Jeff Speck: The walkable city

譯者: Ron Chao 審譯者: Marssi Draw

So I'm a city planner, an urban designer,

我是都市計劃師、城市設計師

former arts advocate,

以前是藝術倡導者

trained in architecture and art history,

學過建築和藝術史

and I want to talk to you today not about design

我今天要談的不是設計

but about America

而是美國

and how America can be more economically resilient,

美國的經濟如何能更強韌

how America can be healthier,

美國怎樣才會更健康

and how America can be

美國的環境

more environmentally sustainable.

怎樣才能永續

And I realize this is a global forum,

我明白這是全球論壇

but I think I need to talk about America

但我認為需要談談美國

because there is a history,

因為歷史告訴我們

in some places, not all,

世界有些地方

of American ideas being appropriated,

美國人的觀念無論是好是壞

being emulated, for better or for worse,

會被竊用、被仿效

around the world.

這種現象舉世可見

And the worst idea we've ever had

我們最壞的點子

is suburban sprawl.

是郊區的擴展

It's being emulated in many places as we speak.

此刻很多城市正在仿效

By suburban sprawl, I refer to the reorganization

我所謂郊區擴展，是指重整地景

of the landscape and the creation of the landscape

或是建造地景

around the requirement of automobile use,

完全以汽車的使用需求為前提

and that the automobile that was once an instrument of freedom

汽車過去是解放人的工具

has become a gas-belching,

如今已變成消耗汽油

time-wasting and life-threatening

浪費時間、威脅生命

prosthetic device

像義肢一樣的裝備

that many of us need just to,

我們許多人

most Americans, in fact, need,

事實上大多數美國人

just to live their daily lives.

日常生活不可無車

And there's an alternative.

但我們還是有選擇

You know, we say, half the world is living in cities.

全世界一半的人口住在城市

Well, in America, that living in cities,

不過在美國

for many of them, they're living in cities still

很多人即使住在城市

where they're dependent on that automobile.

仍然依賴汽車

And what I work for, and to do,

我的志業和工作目標

is to make our cities more walkable.

是讓城市更適宜步行

But I can't give design arguments for that

但我不打算談設計方面的論點

that will have as much impact

雖然這方面的衝擊也不小

as the arguments that I've learned

我要談的論據來自

from the economists, the epidemiologists

經濟學家、流行病學家

and the environmentalists.

以及環保人士

So these are the three arguments that I'm going

這三方面的論據

to give you quickly today.

今天我會很快地探討

When I was growing up in the '70s,

在我成長的1970年代

the typical American spent one tenth of their income,

美國一般家庭所得的十分之一

American family, on transportation.

花在交通上

Since then, we've doubled the number of roads

如今我們的道路已經倍增

in America, and we now spend one fifth

現在我們所得的五分之一

of our income on transportation.

花在交通上

Working families, which are defined as

工薪家庭在美國的定義是

earning between 20,000 and 50,000 dollars

每年工作收入

a year in America

兩萬至五萬美元的家庭

are spending more now on transportation

他們現在的交通花費

than on housing, slightly more,

略高於住房費用

because of this phenomenon called "drive till you qualify,"

有個現象叫做「開到你買得起為止」

finding homes further and further and further

買得起的房子越來越偏遠

from the city centers and from their jobs,

遠離市中心和上班的地方

so that they're locked in this, two, three hours,

所以他們必須花兩三個小時

four hours a day of commuting.

甚至四個小時通勤

And these are the neighborhoods, for example,

這種通勤社區的例子

in the Central Valley of California

就在加州的中央山谷

that weren't hurt when the housing bubble burst

房市泡沫破滅的時候

and when the price of gas went up;

以及油價上漲的時候

they were decimated.

社區不只是受創，而是消亡

And in fact, these are many

其實現在還看得到很多

of the half-vacant communities that you see today.

半數是空屋的這種社區

Imagine putting everything you have into your mortgage,

想想看，錢都拿去付了房貸

it goes underwater, and you have to pay

房價卻低於房貸欠款

twice as much for all the driving that you're doing.

