.

WSP Environmental and Natural Strategies, 2003 a. Towards a Sustainable London - Reducing the Capital’s Ecological Footprint. Phase 1 Report: Determining London’s Ecological Footprint and Priority Impact Areas for Action. WSP Environmental Ltd, London and Natural Strategies LLC, Oakland CA. http://www.londonremade.com/lr footprinting.asp.

WSP Environmental and Natural Strategies, 2003b. Towards a Sustainable London - Reducing the Capital’s Ecological Footprint. Phase 2 Report: Proposals to Reduce London’s Ecological Footprint. WSP Environmental Ltd, London and Natural Strategies LLC, Oakland CA. http://www.londonremade.com/publications_research.asp.

WWF, 2004. Living Planet Report 2004, World-Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), Global Footprint Network, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.panda.org/livingplanet.

297




An Evaluation of the Ecological Footprint for Different Types of

Urban Development Impacts

Andrew Flynn

School of City and Regional Planning

Scope of presentation

Background to the ecological footprint

– What the footprint is and how it is measured

Cardiff ecological footprint results

Applying the results

– Housing development

– Tourism development in Cardiff Bay

Conclusions

298


Paper 8


Environmental impacts of urban areas

How do we measure the environmental impacts of a city?

How do we know if those impacts are changing over time?

Partial picture from data on

– Air quality, Water quality, Waste production etc

But how do we know which is the most important?

– Air Vs water

– Cannot add the impacts together to provide a single figure

– What information do policy makers need?

Examine resource flows – what is being consumed in the City?

Measuring the footprint

Transport

- passenger & freight

Food

- at home & eaten out

Household Consumption consumables (e.g. newspapers etc) durables (e.g. electrical items etc)

Infrastructure

- housing & construction

Energy & Water

Services

- commercial & public

Waste

- domestic & commercial

299




What is an ecological footprint?

The footprint measures human demand for resources against nature’s available supply.

The footprint is measured using ‘global hectares’(gha).

It provides us with an answer to the most basic question for sustainable development: how much nature have we got compared to how much we use?

Why do a footprint study?

Interest in how decision makers take the environment into account

Does the footprint provide decision makers with a tool they can use?

An aggregated indicator can help them think in a corporate way

300


Paper 8


City of Cardiff

Population of 307, 300

10% of the population of Wales

In recent years economy has grown

– Retail

– Housing

– Leisure

Redevelopment of the Bay area

Cardiff Footprint study

Work closely with key staff in Cardiff Council

Data collection is checked with Council staff

Senior management are regularly briefed on the project

Politicians are briefed on interim results

301




Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint

5.345.255.59Total EF (gha/capita)

0.180.170.16Housing Infrastructure

tbc0.670.76Waste

1.561.471.48Other (incl water, services, holidays abroad)

0.650.640.64Consumables & Durables

0.990.790.97Private Transport

0.900.920.97Domestic Energy

1.341.291.33Food

UKWalesCardiffComponents

5.345.255.59Total EF (gha/capita)

0.180.170.16Housing Infrastructure

tbc0.670.76Waste

1.561.471.48Other (incl water, services, holidays abroad)

0.650.640.64Consumables & Durables

0.990.790.97Private Transport

0.900.920.97Domestic Energy

1.341.291.33Food

UKWalesCardiffComponents

Headline results

Food and drink (23%)

– Scale, type and pattern of food consumption

Travel (18%)

– Dispersed neighbourhoods

– Edge of city leisure and retail developments

Energy (17%)

– Rise of single occupancy and executive developments which are large energy consumers

– appliances

302


Paper 8


1 hectare = approx 1 football pitch

120 meters

79 meters

Housing types and energy consumption

Clearly reduce consumption due to specific BedZED conditions

BedZED eco-village development‘BedZED’

Reduced consumption mainly due to technical efficiency improvements

BRE EcoHomes with ‘excellent’ rating‘Eco-home’

Cardiff average consumption with slightly reduced energy consumption

Built to 2002 Building Regulations‘2002 regulation’

Cardiff average consumption patternBased on BRE data for 100 homes‘Cardiff average’

Energy consumption patternDescription of housing typeHousing type

Clearly reduce consumption due to specific BedZED conditions

BedZED eco-village development‘BedZED’

Reduced consumption mainly due to technical efficiency improvements

BRE EcoHomes with ‘excellent’ rating‘Eco-home’

Cardiff average consumption with slightly reduced energy consumption

Built to 2002 Building Regulations‘2002 regulation’

Cardiff average consumption patternBased on BRE data for 100 homes‘Cardiff average’

Energy consumption patternDescription of housing typeHousing type

303




Footprint for housing types: building materials and energy use

0.161 0.166 0.163 0.092

0.9860.730

0.566

0.298

-

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

Cardiff average 2002 Regulation EcoHome BedZED

Housing Type

Eco

logi

cal F

ootp

rint

(gha

/cap

ita)

Building Materials Domestic Energy Use

When coal was King

304


Paper 8


Cardiff Bay

Closure of steel works

Derelict around the docks

Cardiff Bay Barrage

305




International Sports Village

Cardiff Council led initiative

‘create a landmark sports tourism destination for national and international events’

80 Acres in a Prime Waterfront Location only 3 miles from the City Centre

Proposed developments

Aquatic centre

Snow dome

Arena

Ice Pad

Conference Centre

Retail (sports, food)

Accommodation (private & rented)

