Physical and human geography influence prospects for sustainable development almost everywhere. For example, in part due to varying geographic endowments and populations, there are dramatic differences between the levels of environmental quality in the developed North compared to the developing South. Rich countries are typically able to preserve a better local environment even as their consumption contributes to adverse environmental impacts in the developing world. Regionally, sustainability issues faced by communities in arid regions are different from those in mostly wet regions, with the former facing water shortages while the latter experience many more water-borne infectious diseases. Geographical location and climate, which are closely interlinked, also influence development. In places with favourable climatic conditions, settlements and populations typically keep expanding until they place stress on the local environment. Measures for increasing sustainability are additionally influenced by the opportunities afforded by local physical and urban environments. For example, the feasibility of using renewable wind power will likely differ between a coastal city and one located in an inland valley.

This chapter begins a closer examination of Hong Kong as a case study of contemporary challenges to sustainable development, especially in China but also in other places, particularly in other global cities. Hong Kong’s physical and urban settings are described in order to provide a local context for subsequent chapters’ examinations of specific sustainability issues in the territory.

Hong Kong is located on the South China Sea in the Pearl River (Zhujiang) delta region of China’s south (see Figure 5.1). The northern administrative border of the territory is adjacent to the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone of China’s Guangdong Province.

It goes without saying that government is vital to sustainable development. This is as at least as true in Hong Kong and the rest of China as it is in more democratic societies where nongovernmental actors have a bigger role. Progress toward sustainable development is certainly easier if there is good will from policy makers and expertise from officials concerned about promoting the public welfare. Equally important—arguably much more important in Hong Kong—is the nature of the political system. If the political system is designed to be deferential toward special interests, achieving sustainability, which by definition requires change, becomes very difficult. Regardless of which sustainability issue we consider, policy making can only be explained if we can consider vested interests that influence the government’s behaviour. For example, measures to improve Hong Kong’s air quality might require the use of more expensive fuels, thereby increasing costs for commercial operators of buses, trucks and ships. Once we understand that transportation companies and operators control the Transport ‘functional constituency’ seat in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (Legco), we begin to see why it is so hard for the Hong Kong government to adopt measures requiring commercial vehicles to pollute less. Businesses’ influence on government also stifles environmental policies in other areas.

The type of political system is important for the quality of governance. A government in which officials typically believe that they should minimise community involvement in decision making and keep information from public scrutiny is likely to make quite different decisions to those made by one that believes in transparency, accountability and genuine consultation.

After three decades of extraordinary economic growth in China, few would dispute that Hong Kong’s future is enmeshed with what happens there. Indeed, even in periods of history when China was weak, unstable or isolated, developments in China have shaped much of Hong Kong’s economic, social, political and even environmental developments. Key events in Chinese history—the nineteenth-century Opium Wars and the ceding of Hong Kong Island to the British, the Xinhai Revolution and the collapse of the Qing Dynasty quite early in the twentieth century, the Japanese invasion during World War II, the Communist victory in 1949 and the country’s economic opening starting in the late 1970s— have greatly influenced events in Hong Kong. Through a brief account of Hong Kong’s history, economy and culture, this chapter shows some of the ways in which these external events and forces have shaped life in the territory, including its halting progress toward sustainable development. Historically speaking, the goal of sustainability has not been very influential in Hong Kong; the concept of protecting natural capital was mostly absent during much of its history. What is more, the level of respect for different socio-economic classes and genders that is necessary for truly sustainable development to be realised has also been absent. While major events in Hong Kong’s history have often occurred in response to developments in China, it is also important to observe that Hong Kong has had a role in shaping modern Chinese history. Historians identify the important role played by Hong Kong in supporting the Qing Dynasty in the late nineteenth century by contributing to relief projects and by facilitating the translation and dispersal of Western knowledge in China (Fok 1990, 1–14; Carroll 2006, 523–8); in supporting opposition to the Qing Dynasty in the early twentieth century, particularly by serving as an operational base for revolutionaries (Fok 1990, 53–96); in providing financial support to villages in Guangdong Province; in supporting Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation during the 1930s and 1940s (Fok 1990, 118–35); and in acting as a gateway for investment and trade that facilitated China’s opening to the world from the mid-1970s.

