Introduction

Though generally deemed to be positive, developments can lead to societal issues. Many ideas have been formulated to address this including transiting from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Their core is to bridge the gap between infrastructure development and social development. Unfortunately, concepts such as SDGs remain a challenge to be implemented, particularly for developing countries that do not have the resources. Often infrastructure development is solely focused on which results in inequality, one issue that is intended to be addressed by SDGs.

Reducing inequality becomes harder when development incorporates Smart City as a central tenet. Similarly, this is ironical when the original idea of Smart City development was to reduce inequality. The United Nations saw the idea of Smart City as a means to address an expected 67% of the global population of almost 10 billion in 2050 living in urban areas. The future, thus, seems bleak for developing countries.

Indicators for this bleak future includes studies that uncovered many issues in the implementation of Smart City in developing countries. Issues include the lack of technology-related infrastructure readiness, lack of skilled human capital, lack of inclusivity, lack of citizen participation, technology illiteracy and knowledge deficit among the citizens. Collectively, these issues not only demonstrate that Smart City is not a silver bullet against economic and social issues but can also worsen them.

It is particularly troubling for Indonesia as it has decided to move and develop their new capital with the idea of Smart City. So far, Smart City development in Indonesia has been unfavourable. Jakarta, an example of a Smart City in Indonesia, dropped to 94th place in the Global Smart City Index as a result of negative public perception of its natural resource assets. Notably, Jakarta is the only Metropolitan area in Indonesia. If this metropolitan area struggles with the incorporation of Smart City development, what beholds the new capital, East Kalimantan, previously a jungle?

Of these issues, this article will highlight the lack of technology-related infrastructure readiness, skilled human capital, inclusivity, and citizen participation of smart city development in the new capital in East Kalimantan. The lack of technology-related infrastructure readiness and inclusivity will be explained by the lost in assets by indigenous communities, while issues of skilled human capital and citizen participation will be demonstrated by the lack of digital skills.

Indigenous Communities Losing Assets

The lack of technology-related infrastructure readiness and inclusivity is evident from the increasing demand for land use studies on the forest by the Dayak community. Similar demands are voiced by the Paser community for the forest to be preserved regardless of the Smart City development in their area.

Additionally, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency stated that land ownerships will be consolidated and transferred to the government vis-à-vis lands within the boundaries of the new capital. He cited Law Number 2 which legally enabled to facilitate such transfer via a release mechanism. Similarly, the Special staff for the President stated that there were no regulations requiring the implementation of a referendum, or public vote in the plan to move the nation’s capital. These are indications that the government is not serious on inclusivity in the Smart City development of the new capital. Therefore, the indigenous communities who are concerned with the preservation of their forest are at the losing end of this development. Their voices are arguably muted to ensure a smooth development of the new capital. A win-win solution ostensibly requires technology-related infrastructure. Though 5,000 hectares of the forest was stated to be replaced by 180,000 hectares of green open spaces and protected forests, when and where this will happen is still uncertain.

Lack of Digital Skills

The lack of skilled human capital and citizen participation is evident from the digital divide in Indonesia when 49% of Indonesian adults do not have internet access. In addition to the issue of limited internet coverage, there is a need for digital literacy programs. However, the building of digital skills is a hard quest for the Indonesian government particularly when the new capital is a magnet for domestic immigration. Estimated to hold 3.6 million residents in 2018, East Kalimantan is envisaged to become home to 5 – 7 million residents in 2025, further increasing to 8.7 – 9.7 million and 10 – 11 million in 2035 and 2045, respectively. This increase is ostensibly due to hopes of better living prospects. Despite the anticipated rapid increase in population in East Kalimantan, it is questionable whether there will be adequate digital literacy programs and sufficient internet coverage for most if not all residents in the new capital. This will consequently affect an effective implementation of a Smart City.

Conclusion

Though intended to address issues such as inequality, SDGs are difficult to implement in developing countries. This is further confounded when such countries attempt to implement Smart City concepts as part of development. Arguably, this mix will instead prolong societal issues, leading many to become victims of such developments. 