306


Paper 8


Sports Village Image

1

2

3

45

6

7 8

9

10

15 17

16

12

11

MASTERPLAN AS PROPOSED

DECEMBER 2002

PHASE 11 Residential 2 Residential3 ResidentialPHASE 210 Pool / Aquatic Centre / Health & FitnessPHASE 312 – Food Store & Garden Centre15 – Bulky Goods / Golf Driving RangePHASE 48 Residential 9 Hotel / Conference11 Hotel, Casino & BaysideRestaurant16 – Arena17 – Snow Centre, Ice Pad, Sports, Retail, FoodPHASE 54 Family pub 5 Budget Hotel / Fast Food Outlets6 Training Centre / Accommodation7 Cardiff Dock Heritage & World Tug Centrel

307




Key summary results

0.00250.0025Consumables & Durables

0.0040.006Food

0.0170.020Transport (excl air)

Cardiff visitor(gha/visitor)

ISV visitor(gha/visitor)

0.00250.0025Consumables & Durables

0.0040.006Food

0.0170.020Transport (excl air)

Cardiff visitor(gha/visitor)

ISV visitor(gha/visitor)

*

308


Paper 8


Conclusions

Ecological footprint identifies the resource ‘big hitters’

The Cardiff footprint is large

– Is likely to carry on growing

– Slowing the rate of growth will be challenging, reducing its size will be very difficult

Policy officers and politicians have found the results useful

Key role for the planning system e.g.

– Transport

– Energy

– housing

309




��


MIP MEMBERS/CONSULTANTS

1. Abdul Halim b. Ali Hassan - Perunding UEP S/B, Skudai, Johor 2. Abdul Hamid b. Akub - HRC Development Consultant S/B, Kajang Selangor 3. Ahmad b. Ab. Majid - MEGArancang, Bandar Baru Uda, Johor Bahru 4. Ahmad Tarmizi b. Husin - Asnatech Consult, Damansara, Kuala Lumpur 5. Amlir b. Ayat - Jurutera Perunding 6. Annuar b. Abu Bakar - ANZ Planners S/B, Batu Caves, Selangor 7. AR Hj. Mohd Nazam b. Md. Kassim - Focus Architects & Urban Planners S/B, Petaling Jaya, Selangor 8. Bartholomew Wong Kee Kho - WP Perancang S/B, Kuching, Sarawak 9. Che Mohamed b. Che Idris - Axis Planning, Petaling Jaya 10. Chia Yew Teck - Gamuda Land S/B, Shah Alam 11. Chong Chee Kit - Mampu Jaya S/B, Kuchai Lama, Kuala Lumpur 12. Chow Yooi Leong - MegaLand Development S/B, Ipoh, Perak 13. Chan Wai Ling - Opus International (M) Bhd. Taman Desa, Kuala Lumpur 14. Dato’ Hj Sanad b. Hj. Said - Seniwisma Architects Planner S/B, Shah Alam, Selangor 15. Fadzil b. Abdul Rahman - MNF Associates, Skudai Johor 16. Goh Lei Lei - P & D Planners S/B, Taman Pelangi, Johor Bahru 17. Haji b. Ramli - MHHR Consultant, Alor Star, Kedah 18. Herlina bt. Ab. Aziz - Peers Consult (M) S/B, Puchong, Selangor 19. Hj. Kamaruzaman Abdul Wahab - Desa Konsult S/B, Danau Desa, Kuala Lumpur 20. Ishak b. Ariffi n - Via Natura (M) S/B, Taman Melati, Kuala Lumpur 21. Ismail Mohamed Nor - MIM Consultant, Kuantan, Pahang 22. Juliana bt. Mohamad - RJ Planning, Johor Bahru, Johor 23. Mohd. Fahmi Ashmir - KW Associate Planners S/B, Shah Alam, Selangor 24. Khairil Anwar b. Azman - YD Planners, Shah Alam, Selangor 25. Kok Lai Kuan - AJM Planning & Urban Design Group S/B, Dataran Mentara, Petaling Jaya 26. Law Hui Ho - Jurubina Unireka, Kuching, Sarawak 27. Leong Siew Leng - Perunding Alam Bina S/B, Jalan Pahang Barat, Kuala Lumpur