偏偏通勤的油費又倍增

So we know what it's done to our society

所以我們明白社會受到的衝擊

and all the extra work we have to do

以及為了行車

to support our cars.

必須做的額外付出

What happens when a city decides

如果一個城市

it's going to set other priorities?

不把汽車視為優先又會如何？

And probably the best example we have here

美國的最佳例子

in America is Portland, Oregon.

可能是奧勒崗州的波特蘭

Portland made a bunch of decisions in the 1970s

波特蘭在1970年代的一些決定

that began to distinguish it

導致該城脫穎而出

from almost every other American city.

美國其他城市鮮少匹敵

While most other cities were growing

其他大多數城市

an undifferentiated spare tire of sprawl,

無計劃地向郊區蔓延

they instituted an urban growth boundary.

波特蘭則設立了都市成長的界限

While most cities were reaming out their roads,

其他大多數城市在擴張道路

removing parallel parking and trees

移除路邊停車位和樹木

in order to flow more traffic,

以便增加交通流量

they instituted a skinny streets program.

波特蘭則訂定了窄路計劃

And while most cities were investing in more roads

其他大多數城市在建設更多公路

and more highways, they actually invested

和高速公路，波特蘭則把錢花在

in bicycling and in walking.

自行車和步行方面

And they spent 60 million dollars on bike facilities,

光是自行車設施 就花了他們六千萬

which seems like a lot of money,

看起來很多錢

but it was spent over about 30 years,

不過那是30年的總花費

so two million dollars a year -- not that much --

平均每年兩百萬美元，也不算貴

and half the price of the one cloverleaf

他們重建一個立體交流道

that they decided to rebuild in that city.

要花一倍的錢

These changes and others like them changed

這些及其他類似的變更

the way that Portlanders live,

改變了波特蘭人生活的方式

and their vehicle-miles traveled per day,

他們每天行車的里程數

the amount that each person drives,

每人開車的里程數

actually peaked in 1996,

其實在1996年達到高峰

has been dropping ever since,

然後就持續下降

and they now drive 20 percent less

他們現在開車的里程數

than the rest of the country.

比全國其他人少兩成

The typical Portland citizen drives

波特蘭一般市民開車

four miles less, and 11 minutes less per day

每天里程數比以前少了四哩

than they did before.

時間比以前少了11分鐘

The economist Joe Cortright did the math

經濟學家喬伊．柯爾賴特 (Joe Cortright) 做了計算

and he found out that those four miles

他發現這四哩

plus those 11 minutes

以及11分鐘的耗費

adds up to fully three and a half percent

足足等於波特蘭地區

of all income earned in the region.

總所得的3.5%

So if they're not spending that money on driving --

從開車上面省下的錢

and by the way, 85 percent of the money

順便提一下，開車的花費

we spend on driving leaves the local economy --

85%流出地方經濟

if they're not spending that money on driving,

這些從開車上面省下的錢

what are they spending it on?

波特蘭人花到哪去了？

Well, Portland is reputed to have

波特蘭聞名的是

the most roof racks per capita,

休閒用車頂置物架人均最多

the most independent bookstores per capita,

獨立書店人均最多

the most strip clubs per capita.

脫衣舞俱樂部人均最多

These are all exaggerations, slight exaggerations

我誇大了，稍微誇大了

of a fundamental truth, which is Portlanders

但事實上波特蘭人

spend a lot more on recreation of all kinds

花在各種休閒活動的錢

than the rest of America.

遠超乎其他美國人

Actually, Oregonians spend more on alcohol

其實奧勒崗人喝酒的花費

than most other states,

高出其他州的居民

which may be a good thing or a bad thing,

是福是禍不知道

but it makes you glad they're driving less.

但我們樂見他們較少開車

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But actually, they're spending most of it in their homes,

其實他們在住家上花的錢最多

and home investment is about as local

還有什麼能比住家的投資

an investment as you can get.