In Indonesia’s move to a new Smart City capital, it is bogged by the lack of technology-related infrastructure readiness, inclusivity, lack of skilled human capital, and citizen participation. These issues are due to the lack of preparation and even political will. The government seems intent on rapid infrastructure development of the new capital while not placing enough focus on readying its citizens. Additionally, the voices of indigenous communities affected by the move are unheard and simply avoided via legalities. Therefore, many lessons can be taken from this Indonesian case study. Of significant importance is the need to factor how infrastructure developments can aid in addressing societal issues rather than simply focusing on the development of new buildings.

Introduction

Though the infrastructure for the new capital in East Kalimantan is underway, a central issue has yet to be addressed. Since the inception of this idea to move the capital, there is seemingly a lack of coordination between the Central and Local governments. More specifically, the lack of regulations will impede the Central government to seamlessly move to the new capital. Further complicating this move is that most civil servants are against this move, preferring to stay in Jakarta. This article aims to provide insights into how such lack of coordination and negative sentiments by civil servants will challenge both Central and Local governments in ensuring a smooth move to East Kalimantan by 2024.

Lack of Coordination since the Beginning

A lack of coordination between Central and Local government is evident from when the idea of moving the capital was first mooted. Within less than a fortnight since President Joko Widodo’s (Jokowi) announcement to move the capital, he declared two East Kalimantan regions, Penajam Paser Utara and Kutai Kartanegara, to be locations for the new capital. This short time indicates a lack of discussion between Central and Local governments. This stems from the lack of legal basis to move the capital away from Jakarta.

Going against regulations, the Central government has yet to submit four revised laws and two new draft laws to the People’s Representative Council (DPR) for their deliberations to move Indonesia’s capital. Of these six laws, Law 29 of 2009 must be revised as it assigns Jakarta as Indonesia’s capital. Till this law is revised, Indonesia’s capital is still legally Jakarta. Additionally, the absence of legal basis has led the Ministry of National Development Planning being mandated to solely spearhead the move with no representations from Local government agencies. Therefore, the ministry could unilaterally decide how to implement the smart city concept in East Kalimantan. Collectively, these strongly suggests that the decision to move was “one-sided.”

Such one-sided decision will lead to two challenges. First, without regulations to assign East Kalimantan as a capital, the Local government is not obligated to develop and implement policies to facilitate the move. Second, the Local government will be in a bind coordinating its agencies with that of the Central government’s. This is because the lack of regulations will consequently prevent the Local government to have the necessary autonomy as that experienced by Special Regions such as Jakarta.

Challenges to Effective Management of Land Use and Preventing Corruption in New Capital

With a change in status from region to capital (pending the revision of Law 29 of 2009), East Kalimantan will be classified as an autonomous region. Based on Government Regulation Number 29 of 2007, East Kalimantan’s local government will have more autonomy including unilaterally deciding the appointment and dismissal of Mayors and regents, and developing its own regulations for policies from planning, implementing and evaluating.

However, a change in status will challenge the Local government’s effectiveness and professionalism. Currently, there are at least 162 mining, forestry, palm oil, coal-fired power plants and property concessions owned by political party members and businessmen. These will be managed by the Local government upon becoming an autonomous region. Unfortunately, the Local government is inexperienced in managing these industries, potentially impacting National policies. Such inexperience can result in administrative issues such as lack of accountability and transparency.

Further complicating matters is the discovery that two-thirds of local government land in East Kalimantan is still uncertified and contested. Without legal certification, the Local government of East Kalimantan would not be able to implement intended developments such as building of infrastructure for the generation of sufficient energy for the new capital. This consequently impacts the effective management of the new capital’s land use. One way to resolve this is for the Central government to award ownerships and land certifications to the Local government.  By doing so, the Local government will have the authority to manage these lands. However, this potential solution will not address corruption opportunities vis-à-vis land use in the new capital. Due to limited resources, it is common for land to be managed by public-private partnerships. Regardless of whether land is owned by the Central or Local government, awarding the rights for land use could be driven by greed rather than public interest. Notably, there have been cases of corruption involving infrastructure projects in East Kalimantan prior to developments in the new capital. This, thus, emphasizes the importance of a legal system to prevent such cases from repeating in the new development. The development of such legal system entails close coordination between Central and Local governments.   Such close coordination can be realized by the formulation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (PAK) backed by regulations for the preparation, transfer and development of the new capital.  Structurally and functionally, PAK will be responsible for close coordination and communication for the new capital’s developments. Whereas the regulations provide a legal framework for PAK to carry out its responsibilities.  