311




28 Lim Ech Chan - GDP Planners S/B, Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur 29. Lim Yan Kim - ELF Project Management S/B, Puchong, Selangor 30. Low Chee Hoo - Goh Hock Guan & Associates, Batu Caves, Selangor 31. Mak Mil Yung - Gamuda Land S/B, Shah Alam 32. Md. Nazri Mohd Noordin - Iktisas Planners S/B, Bandar Melawati, Kuala Lumpur 33. Megat Sahrir Zainal - ANZ Planners S/B, Batu Caves, Selangor 34. Mohamad Yusof b. Kadri - YD Planners, Shah Alam, Selangor 35. Mohd Anuar b. A. Wahab - Analisis Town Planning Consultants, Skudai, Johor Bahru 36. Mohd Haniff b. Mohd Yunus - Kita Rancang Consult, Taman Setapak Indah, Kuala Lumpur 37. Mohd. Saleh b. Hj. Marzoki - E-1325, Tkt. 2, Jln. Bukit Ubi, Kuantan 38. Mohd. Tahir b. Abu Bakar - TAB Consult, Sri Keramat Tengah, Kuala Lumpur 39. Mohd. Samsudin b. Mohamed - F.I Group S/B, Bandar Baru Sentul, Kuala Lumpur 40. Chuah Hoon Hoon - Desa Konsult S/B, Danau Desa, Kuala Lumpur 41. Muhammad Khairuddin b. - MK Planning Consultants, Bandar Baru Abu Bakar Bangi Selangor 42. Neoh Soo Keat - Trinity Towers S/B, Bandar Putri, Puchong 43. Ng Choi - 11A, Jln. BU 3/6, Bandar Utama, Damansara, Petaling Jaya 44. Norasiah bt. Hj. Yahya - Saw GeoData S/B. 45. Philipose Philips - PAG Consult S/B, Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur 46. Pratap Chandran Gopinath - EPSM, Petaling Jaya 47. Rahani bt. Jusoh - RJ Planning Consultant, Tampoi Indah, Johor Bahru 48. Raja Hayati bt. Raja Ali - Rancang Bistari, Kg. Bendahara, Johor Bahru 49. Ratnawati bt. Aman - Jururancang RBC, Skudai, Johor Bahru 50. Robert Bantan Ak Banta - WP Perancang, Kuching, Sarawak 51. Rosazanam b. Khalid - RBK Town Planning Consultant, Tampoi Utama, Johor Bahru 52. Shamsol Jeffri b. Zainal - SAM Planners, Shah Alam, Selangor 53. Shamsudin b. Che Mustapha - Centre Line Consult, Shah Alam, Selangor 54. Sudirman b. Abdul Karim - Arkitek Karya Budi, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 55. Suhaimi b. Sulaiman - Centrum Consult, Petaling Jaya, Selangor 56. Suki Mee - DIGI Planners Services, Ipoh Perak

312


Participants


57. Tan Kok Chaon - KCYS Architects S/B, Taman Puncak Kinrara 58. Tn. Hj. Mohd Sidek b. Abdul Latiff - Siraz Consult S/B, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan 59. Tn. Zamri b. Tuan Embong - Erarancang Sdn. Bhd. Ipoh, Perak 60. Wee Hock Eian - PIR Planner, Subang Jaya, Selangor 61. Young Daud b. Nordin Ali - YD Planners, Shah Alam, Selangor 62. Zainudi b. Hasan - Jururancang Harta S/B, Shah Alam, Selangor 63. Zaini b. Nordin - Integrated Geoplanning, Wangsa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur 64. Zaliah bt. Shamsudin - ANZ Planners S/B, Wangsa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur 65. Zolkafli b. Abd Rahman - Jururancang Gemilang S/B, Shah Alam, Selangor 66. Zainal Abidin b. Md. Yusof - NZPG S/B, Petaling Jaya, Selangor 67. Mazlan b. Hj. Othman - Mazlan Planning Consultant (MPC), Ampang, Selangor 68. Hj. Mohd. Hussaini b. Morid - WNA System Innovation S/B 69. Alexander Ng Khai Heng - NKH Planning and Architecture Consult 70. Tn. Hj. Kamal Fakhri b. Hj. Ariffin - HRC Development Consultant S/B 71. Hasnul Nazmi - Metropolis Planning S/B 72. Md. Noor Ayob - MNH S/B 73. Syed Azelan - JTC Planner S/B 74. Affandi Keli - BDC 75. Mahhob - MSI 76. Ahmad Naim - Transplan System 77. Noraida Saludin - AJM 78. Norhalim b. Ahmad - Juruajli Planning & Consultancy KPKT 79. Hjh. Norimah bt. Md. Dali - Bhg. Sejahtera Bandar, KPKT 80. Attia Azarina bt. Amirludin - Bhg. Perancangan, KPKT 81. Ahmad Syaharuddin b. Kamaruddin - Jab. Landskap Negara

313




STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

82. Khalijah bt. Abdul Malik - Pahang State Development Corporation 83. Najmuddin b. Abdul Rahman - Perlis State Economic Development Corporation 84. Ismail b. A. Rahman - Melaka State Development Corporation 85. Ibrahim b. Tambi - Labuan Corporation 86. Tn. Hj. Abidin Arshad - Labuan Corporation 87. Tn. Hj. Ahmad Faudzi b. - Tioman Development Corporation Hj. Abd. Majid 88. Sulimah bt. Salleh - Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) 89. Sarinah bt. Shamsudin - Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) 90. Tn. Hj. Suhaimi b. Hj. Kasdon - Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) 91. Nor Azlina bt. Amran - Selangor State Development Corporation(PKNS) 92. Abas Salleh - Kelantan State Development Corporation