As we saw in the previous chapter, Garrett Hardin’s 1968 essay, ‘The tragedy of the commons’, describes how a village’s shared common land might be ruined because each villager has an individual incentive to overuse the commons for grazing his own animals (Hardin 1968). Hardin’s ‘tragedy’, which is the failure of a community to protect shared environmental resources, describes one common type of environmental problem that sustainable development policies are intended to avert. One important question is how to implement rules that protect and sustain shared resources. Even among those who agree that sustainable development is a desirable goal, there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement as to how this goal might be achieved. Different policy responses will be appropriate for different challenges. This chapter introduces some key policy measures that are commonly utilised for implementing sustainable development. It explores arguments for government regulation to monitor shared resources and to ensure that people preserve environmental goods, describes arguments in favour of using market mechanisms and private ownership to motivate environmental protection, and looks at the argument that sustainable development can best be achieved through community management.

Sustainable development is not just a matter of environmental protection; its implementation also involves addressing the social and economic dimensions of meeting the needs of present and future generations. To this end, policy makers have sought new ways to measure and enhance human development. Efforts to move beyond a narrow focus on gross domestic product and toward wider measurements of ‘human development’ are considered in this chapter, as are efforts to construct indicators of environmental wellbeing and to build social and environmental factors into development policies.

Since the 1980s, ‘sustainable development’ has become a watchword for governments, international organisations and businesses. Indeed, the concept has become so widespread as to constitute a ‘norm’—albeit one often honoured in the breach—that governments are expected to follow as they work toward enhancing the economic wellbeing of their citizens. At its core, sustainable development is about improving human welfare in ways that do not harm the environment, or more realistically it is about promoting economic development while using natural resources sustainably and minimising harm to ecological systems. Sustainable development was most famously defined in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairperson, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, 43). According to the Brundtland Commission, sustainable development is premised upon two key ideas: “the concept of ‘needs,’ in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future goals” (WCED 1987, 43). Sustainable development encompasses questions of human welfare and justice (domestic and international), economic development and environmental health. It cannot be achieved without all of these questions being addressed. In short, according to its advocates, for sustainable development to be realised, economic activity must be managed so as to advance environmental protection and social welfare.

In the 1960s and 1970s increasing numbers of scientists and environmentalists began to argue that economic growth was imposing an unacceptable cost on the natural environment. They suggested that Western consumption habits, the rise in global population and economic growth should be constrained. At the same time, developing-world leaders were arguing that their countries should receive a better deal from international society. They argued that environmental concerns were less important than the goal of addressing poverty through economic development (UN 1997, 2). The Brundtland Commission and its report, Our common future (WCED 1987; see Chapter One) responded to these debates by arguing that sustainable development requires increased economic activity in order to promote human development that is not environmentally destructive. For those who held that industrial society was the cause of environmental problems, this argument was surprising and counterintuitive. This chapter looks back at these debates in order to understand why the concept of sustainable development seemed to be a breakthrough and why the goal—if not always the practice—of sustainable development was accepted by many governments. Debates over ‘limits to growth’ that were prompted by the early environmental movement are examined in this chapter, as are arguments between the developed and developing worlds about the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development. The chapter helps to expose the broader global context and shift toward sustainability and related environmental policies that have affected Hong Kong and China more generally. The ambivalence with which sustainable development is embraced in these places is, put simply, a reflection of a broader ambivalence revealed by the emergence of the concept over the last half century.

People’s quality of life is significantly influenced by the means of transportation that they use. To a great extent, it is technological progress in transportation that has made our modern way of life possible. Historically, technological innovations have expanded transportation choices. Successive innovations, including the taming of animals for work, harnessing steam power during the Industrial Revolution, the invention of the internal combustion engine and the development of ‘Fordist’ mass production methods (the system of standardised division of labour and mass production of goods at low cost) have expanded transportation modes from walking to travel by horse, trains and automobiles. More recently, aviation has extended travel globally. Advances in transportation technologies have made many people’s lives more convenient and expanded the geographical reach of social and professional relationships (Wadhwa 2000, 282).