Need to Improve Civil Servants Buy-in for Move

Another major issue to address is the negative sentiments by civil servants on the move to East Kalimantan. It was recently discovered that 94% of civil servants rejected plans to move the capital. Their rejection primarily stems from the continued frequent flooding in the new capital areas. This is further confounded when 78.3% of interviewed civil servants indicated their preference for early retirement if they were forced to move to the new capital. The problem becomes more complex when the when Central government is instructing its civil servants to accept the move to the New Capital under the risk of sanctions. Additionally, the Central government has further instructed them to be ready for upskilling to effectively manage the new capital and its Smart City concept. Furthermore, there are little incentives for civil servants to heed these instructions.  Noteworthily, civil servants are also uncertain who among them will be involved in this mandatory move. It is still undecided whether the 1.8 million civil servants required to run the new capital will be provided by the Local government or transferred from the Central government. These poses two challenges to the Central government. First, their rejection to move threatens day-to-day bureaucracy in the new capital. Day-to-day bureaucracy will be more challenging with the implementation of the Smart City concept. The implementation of Smart City requires not only professionalism from civil servants but also necessary skills to work closely with new technologies and artificial intelligence. Second, there may not even be sufficient  capable civil servants deployed in the new capital. As aforementioned, civil servants in the new capital are required to possess innovative attributes such as being “data literate, citizen-centered, curious, storytellers, and insurgent.” These requirements are arduous for most civil servants as evident from Indonesia’s low rankings in global assessments: ranking 37 out of 140 countries in the 2015-2016 Global Competitiveness Report and ranking 85 in government effectiveness by the Worldwide Governance Indicators. To facilitate greater buy-in from civil servants, the Central government should steer away from sanctions and award more incentives for the move to the new capital. This could be effective as since the New Order regime, civil servants tend to have a transactional mindset. These incentives should not only include rewards but also provision of facilities such as temporary housing.

Conclusion

Moving of Indonesia’s capital is not as straightforward as simply physically moving from Jakarta to East Kalimantan. On one hand, the Local government in East Kalimantan, in the absence of any legal basis, will be challenged in effectively managing land use and its corruption in the new capital. On the other, the Central government will be challenged in deploying sufficient capable civil servants to the new capital. More importantly, by addressing issues associated with the move, the new capital would not repeat what transpired in Jakarta; lack of proper management. Without proper management which would lead to overpopulation as happened in Jakarta, Indonesia may have to consider moving its capital again.

Introduction

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) seemingly prioritize sustainability when moving the capital from Jakarta to Kalimantan. This is seen from incorporating the Smart City concept for its development of the new capital. A principle of this concept is balancing environmental and industrial considerations during development. Interestingly, an initial assessment by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) highlighted the risks of environmental damage in two regencies from this development which potentially spans 656,000 hectares. These regencies are namely, Kutai Kartanegara and North Penajam Paser, East Kalimantan. Therefore, the intended balance between environment and industry may be at odds with current realities.

Environmental Risks to Kalimantan yet to be Addressed

KLHK’s Strategic Environmental Assessment (KLHS) highlighted several environmental risks to East Kalimantan from moving Indonesia’s capital. First, water is sparse in East Kalimantan which will impact the development of the new capital. Second, there are flora and fauna issues as East Kalimantan is a habitat for orangutans, particular monkey species, dolphins, and crocodiles. Third, forests, mangroves, coastal and aquatic ecosystems are integral to East Kalimantan. Unfortunately, these risks have yet to be addressed. Instead, there are currently two objectives for the development of the new capital. These two objectives amalgamate the concepts of Metropolitan city and Smart City.  First, the new capital will be developed to boost investments in the strategic services sector. Second, the new capital will be expanded to include Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and Industrial Estates (IE) as regional growth centres.  These seem at odds with GoI’s prioritization on sustainability. This is particularly concerning due to Indonesia’s commitment to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This commitment entails the integration of low carbon footprint developments and a green economy into the National Mid-Term Development Plan 2020-2024.