314


Participants


OTHER AGENCIES

93. Mursidi @ Dinin b. Sapi - Ministry of Local Government & Housing, Sabah 94. Chan Seng Hai - Sarawak Transport Co. Bhd. 95. Dzulkifli b. Abu Bakar - Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Kuala Lumpur 96. Anita bt. Ainan - Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Kuala Lumpur 97. Ibrahim b. Abustan - Boustead Petroleum Marketing S/B, Kuala Lumpur 98. Ramli b. Zulkifli - Ministry of Federal Territories, Putrajaya 99. Aisah bt. Abu Bakar - SERI, Penang100. Juaina Abas Rashid - Negara Properties (M) Bhd, Pusat Bandar Melawati, Kuala Lumpur101. Normala bt. Ismail - Negara Properties (M) Bhd, Pusat Bandar Melawati, Kuala Lumpur102. Charanpal Singh - Department of Environment, Negeri Sembilan103. Dr. Jamilah bt. Hashim - Sarawak Health Department 104. Lai Hua Lee - Land & Survey Department, Kuching, Sarawak105. Ramli b. Din - Royal Malaysia Police, Kuala Lumpur106. Mohd. Dzuraidi b. Ibrahim - Royal Malaysia Police, Kuala Lumpur107. Mior Hazrin Syahnaz b. - Royal Malaysia Police, Kota Bharu, Kelantan Mior Hamzah 108. Liu Thian Chon - Ministry of Urban Development and Tourism Sarawak109. Caroline Chen Tze Yian - Ministry of Urban Development and Tourism Sarawak110. Siti Zakiah bt. Muhamad Isa - Malaysian Department of Statistics, Putrajaya111. Suzana bt. Abu Bakar - Malaysian Department of Statistics, Putrajaya112. Kho Lek Kiang - Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Johor113. Eddy Syamsinoor b. Marsham - Department of Asset Management and Valuation, Kuala Lumpur114. Ng Yin Loo - Multimedia Development Corporation, Cyberjaya115. Saffiya - Multimedia Development Corporation, Cyberjaya116. Tan Mun Wai - Multimedia Development Corporation, Cyberjaya117. Fazlina - Multimedia Development Corporation, Cyberjaya118. Kamariah bt. Abdullah Khairi - Department of Environment, Putrajaya119. Hj. Hanapi b. Mohamad Noor - Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Perlis

315




FEDERAL & STATE DTCP

120. Tn. Hj. Mohamad b. Hj. Ibrahim - DTCP, Kelantan121. Rosmawati bt. Haron - DTCP, Johor122. Zaini b. Ishak - DTCP, Kedah123. Badrul b. Rahim - DTCP, Kedah124. Mursidin b. Ismail - DTCP, Kedah125. Haslina bt. Chan @ Hassan - DTCP, Kedah126. Asni bt. Mustafa - DTCP, Kedah127. Mohd Faidzal b. Hamzah - DTCP, Melaka128. Dato’ Yaacob b. Nordin - DTCP, Perak129. Mohamad Sabri b. Ahmad - DTCP, Perak130. Rosmiyani bt. Che Harun - DTCP, Perak131. Ab. Hamid b. Majid - DTCP, Perlis132. Ismail b. Ibrahim - DTCP, Pulau Pinang133. Rosli b. Haron - DTCP, Pulau Pinang134. Mohd Hafezal b. Hussein - DTCP, Pulau Pinang135. Raimah Kassim - DTCP, Pulau Pinang136. Abdul Jamil b. Arshad - DTCP, Selangor137. Hjh. Hazizah bt. Sulaiman - DTCP, Selangor138. Hjh. Fudziah bt. Abas - DTCP, Selangor139. Mohd. Sukuran b. Taib - DTCP, Selangor140. Datin Paduka Halimaton Saadiah - DTCP, Selangor bt. Hashim141. Tn. Hj. Hamdan b. Hj. Mohd Kassim - DTCP, Negeri Sembilan142. Mokhtar b. Hj. Samadi - DTCP, Terengganu143. Hj. Noran b. Sharif - Federal DTCP Project Coordination Office144. Hjh. Kamariah bt. Ibrahim - Federal DTCP Project Coordination Office145. Asiah bt. Sulaiman - Federal DTCP Project Coordination Office146. Rokibah bt. Abdul Latif - Alor Star Project Office147. Yip Siew Kuan - Alor Star Project Office148. Muhammad Hakimi b. - Alor Star Project Office Mohd Hussain149. Azrul b. Osman - Alor Star Project Office150. Ismail b. Abd. Manaf - Alor Star Project Office151. Aishah bt. Abdullah - Alor Star Project Office152. Harizah bt. Hassan - Alor Star Project Office153. Toh Lay See - Alor Star Project Office

316


Participants


154. Rosili b. Ahmad - Alor Star Project Office155. Abd Talip b. Abd Rahman - Alor Star Project Office156. Fatimaton bt. Hassan - Alor Star Project Office157. Mohd Bashir b. Sulaiman - Alor Star Project Office158. Nor Raziah bt. Mat - Alor Star Project Office159. Mohammad Nizam b. Taib - Alor Star Project Office160. Siti Sarah bt. Bakar - Alor Star Project Office161. Nazirah bt. Mahmud - Regional Planning Division, Federal DTCP162. Hasnan b. Iberahim - Regional Planning Division, Federal DTCP163. Nor Mazlan b. Hj. Mohd Yunus - Regional Planning Division, Federal DTCP164. Wong Kam Lee - Regional Planning Division, Federal DTCP165. Mohd Fahmi b. Said - Regional Planning Division, Federal DTCP166. Hjh. Nooraini bt. Hj. Ismail - Human Resource Planning Unit, Federal DTCP167. Latif b. Kahar - Human Resource Planning Unit, Federal DTCP168. Faridahwati bt. Mohd Salleh - Human Resource Planning Unit, Federal DTCP169. Ab. Majid b. Ahmad - Human Resource Planning Unit, Federal DTCP170. Tn. Hj. Mohd. Azam b. Mohd Abid - Legal, Planning & Regulatory Division, Federal DTCP171. Toh Puan Rozaimi b. Zainuddin - Legal, Planning & Regulatory Division, Federal DTCP172. Chua Rhan See - Legal, Planning & Regulatory Division, Federal DTCP173. Jamariah bt. Isam - Legal, Planning & Regulatory Division, Federal DTCP174. Mohd. Faizalnizam b. Md. Zain - Legal, Planning & Regulatory Division, Federal DTCP175. Dr. Dolbani b. Mijan - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP176. Hasmawati bt. Mahmood - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP177. Rohani bt. Md. Hashim - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP178. Vikneswaren A/L Jeyasivam - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP179. Tee Szu Fong - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP180. Hasni bt. Ramli - Corporate Planning Division, Federal DTCP181. Saidin b. Lateh - Johor Development Planning Unit182. Zamirzan b. Puji - Johor Development Planning Unit183. Edanoryana bt. Abd Rahman - Johor Development Planning Unit