With all its benefits, modern forms of transportation come with severe environmental drawbacks. For example, nearly all of the energy used for modern transportation comes from fossil fuels, especially petroleum. The burning of fossil fuels harms people and the environment because it creates air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (see Chapters Nine and Eleven). Transportation creates other problems too. For example, noise pollution arises near roadways and airports (and along flight paths of aircraft). Road construction frequently destroys ecosystems and fragments natural habitats, making it difficult or impossible for animals to find food and mates. In most parts of the world, rising incomes are linked to increased use of automobiles, which in turn leads to higher per capita energy consumption.

Water has a vital role in human survival, environmental health and sustainable development. It is used for drinking, food preparation, agriculture and sanitation, and it is the medium that holds the freshwater and marine environments from which so many necessary resources are derived. This chapter describes some key issues related to water and the marine environment of Hong Kong, describes related policies and provides some evaluation of those policies. It is a cliché, but nonetheless true, that life is impossible without water. This is especially true for Hong Kong, not least because water use in the territory is high by international standards and because the territory is heavily dependent on water imports from the mainland. What is more, the quality of Hong Kong’s aquatic and marine ecosystems are threatened by pollution, modification of coastlines and overfishing. Thus achieving sustainable water consumption and a ensuring a quality marine environment are major challenges for Hong Kong people and the government. Perhaps in response, Hong Kong’s Water Supplies Department has called for changes in Hong Kong’s attitudes toward water: “Sustainable use of water resources for our future is our common goal. Hong Kong needs a new attitude, a new lifestyle that gives high priority to caring the environment [sic] and preserving precious water resources on our Earth” (Water Supplies Department 2008, 37). The question is whether government policies are doing enough to foster and implement these objectives. Even as local water use is dealt with, there is the lingering question of water policy on the mainland.

Having explored the broad social dimensions of environmental issues we narrow our focus onto social policy – both as an academic subject and a set of government activities – beginning with the principal critiques of its assumptions and practices which have been offered by greens.

Obviously, much depends on which environmentalists we are talking about (see the Introduction, this volume; also Jordan, 2010: Chapter 5). In general terms, however, most would assent to some version of the following.

Environmentalists oppose social policies and welfare systems that are unsustainable. The basic idea is that a finite planet cannot support endless appropriations of its resources and unlimited contamination of its ecosystems. Some types of growth are less damaging than others but, for greens, only that growth which is consistent with, and preferably enhances, the coping capacity of the Earth is justifiable. Both ends of the political spectrum therefore stand accused. The Right treat rising material prosperity as the central justification for capitalism and free markets, the job of social policies being to assist markets by maintaining social order and enforcing the disciplines that unregulated markets require. Many on the Left have thought it best to champion social justice by emphasising a painless form of redistribution where basic needs are met by directing ever-higher levels of growth in appropriate directions, through horizontal redistribution and modest forms of vertical redistribution. In short, ‘productivism’ can be said to underpin all welfare regimes, whatever their political complexion. Another charge, therefore, is that social policies contribute to unsustainability. By perpetuating the ideologies of productivism, welfare systems help to fuel more unsustainable growth.

Before launching into our analysis it is worth pausing to offer a brief definition of how the (non-ecological) state has traditionally been defined. Richards and Smith (2002: 39) identified six features which any modern state possesses.

There have been sustained challenges to the very definition of what constitutes the state – its boundaries and functions – over the past 30 years or so. The traditional definition listed in the box above is firmly ensconced within Westphalian thought, with an emphasis on the concept of the nation-state: state and national boundaries coincide with defined territories in real terms of space, place and national identity. In more recent times, what are sometimes called more post-modern and/or neoliberal and/or globalised interpretations of the state have challenged this orthodoxy, leading to more amorphous and disparate understandings of state forms, including cross-boundary and cross-sectoral interactions and interpretations. While research into states has changed considerably over the past generation, democratic reforms and innovations have not necessarily matched the degree of state restructuring. Later in this chapter, we show how these structural and democratic tensions have been greater in the Global South than in the Global North as, in the case of the former, these newer, globalised notions of governance have been even more hollowed out.

In environmental political thought, the state has long been treated with considerable suspicion (see also Chapter Eleven, this volume). Green theorists have been quick to identify the state as a source of environmental degradation, as well as social domination. Yet green political thought is currently in the process of revising this position in order to recognise the importance of the state for securing effective action on a range of environmental challenges.