更能注入地方經濟？

But there's a whole other Portland story,

但是波特蘭還有個現象

which isn't part of this calculus,

是經濟學家沒計算的

which is that young, educated people

那就是受過教育的年輕人

have been moving to Portland in droves,

成群結隊地搬到波特蘭

so that between the last two censuses,

過去兩次人口普查之間

they had a 50-percent increase

大學畢業的千禧世代

in college-educated millennials,

人口增加了五成

which is five times what you saw anywhere else

是其他地方的五倍

in the country, or, I should say, of the national average.

應該說是全國平均的五倍

So on the one hand, a city saves money for its residents

適宜步行和騎單車的城市

by being more walkable and more bikeable,

一方面替市民省錢

but on the other hand, it also is the cool kind of city

另一方面也是很酷的城市

that people want to be in these days.

是大家喜歡居住的地方

So the best economic strategy

所以最佳經濟策略城市

you can have as a city

對於城市而言

is not the old way of trying to attract corporations

不是吸引企業那種老套

and trying to have a biotech cluster

不是要建立生技園區

or a medical cluster,

或醫療園區

or an aerospace cluster,

或航太園區

but to become a place where people want to be.

而是要成為宜居的城市

And millennials, certainly, these engines of entrepreneurship,

無疑是創業引擎的千禧世代

64 percent of whom decide first

64%會先決定

where they want to live,

要住在哪裡

then they move there, then they look for a job,

他們會先搬過去，再找工作

they will come to your city.

宜居的城市近悅遠來

The health argument is a scary one,

健康方面的論點就可怕了

and you've probably heard part of this argument before.

你們可能略知一二

Again, back in the '70s, a lot's changed since then,

再回到和現在非常不同的1970年代

back in the '70s, one in 10 Americans was obese.

那個年代有一成的美國人過胖

Now one out of three Americans is obese,

如今美國人三分之一過胖

and a second third of the population is overweight.

另外三分之一過重

Twenty-five percent of young men

二成五的年輕男性

and 40 percent of young women are too heavy

以及四成的女性因為過重

to enlist in our own military forces.

不符合軍隊入伍標準

According to the Center for Disease Control,

根據美國疾病管制中心

fully one third of all children born after 2000

2000年以後出生的兒童

will get diabetes.

三成會得糖尿病

We have the first generation of children in America

這一代的孩子會創下首例

who are predicted to live shorter lives than their parents.

平均壽命預計會低於上一代

I believe that this American healthcare crisis

我認為這個美國的保健危機

that we've all heard about

我們都聽說過的危機

is an urban design crisis,

是城市設計的危機

and that the design of our cities lies at the cure.

城市設計才是治癒的關鍵

Because we've talked a long time about diet,

我們長期以來關注飲食

and we know that diet impacts weight,

我們明白飲食影響體重

and weight of course impacts health.

體重自然會影響健康

But we've only started talking about inactivity,

但是我們才開始探討少活動

and how inactivity born of our landscape,

以及造成少活動的地景環境

inactivity that comes from the fact that we live

我們居住的環境

in a place where there is no longer any such thing

讓走路的功用大不如前

as a useful walk, is driving our weight up.

我們的體重因而上升

And we finally have the studies,

現在終於有了相關研究

one in Britain called "Gluttony versus sloth"

英國的研究「好吃與懶做對比」

that tracked weight against diet

追蹤飲食和體重的關係

and tracked weight against inactivity,

以及活動量和體重的關係

and found a much higher, stronger correlation

發現相關度更高的

between the latter two.

是活動量和體重

Dr. James Levine at, in this case,

詹姆斯．萊文 (James Levine) 醫生

the aptly-named Mayo Clinic

現任職於馬約（Mayo，諧音美乃滋）醫學中心

put his test subjects in electronic underwear,

他讓實驗對象穿上電子內衣

held their diet steady,

保持定量的飲食

and then started pumping the calories in.

然後開始增加熱量

Some people gained weight,

有些人開始變重

some people didn't gain weight.