317




184. Jamilah bt. Abdul Karim - Johor Development Planning Unit185. Dr. Dahlia bt. Rosly - KL Project Office186. Abdul Rahman b. Hamzah - KL Project Office187. Qua Jen Min - KL Project Office188. Hjh. Zaleha Shaari - KL Project Office189. Kor Cher Shen - KL Project Office190. Mohd Ali b. Abu Bakar - KL Project Office191. Mohd Nasir Shaari - KL Project Office192. Wong Seng Fatt - KL Project Office193. Mohd Rizal Osman - KL Project Office194. Azmizam b. Abd Rashid - KL Project Office195. Egna Francis Gitom - KL Project Office196. Saifulhazly Hamid - KL Project Office197. Mohd Zaini b. Mohd Yusof - KL Project Office198. Khairani bt. Muhamad - KL Project Office199. Siow Suan Neo - National Physical Plan Division200. Idris b. Abd. Rahim - National Physical Plan Division201. Noryazan b. Zainol - National Physical Plan Division202. Nor Salehi b. Kassim - National Physical Plan Division203. Sanisah bt. Shafie - National Physical Plan Division204. Mohd Jaafar b. Mohd Atan - National Physical Plan Division205. Ezrein Faizal b. Ahmad - Kuala Terengganu Project Office206. Ydira bt. Ibrahim - Kuala Terengganu Project Office207. Anuar Muda - Kuala Terengganu Project Office208. Khairolazhar Kamarulzaman - Kuala Terengganu Project Office209. Hjh. Rohaya Abd. Kadir - Kuala Terengganu Project Office210. Hj. Wan Hassan Wan Ismail - Kuala Terengganu Project Office211. Tn. Hj. Mohd Zaki b. Ibrahim - Kuala Terengganu Project Office212. Asfazilah bt. Samad - Kuantan Project Office213. Rozdiana bt. Mohd Rosmi - Kuantan Project Office214. Alimah Mohd Suri - Kuantan Project Office215. Manmohan Singh a/l Utam Singh - Kuantan Project Office216. Razali b. Mohd - Kuantan Project Office217. Ahmad Fauzi b. Hj. Yusoff - Kuantan Project Office218. Norlin Abu Hassan - Kuantan Project Office219. Balkis bt. Saleh - Kota Bharu Development Planning Unit220. Ahmad Tarmizi b. Ahmad - Kota Bharu Development Planning Unit

318


Participants


221. Tn. Hj. Hassan b. Yaacob - Kota Bharu Development Planning Unit222. Haris b. Arifin - Melaka Project Office223. Khairulzaman Ibrahim - Melaka Project Office224. Mazillah Azleen bt. Mat Nor - Melaka Project Office225. Muhammad Shaifuddin Abdullah - Melaka Project Office226. Rafidah bt Hj. Jaapar - Melaka Project Office227. Robi bt. Desa - Melaka Project Office228. Datin Wira Hamisah bt. Ariffin - Melaka Project Office229. Madzi b. Mat Lin - Melaka Project Office230. Mohd Anuar Maidin - Melaka Project Office231. Abbas Abdul Wahab - Information Technology Division232. Suraya bt. Hj. Dahlan - Information Technology Division233. Norasniza Hamzah - Information Technology Division234. Roslinawati bt. Misdi Alhaj - Information Technology Division235. Habibah Abdul Aziz - Information Technology Division236. Noriza Sulong - Information Technology Division237. Marha bt. Sidik - Information Technology Division238. Norhayati bt. Abu Bakar - Information Technology Division239. Kamalruddin b. Shamsudin - Research & Development Division240. Lilian Ho Yin Chan - Research & Development Division241. Mohamed Jamil b. Ahmad - Research & Development Division242. Saifuddin B. Ahmad - Research & Development Division243. Suraya bt. Dato’ Badaruddin - Research & Development Division244. Saidah Ahmad - DTCP, Selangor245. Khatijah bt. A.O Mohd Shafie - DTCP, Terengganu246. Lim Siew Chin - Melaka Project Office247. Ahmad b. Yusof - Melaka Project Office