“Greedy” not “Greeny”

Indonesia has a long history of industrial developments without any consideration for the environment. In 2018, prior to the new capital development plan, there were at least 220 cases of environmental issues dispersed in 13 provinces. These cases included the  conversion to oil palm plantations, industrial forest plantations, pollution, mining, ponds, infrastructure, reclamation, tourism, property, urban and water. Interestingly, this indicated the urgency to develop regions that were not only already industrialized but also those that have been untouched by man. In other words, sustainability was never a consideration in developments.

Yogyakarta should have served as precedence and warning to the GoI for the new capital development. Though labelled as a Smart City, Yogyakarta is a highly populated region due to urbanization. Such urbanization led to the issue of limited green open spaces that are below regulated levels. While it is regulated that at least 20% of land area be allocated for green open spaces, Yogyakarta has only allocated 16% across 45 districts.

These complex structural and non-structural issues were also confounded by stakeholders continued reliance on natural resources for business. Such reliance has led to severe environmental issues such as slash-and-burn agriculture. Currently, tens of thousands of hectares of land have been reported to be cleared by burning.

This demonstrates that environmental problems in developments in Indonesia are vast, ranging from structural problems such as the lack of commitment from bureaucracy, the issue of how the “Smart City” label does not prioritize environmental development planning, to investment behaviours that are unsupportive of such planning. Therefore, Indonesia’s problem for developments is greed. Though there had been several pushes for environmental sustainability, there have yet to be any real, significant actions.

These past experiences should concern GoI in developing a Smart City in its new capital. Should urbanization be included in the new capital? How should environmental risks be mitigated? Can behaviours and bureaucracy in the new capital assist in mitigating these risks?

Responding via an Island of Green

One possible solution is for GoI to consider conducting reclamations based on green programs rather than greed or business. This is important because, thus far, reclamation has been shown to focus solely on economic gains and not intended to preserve the environment. For example, reclamation in Jakarta is prioritized for building constructions without evaluating environmental impacts. Building constructions around Jakarta’s bay will result in severe environmental impacts. Reclamation was also envisaged to eliminate fishing grounds, resulting in a decrease in fish production. The potential decline in fish production was estimated to be around 82.2 tons/year.

Bali, Indonesia has also encountered similar problems. The reclamation plan at Benoa Bay will harm 700 hectares of a mangrove conservation area, perfect marine ecosystems, and the oceanfront. This reclamation is intended to boost tourism via hotels, golf courses, luxury shopping opportunities, a theme park and a racetrack. Locals and environmental activists have staged  protests and demonstrations due to the potential loss in livelihoods and damage to the marine ecosystem. For example, the coral reefs in Benoa Bay, which are essential in Benoa’s marine ecosystem,  are very vulnerable to small particles of sediment. Reclamation will expose corals to small sediment particles, causing them to die. GoI has responded bypassing Presidential Regulation Number 45 the Year 2011 on Urban Regional Spatial Plan For Denpasar, Badung, Gianyar, and Tabanan. This regulation will see revitalization activities including reclamation of 700 hectares of Benoa Bay. This is, of course, not supported by the local government of Bali in its bid to preserve its environment; resulting in tensions between central and local governments.

Developments in Jakarta and Bali should initiate a different view of Smart City development in the new capital; one which bridges both green and greed. Such bridging can be seen in Songdo, South Korea. Its green intention is evident from the widespread implementation of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED standard that required 40% of the city to be provided by green public space. By doing so, Songdo offers residents, visitors, and businesses an idyllic and sustainable place to live, work, and play. This green intention is also complemented by a growth plan where there are over 20,000 residential units, 1,000 retail and hospitality businesses, and 1,600 domestic and global companies.

As in the case of Songdo, GoI should carefully consider numerous potential investments in the new capital. Latest data indicated that there are 30 big international companies from United Arab Emirates, United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, China, Singapore, Italy, and Denmark which should be assessed, especially their commitments to environmental impacts as a result of their activities. One possibility is for GoI to ensure that these companies see through their commitment of helping Indonesia replace deforestation as a result of developing the new capital. This commitment should be in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with each investment partner in addition to GoI refocusing on sustainability in its  development plan.