有些人體重沒增加

Expecting some metabolic or DNA factor at work,

研究人員預測是代謝或遺傳因素

they were shocked to learn that the only difference

結果卻令他們大吃一驚

between the subjects that they could figure out

他們找出的唯一差別因素

was the amount they were moving,

是實驗對象的活動量

and that in fact those who gained weight

體重增加的人

were sitting, on average, two hours more per day

比沒增重者每天平均

than those who didn't.

多坐兩小時

So we have these studies that tie

我們已有研究指出

weight to inactivity, but even more,

體重和活動量有關，但不僅如此

we now have studies that tie weight to where you live.

有研究顯示，跟你住哪裡也有關

Do you live in a more walkable city

你是住在適宜步行的城市

or do you live in a less walkable city,

還是住在走路不便的城市

or where in your city do you live?

在城市的哪個區也有關係

In San Diego, they used Walk Score --

聖地牙哥使用了「步行分數」(Walk Score)——

Walk Score rates every address in America

「步行分數」評估美國的每個住址

and soon the world

即將擴及全球

in terms of how walkable it is --

根據適宜步行的程度評分——

they used Walk Score to designate more walkable neighborhoods

聖地牙哥用「步行分數」區分鄰里

and less walkable neighborhoods.

是否適宜步行

Well guess what? If you lived in a more walkable neighborhood,

你知道嗎？ 住在適合走路的鄰里

you were 35 percent likely to be overweight.

過重的機率是35%

If you lived in a less walkable neighborhood,

住在較不適合走路的鄰里

you were 60 percent likely to be overweight.

過重的機率則是60%

So we have study after study now

已有接二連三的研究

that's tying where you live

指出居住的地點

to your health, particularly as in America,

和你的健康息息相關，尤其在美國

the biggest health crisis we have is this one

我們健康的最大危機

that's stemming from environmental-induced inactivity.

來自居住環境造成的活動量減少

And I learned a new word last week.

我上週學到了一個新詞

They call these neighborhoods "obesageneric."

這種鄰里叫做「肥胖區」(obesageneric)

I may have that wrong, but you get the idea.

我可能沒拼對，但意思你們懂

Now that's one thing, of course.

有件事一定要提

Briefly mentioning, we have an asthma epidemic

簡而言之，就是氣喘病

in this country.

在美國流行

You probably haven't thought that much about it.

你可能沒注意到

Fourteen Americans die each day from asthma,

每天有14個美國人死於氣喘病

three times what it was in the '90s,

人數是1990年代的三倍

and it's almost all coming from car exhaust.

肇因幾乎全部來自汽車的廢氣

American pollution does not come

美國的污染不再來自工廠

from factories anymore, it comes from tailpipes,

而是來自汽車的排氣管

and the amount that people are driving in your city,

決定於城市人開車的多寡

your urban VMT, is a good prediction

城市開車的里程數

of the asthma problems in your city.

是氣喘問題的良好指標

And then finally, in terms of driving,

關於開車還有一件事

there's the issue of the single-largest killer

殺害健康成人的最大兇手

of healthy adults, and one of the largest killers

殺害所有人的最大兇手之一

of all people, is car crashes.

就是車禍

And we take car crashes for granted.

我們對車禍習以為常

We figure it's a natural risk

我們認為開車

of being on the road.

自然會有風險

But in fact, here in America, 12 people

但事實上，每年在美國

out of every 100,000

十萬分之十二的人

die every year from car crashes.

死於車禍

We're pretty safe here.

我們相當安全

Well, guess what? In England, it's seven per 100,000.

但你知道嗎？英國是十萬分之七

It's Japan, it's four per 100,000.

日本則是十萬分之四

Do you know where it's three per 100,000?

你知道哪裡是十萬分之三嗎

New York City.

紐約市

San Francisco, the same thing. Portland, the same thing.

舊金山也一樣，波特蘭也如此

Oh, so cities make us safer

噢，城市比較安全

because we're driving less?

是因為城市人較少開車？

Tulsa: 14 per 100,000.

突沙市：十萬分之十四

Orlando: 20 per 100,000.