319




LOCAL AUTHORITIES248. Nik Mastura Diyana bt. - Kuala Lumpur City Hall Nik Mohamad249. Rosli b. Nordin - Kuala Lumpur City Hall250. Nurazizi b. Mokhtar - Kuala Lumpur City Hall251. Tn. Hj. Yunos b. Kashib - Sepang Municipal Council252. Tn. Hj. Md Isa b. Jaafar - Subang Jaya Municipal Council253. Asmidar bt. Shaarin - Subang Jaya Municipal Council254. Azlina bt. Mat Salim - Subang Jaya Municipal Council255. Nizam b. Shaari - Kajang Municipal Council256. Ruzaana bt. Abdul Rahman - Klang Municipal Council257. Yusri b. Mustafa - Klang Municipal Council258. Mohd Helimy b. Samat - Seremban Municipal Council259. Nazri b. A.Ghani - Nilai Municipal Council260. Norleeza bt. Zainuddin - Nilai Municipal Council261. Tn. Hj. Abd Hamid b. Hj. Abd Samad - Jelebu District Council262. Azmi b. Abdul Manap - Kuala Pilah District Council263. Ahmad Faizal b. Kamarudin - Tampin District Council264. Shamsidah bt Ismail - Jasin District Council265. Saifuddin b. Abdul Karim - Alor Gajah Municipal Council266. Razali b. Othman - Ipoh City Council267. Tn. Hj. Azizuddin b. Hj. Alias - Ipoh City Council268. Abdul Hakim b. Hj. Ibrahim - Perak Tengah District Council269. Azizan b. Hj. Abd. Muin - Teluk Intan Municipal Council270. Mohd Norulamin b. Ahmad - Kuala Kangsar Municipal Council271. Abdul Puhat b. Mat Nayan - Kerian District Council272. Norhasmah bt. Halid - Kerian District Council273. Abdul Khair b. Hj. Ahmad - Kinta Barat District Council274. Mohamad Padzil b. Khalid - Taiping Municipal Council275. Norsiah bt. Hj. Din - Taiping Municipal Council276. Shahiri b. Tan - Tapah District Council277. Mohd Shukri b. Ariffin - Kemaman Municipal Council278. Rosli b. Mohamad - Kemaman Municipal Council279. Hj. Ab. Aziz b. Ab. Rahman - Kota Bharu Municipal Council280. Mat Seman b. Mohd Nor - Kota Bharu Municipal Council281. Ahmad Adlee b. Yasin - Kuala Kerai Utara District Council282. Noormala bt. Md Noor - Alor Star City Council283. Tn. Hj. Muhammad Nor b. Hj. Rofie - Padang Terap District Council

320


Participants


284. Azhani bt. Md. Shahid - Sungai Petani Municipal Council285. Mohd Amin b. Ali - Sungai Petani Municipal Council286. Mohammad Fuad b. Ismail - Langkawi Municipal Council287. Tn. Hj. Ahmad Fisol b. Md. Nor - Langkawi Municipal Council288. Zarina bt. Abdul Hamid - Johor Baru Tengah Municipal Council289. Nurazhani bt. Bujang - Johor Bahru City Council290. Abdul Jalil b. Tasliman - Johor Bahru City Council291. Abdul Malik b. Haji Ismail - Kluang Municipal Council292. Iskandar Din b. Suparlan - Kluang Municipal Council293. Abdul Shukur b. Osman - Yong Peng District Council294. Lukman b. Rahmat - Yong Peng District Council295. Norashikin bt. Mohd Yasin - Batu Pahat Municipal Council296. Alijus b. Hj. Sipil - Kota Kinabalu City Hall297. Hamizatulazna bt. Khamis - Pekan District Council298. Tn. Hj. Ahmad b. Noh - Temerloh Municipal Council299. Che Huzzana bt. Che Husain - Kuantan Municipal Council300. Mohd Hisamudin b. Ideris - Kuantan Municipal Council301. Yusoff b. Husain - Kuantan Municipal Council302. Syed Mohd Nor b. Syed Jaafar - Bentong Municipal Council303. Anthony Luta ak. Juing - Betong District Council304. Ahmad Jerry b. Hj. Hashim - Kanowit District Council305. Chan Kay Beng - Kuching Selatan City Council306. Antonio Kahti Galis - Miri City Council307. Pn. Maimunah bt. Mohd Sharif - Pulau Pinang Municipal Council308. Suzana bt. Othman - Petaling Jaya Municipal Council309. Patahiyah Ismail - Pulau Pinang Municipal Council310. Hilary John Da - Kuching Utara City Council311. Tg. Syafareen b. Tg. Rahim - Petaling Jaya Municipal Council312. Faiwos bt. Abd Hamid - Petaling Jaya Municipal Council

321




STATE ECONOMIC PLANNING UNITS313. Zailan b. Shaary - Pahang State Economic Planning Unit314. Lawrence Tseu Sk - Sarawak State Planning Unit315. Mohd Nizam b. Tajul Arus - Negeri Sembilan State Economic Planning Unit316. Musthafa b. Mohamad - Kedah State Economic Planning Unit

322


Participants


INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING317. Indera Syahrul b. Mat Radzuan - Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussien Onn Batu Pahat, Johor318. Seow Ta Wee - Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussien Onn Batu Pahat, Johor319. Prof Dr Hjh Maziah Ismail - Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussien Onn Batu Pahat, Johor320. Faezah bt. Yahya - Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah Jitra, Kedah321 Azzatunisa bt. Ahmad Zubir - Politeknik Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah Jitra, Kedah322. Dr. Ibrahim b. Ngah - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai, Johor323. Rahmat Azam Mustafa - Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang324. Prof Dr. Mansor Ibrahim - Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Kuala Lumpur325. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alias Abdullah - Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Kuala Lumpur326. Prof Dr. Md Najib Ibrahim - Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Kuala Lumpur327. Prof. Dr. Che Musa Che Omar - Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Kuala Lumpur328. Prof Dr. Abdullah Mohamad Said - Universiti Teknologi Mara, Seri Iskandar, Perak329. Prof Madya Halmi b. Zainol - Universiti Teknologi Mara, Seri Iskandar, Perak330. Dr. Sharifah Norazizan Syed - Universiti Putra Malaysia, Abd Rasyid Serdang, Selangor331. Rawshan Ara Begum - Lestari UKM, Bangi, Selangor332. Noraziah bt. Abdul Aziz - Lestari UKM, Bangi, Selangor333. Alias b. Rameli - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia334. Nur Afdalila - Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Kuala Lumpur335. Rusman b. Sulaiman - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia336. Noor Fazamimah bt. Mohd Ariffin - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia337. Abdul Halim b. Ghazali - Universiti Sains Malaysia338. Kamaruddin b. Shamsuddin - Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor339. Dr. Jamalunlaili - Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam340. Jamaludin - Universiti Sains Malaysia341. Dani Salleh - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia / MIP