These two measures, implementing green programmes and assessment of investors, can be combined due to the bureaucracy in the new capital. As an autonomous region, the local bureaucracy can easily monitor the development due to its proximity to the development area as well as investors. Local bureaucracy should itself have a green mindset, not a mindset centred on greed. If the mindset is focused only on greed, the bureaucracy could enable bribery by stakeholders, investors, or brokers. Any attempts by these three should be responded with sanctions. For example, sanctions can be meted out if the 20% requirement of green open spaces and the requirements of Smart City development are violated.

Conclusion

The development of the new capital with the spirit of sustainability and Smart City concept have to be well understood by GoI. Smart does not simply mean technological advancement which disregards the environment. Though there have been many violations in the past, it does not mean that such practices should continue. This can change by incorporating green programmes in development plans, signing of MoU to replace deforested areas, and having local bureaucracy that prioritizes the environment. Additionally, sanctions should be imposed on all violators of environmental requirements.

Collectively, these will have two impacts. First, it will change the mindset and behaviour towards Smart City development in the new capital.   Smart City development is truly not about greed, it is about green values to balance nature and development. Second, this will convey an important message to the world that Indonesia will join South Korea in developing a Smart City Capital, as envisioned by President Joko Widodo.

Introduction

President Joko Widodo’s (Jokowi) recent announcement of Indonesia’s vaccination plan sparked several contradictory effects. Economically, Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) strengthen by 0.07% or IDR 14.080/US$ after the plan was announced. Prior to the announcement, IDR weakened by 0.32% or IDR 14.135/US$. Stock spending also increased by 2%.

Conversely, the announcement triggered Indonesians to neglect COVID-19 safety protocols such as physical distancing, washing hands, and wearing face masks. Shortly after the announcement, only 9% of the 512 regencies and municipalities complied with the face mask-wearing rule, and barely 4% adhered to the physical distancing rule. Ominously after the announcement, Indonesia continued to set new daily records of COVID-19 infections. This suggests the early impacts of these safety breaches.

These should serve as a warning for GoI that their vaccination plan may not encourage its citizens to maintain their health, through these safety protocols, despite eliciting a positive effect on Indonesia’s economy. Additionally, it is pertinent for GoI to remember that the main objective of the COVID-19 vaccine is not only for short-medium term outcomes, namely reducing infection rates and strengthening the economy. It is also for medium-long term outcomes where the government, its citizens, and the private sector develop a system to prevent future pandemics while ensuring that issues faced during this pandemic are better handled in the future.

COVID-19: Problems of Health and Environment

There are two problems with COVID-19. First concerns health. COVID-19 infected individuals could either be asymptomatic or symptomatic with symptoms such as pneumonia, dry cough, and high fever. Early research suggests that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic individuals. However, in highly populated cities of developing countries such as Jakarta, Indonesia, these asymptomatic individuals assist in accelerating infections. This is especially so when testing in most countries are targeted at those with symptoms. This means that not only would these asymptomatic individuals perpetuate the pandemic, people infected by these individuals may become symptomatic and are at risk of succumbing to the virus.

Second, the initial discovery that COVID-19 was due to the human consumption of bats indicates an environmental issue. Although this finding is still debatable, some have expanded on this by suggesting the origins of COVID-19 to be from a wet market that sold livestock and wild animals such as bats in close proximity to each other. The virus proceeded to undergo mutations and eventually infected humans.

These two problems are, however, not new nor are unique to COVID-19. Countries including Indonesia have experienced these issues prior to this pandemic.

In addition to COVID-19, Indonesia continues to experience several health concerns. Of these health concerns such as respiratory diseases, Indonesians are still at risk from dying of diseases that are either preventable or manageable. Attributing to this is the lack of care for personal health, unknowingly due to the lack of education or intentional such as continuing unhealthy habits. Though the severity of these health concerns has been overshadowed by COVID-19, these problems still exist with some not having a vaccine solution.

Indonesia also continues to struggle with environmental problems which can develop into health issues. For example, Indonesia has the highest levels of polluted air quality with 90% caused by motor-vehicle emissions and by forest fires linked to palm-oil plantation developments. Exposing 32 million Indonesian children to such environmental problems have led to a decrease in intelligence quotient (IQ) by 2 points. Additionally, practices of selling wild animals can also be found in Indonesia.