323




��


ADVISORY. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil bin Haji Mohd. KhirDirector GeneralFederal Department of Town and Country PlanningPeninsular Malaysia

ASST. ADVISORY.H. Dato’ Haji Zainul bin Haji AyobDeputy Director General IFederal Department of Town and Country PlanningPeninsular Malaysia

CHAIRMANPn. Lok Yin MingDeputy Director General IIFederal Department of Town and Country PlanningPeninsular Malaysia

MAIN & FINANCIAL COMMITTEEChairman:Pn. Lok Yin MingDeputy Director General II

Deputy Chairman:En. Kamalruddin ShamsudinDirector, Research and Development Division

Members:• Pn. Norliza Hashim• En. Mohd. Zamri Husin• Tn. Hj. Mohd. Azam Mohd. Abid• Tn. Hj. Mohd. Jaafar Mohd. Atan• Dr. Dolbani Mijan• Dr. Dahlia Rosly• En. Abbas Abdul Wahab• Pn. Nooraini Ismail• En. Hasnan Ibrahim• Tn. Hj. Nawawi Ab. Rashid

325




SECRETARIATChairman:En. Kamalruddin ShamsudinDirector, Research and Development Division

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Lilian Ho Yin Chan

Members:• En. Saifuddin Ahmad• Pn. Norzahriyati Aini Abdul Majid• Pn. Hjh. Norisah Rahim

WORKING PAPERS COMMITTEEChairman:En. Kamalruddin ShamsudinDirector, Research and Development Division

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Lilian Ho Yin Chan

Members:• Pn. Syazlina Bahari• Pn. Hjh. Khatijah Che Embi• En. Azlin Mujir• Cik Norhasliza Rohan• Pn. Nurul Ismah Ibrahim• En. Ahmad Khumiti Md. Purdi• Pn. Suraya Hani Wazir

Rapporteurs• Pn. Rozita bt. Hamit - Melaka Project Office• En. Peter Valentine Amandus Junior - Alor Star Project Office• En. Ezrein Faizal b. Ahmad - Kuala Terengganu Project Office• En. Zulazhar b. Abdul Ghani - Kuala Lumpur Project Office• Pn. Suzlyna bt. Abdul Latib - Kuala Lumpur Project Office• En. Normazlan b. Mohd Yunus - Regional Planning Division• En. Dzul Khaimi b. Khailani - Legal Division• En. Mustafa Bakri b. Alias Sani - Corporate Planning Division• En. Adi Iskandar Zulkarnain b. Noordin - Information Technology Division• En. Yong Chee Kong - Human Resource Planning Division• Cik Faridahwati bt. Mohd Salleh - Human Resource Planning Division

326


Convention Committees


Minute Takers• Pn. Hjh. Khatijah bt. Che Embi - Research and Development Division• Pn. Che Zauliha bt. Hj. Che Lah - Legal Division• En. Mohd. Kamal b. Harun - Information Technology Division• Pn. Noor Azuwa bt. Kushairi - Corporate Planning Division• Pn. Norhana bt. Mohamad Noor - Regional Planning Division• Cik Nor Hasliza bt. Rohan - Research and Development Division• En. Abu Salehek bin Musa - Regional Planning Division• Pn. Noriza bt. Sulong - Information Technology Division

EXHIBITIONS COMMITTEEChairman:En. Kamalruddin ShamsudinDirector, Research and Development Division

Deputy Chairman:En. Mohamed Jamil Ahmad

Members:• Cik Suraya Badaruddin• Pn. Zahrah Md. Salleh• Pn. Hjh. Nor Aini Sulaiman• En. Mohd. Kamal Abu Bakar• Pn. Norzahriyati Aini Abdul Majid• En. Zulkurnain Mohamad Yusof• Pn. Hjh. Norisah Rahim• En. Roslan Abdul Razak

SPEECHES & VVIP/VIP INVITATIONS COMMITTEEChairman:Dr. Dolbani MijanSecretariat, Coordination and Corporate Planning Division

Deputy Chairman:Cik Rohani Md. Hashim

327




Members:Speeches• En. Vikneswaren Jeyasivam• Pn. Tee Szu Fong• En. Mustafa Bakri Alias Sani• Pn. Amilia Muhamad Nor• Pn. Noor Azuwa Kushairi• Cik Rosmini Mat Zain

VIP/VVIP Invites• Pn. Tee Szu Fong• Pn. Hasni Ramli• Pn. Sakon a/p Din Chom• Pn. Noriah Ismail• Cik Nur Elliana Zainal Abidin

Graphic Design• En. Mohd. Sirad Hj. Taha

REGISTRATION, INVITATION & ACCOMMODATION COMMITTEEChairman:Tn. Hj. Mohd. Azam Mohd. AbidDirector, Legal, Planning and Regulatory

Deputy Chairman:En. Dzul Khaimi Khailani

Members:• Pn. Chee Ping Ngang• En. Mohd. Faizalnizam Md. Zain• Pn. Hjh. Sarah Khalid• En. Ahmad Kamal Baharom• En. Abdul Rasyid Zainal• En. Mior Mohd. Aziddin Mohd. Ali• En. Wira Syariza Tahir• En. Muhamad Khamimi Mohd. Idris• Pn. Rohaiza Abdullah• Pn. Sri Jurita Mahusin• Cik Nur Azma Che Aziz

328




LAUNCHING COMMITTEEChairman:En. Abbas Abdul WahabDirector, Information Technology Division

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Rafidah Mohid

Members:• Cik Norhayati Abu Bakar• Pn. Habibah Abdul Aziz

Backdrop• Pn. Rozinah Ramli• Cik Rageswary a/p Vasu• En. Shamsur Othman

Gimmick• En. Zamri Said• En. Adam Aizar Ahmad• Cik Rafizah Mijan

Multimedia Presentation• Pn. Marha Sidik• Cik Camellia Melawatie Ahmad Tamizi• En. Syaiful Niezam Hamil• En. Mohd. Faizalnizam Md. Zain• En. Abd. Rasyid Zainal• En. Mior Mohd. Aziddin Md. Ali• En. Wira Syariza Tahir

329




OFFICIATION/PROTOCOL/VENUE PREPARATION COMMITTEEChairman:Tn. Hj. Mohd. Jaafar Mohd. Atan Director, National Physical Plan

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Siow Suan Neo – ProtocolPn. Norhasnita Abd. Samad – Reception of VIP and ParticipantsEn. Nor Sallehi Kassim – VVIP LoungeEn. Mohd. Farabi Yussoff Mohd. Yusoff – Preparation of Venue and EquipmentTn. Hj. Idris Abd. Rahim - PhotographyPn. Farah Salwa Hj. Mustafa - Food and Beverages

Members:Floor Manager • Tn. Hj. Azman Talib – Floor Manager• Pn. Norhasnita Abd. Samad – Assistant Floor Manager

Protocol• Pn. Sanisah Shafie• En. Dzul Ashrai Abu Bakar• En. Farid Ibrahim• Pn. Hjh. Azmah Mokhtar• Pn. Luk Luk Al Bariyah Baharum• Cik Hajar Ahmad• En. Mohd. Izad Yahya

Reception of VIPs & Participants• Pn. Norazlina Mukair• En. Ezwan Adlan• En. Mohammad Zamri Ahmad Daud• Cik Noor Hayati Harun

VVIP Lounge• En. Azlan Mohd. Nasir• Pn. Zuraida Sahit

Preparation of Venue & Equipment • En. Rozi Effendy Abd. Rahman• En. Zaki Megat Selan• Pn. Norhaini Ahmad• Pn. Rosnah Osman• En. Mohd. Sanny Mohd. Rashid• En. Mohd. Nizam Anuwa• En. Azlan Shah Zainun

330




Photography• En. Mohd. Yunus Ali• En. Azahamsah Md. Yusoff

Food & Beverages• Pn. Nik Norhanah Nik Hassan• Pn. Mariam Sikau• Cik Zaleha Abdul Aziz• En. Mukhtar Mohd. Zin

BANQUET COMMITTEEChairman:En. Mohd. Zamri Husin

Deputy Chairman:Tn. Hj. Nazri Jaafar

Members:• Tn. Hj. Ahmad Suhaimi Ismail• Pn. Khairiah Talha• En. Md. Nazri Noordin• Tn. Hj. Mohd. Razif Mohd. Khalil• En. Mohd. Fauzi Ahmad• En. Zahiruddin Zainal• En. Mohd. Fahmi Alias• En. Rohaizal Omar• Pn. Annie Syazrin Ismail

Secretary:• Cik Siti Nor Azmi• Pn. Shahriah Che Lah• Cik Hurun Ain Samad• Cik Fara Dilla Haridatul Akhmar• En. Kamaruddin Selamat Din

331




TOURS/EXCURSIONS COMMITTEEChairman:En. Hasnan IbrahimSenior Assistant Director, Regional Planning Division

Deputy Chairman:Cik Agnes Anak Johari

Members:• En. Hamdan Sapri• En. Abu Salehek

PROMOTION & PUBLICITY COMMITTEEChairman:Dr. Dahlia RoslyDirector, Kuala Lumpur Project Office

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Zaleha Shaari

Members:• Pn. Kamariah Ibrahim• En. Azmizam Abdul Rashid• En. Saifulhazly Hamid• En. Mohd. Rizal Osman• En. Wong Seng Fatt• En. Zaifulzahri Kamde• Cik Egna Francis Gitom• Pn. Siti Jailah Hj. Dol Lajis• Cik Asiah Sulaiman• En. Mohd. Safie Mostapa• En. Raja Shamsul Nizam Raja Abdullah• Pn. Suhaila Fadzir

332




SOUVENIRS, DOOR GIFTS & CONTESTS COMMITTEEChairman:Pn. Nooraini IsmailHead of Human Resource Planning Unit

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Syarifah Nuraida T Mohd. Apandi

Members:• Pn. Sapiah Md. Salleh• Pn. Zazami Zulkifli

SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC COMMITTEEChairman:Tn. Hj. Nawawi Ab. RashidDirector, Management Services Division

Deputy Chairman:Pn. Azizah Sahar

Members:• En. Muhamad Bazli Ahmad• Pn. Jam’iah Ngah Ramli• En. Shahrizan Saidin

333




��


Convention Photos


world town planning day 2005 - convention proceedings

Documents

urban geography

urban studies

urban transformation

urban region

malaysian cities

industrial geography

malaysian context

metropolitan geography