Unfortunately, Indonesia have yet to develop efficient policies to address these issues. For example, Indonesia only have broad health measures targeted at the community level. Such broad measures also lack any instrumentations and details of how such policy works, especially how government and society relate to each other. While GoI allocates 5% of state spending for these community health measures, the society still faces issues with maintaining their health and the environment. These problems highlight how chronic these problems are, particularly when correlation studies as well as comprehensive policies managing both simultaneously are absent. Furthermore, these demonstrate why vaccines are not holistic and sustainable solutions and why Indonesia should further develop health and environment management systems post-COVID-19.

Sustainable Policy: Beyond Vaccines

Herd immunity can develop without vaccines. From history, the Spanish Flu pandemic was eventually mitigated due to the development of herd immunity when most became immune to the virus. The reliance on non-pharmaceutical interventions demonstrate why herd immunity is not solely dependent on medicine, vaccine, or any chemical intervention. Pharmaceutical interventions simply expedite herd immunity. Therefore, herd immunity can be achieved by allowing the human body to build a natural resilience against the pathogen. To achieve this communal protection, it is thus crucial for people to maintain their health such as through good personal hygiene and their environment, reducing the opportunities for pathogens to mutate. Noteworthily, the Spanish Flu also saw the initial use of using face masks as used currently to stem infections.

By understanding that vaccines are not the ultimate solution, the next steps should be for Indonesia to develop policies to manage future pandemics sustainably. These policies should be comprehensively discussed by government, private and societal necessities, as evident in governance where service, profit, and democratic values are integrated.

Sustainable Policy, an upgraded version of Sustainable Development, provides a way forward. Sustainable Policy centres on the principle that sustainability is not only achievable via people, planet, and profit approaches. It is also achieved by ensuring the future viability of our planet and all its diverse communities by education and advocacy. Furthermore, Sustainable Policy is also the belief that the creation of a sustainable society is via protecting and enhancing social, environmental and economic impacts that are important as Indonesia develops. These principles and beliefs of Sustainable Policy should drive policies in Indonesia, especially after this pandemic. Such policies can, thus, assist Indonesia to fully utilize its resources. From past instances, Indonesia has yet to do so. One recent example is how Indonesia has amassed one of the highest number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the world despite possessing a tropical climate. A tropical climate should have impeded the spread of COVID-19 as compared to colder climates.

An example of how Sustainable Policy can help Indonesia better mitigate future pandemics is via food management. To improve the health of its citizens, Indonesia can implement a more rigorous food hygiene policy. Learning from the UK government, Indonesia should require merchants to pass a hygiene test before being allowed to sell their food products. With better hygiene awareness, it could ensure higher food safety, thus help prevent a future COVID-19-like pandemic. However, Indonesia will require time to implement such policies due to the need for proper infrastructure and manpower training.

Nevertheless, such policies must also be complemented with an equally rigorous environmental policy. This ensures that the cleanliness of venues selling and distributing food are regulated. This is imperative because despite possessing a food safety regulation, 36.55% of distribution facilities in Indonesia did not meet food safety requirements.  Furthermore, only 46 traditional markets in Indonesia possess a certificate of cleanliness. This is far from the target of 15,657 markets.

Collectively, these highlight the need for Sustainable Policy to be discussed by numerous stakeholders such as the government, private sector, and society, both within institutional and non-institutional contexts. Institutional context entails Sustainable Policy to be embedded within the general processes of policymaking while non-institutional context refers to the integrity of those responsible for implementing and upholding Sustainable Policy. Both contexts are essential to be discussed with regards to matters such as state budget. Within the institutional context, institutions must first ensure that state budget is allocated towards health, environmental and social interests. Subsequently, those responsible must ensure that state funds allocated for Sustainable Policy are free from corruption. This reinforces the need for the involvement of GoI, private sector and society to ensure that Sustainable Policy is implemented efficiently.

In this tripartite alliance, the society is essential in tying policies formulated by the government with the financial contributions from the private sector. With a well-functioning tripartite alliance, Sustainable Policy that is implemented will not only be able to response better to similar health threats in the future, but will also instil healthier and more environmentally-friendly lifestyles in future generations.