奧蘭多：十萬分之二十

It's not whether you're in the city or not,

所以是否在城市不重要

it's how is your city designed?

城市的規劃才重要

Was it designed around cars or around people?

規劃是以人還是以車為中心？

Because if your city is designed around cars,

因為如果以車為中心

it's really good at smashing them into each other.

出車禍的機率很高

That's part of a much larger health argument.

這是健康論據的一小部分

Finally, the environmental argument is fascinating,

最後，環境方面的論據令人著迷

because the environmentalists turned on a dime

因為環保人士在十年前

about 10 years ago.

快速轉變了立場

The environmental movement in America

美國的環保運動

has historically been an anti-city movement

過去一直是反對城市的運動

from Jefferson on.

可回溯至傑弗遜總統

"Cities are pestilential to the health,

「城市有害於健康

to the liberties, to the morals of man.

自由和人之道德

If we continue to pile upon ourselves in cities,

如果我們不斷聚集在城市

as they do in Europe, we shall become as corrupt

就像歐洲一樣，我們也將

as they are in Europe

像歐洲一樣腐敗

and take to eating one another as they do there."

像他們一樣人吃人。」

He apparently had a sense of humor.

傑佛遜顯然頗有幽默感

And then the American environmental movement

然後美國的環保運動

has been a classically Arcadian movement.

一直是正統的田園運動

To become more environmental, we move into the country,

為了保護環境，我們搬到鄉下

we commune with nature, we build suburbs.

我們與自然交融，我們建立郊區

But, of course, we've seen what that does.

但是我們當然也看到了後果

The carbon mapping of America,

美國的碳地圖

where is the CO2 being emitted,

標示了二氧化碳的排放位置

for many years only

多年以來

hammered this argument in more strongly.

更加深了我們的刻板印象

If you look at any carbon map, because we map it per square mile,

碳地圖顯示每平方哩的排放量

any carbon map of the U.S.,

因此任何美國的碳地圖

it looks like a night sky satellite photo of the U.S.,

看似美國夜間衛星空照圖

hottest in the cities, cooler in the suburbs,

城市看起來炙熱，郊區比較冷清

dark, peaceful in the countryside.

鄉下則一片漆黑與平靜

Until some economists said, you know,

直到經濟學家表示質疑

is that the right way to measure CO2?

這樣衡量碳排對嗎？

There are only so many people in this country at any given time,

如果全國總人數不變

and we can choose to live where perhaps

我們可以選擇住在

we would have a lighter impact.

人均碳排較少的地方

And they said, let's measure CO2 per household,

他們提議測量平均家戶碳排

and when they did that, the maps just flipped,

方法改變後，碳地圖豬羊變色

coolest in the center city, warmer in the suburbs,

市中心最為冷清，郊區色澤較暖

and red hot in these exurban

呈現火紅的是鄉間

"drive till you qualify" neighborhoods.

就是「開到你買得起為止」的地方

So a fundamental shift, and now you have

因此看法有了根本改變

environmentalists and economists like Ed Glaeser

愛德華．格雷瑟 (Edward Glaeser) 之類的環保人士和經濟學家

saying we are a destructive species.

表示人類是具毀滅性的物種

If you love nature, the best thing you can do

喜愛自然的人最應該做的

is stay the heck away from it,

是離開那裡

move to a city, and the denser the better,

搬到城市，人口密度越高越好

and the denser cities like Manhattan

像曼哈頓一樣的高密度城市

are the cities that perform the best.

表現的成績最好

So the average Manhattanite is consuming gasoline

曼哈頓居民平均汽油消耗之低

at the rate the rest of the nation hasn't seen since the '20s,

是美國其他地方1920年代以來所未見

consuming half of the electricity of Dallas.

耗電量是達拉斯的一半

But of course, we can do better.

當然我們還有改善的空間

Canadian cities, they consume half the gasoline of American cities.

加拿大相較美國，城市汽油消耗少一半

European cities consume half as much again.

歐洲城市的汽油消耗也是少一半

So obviously, we can do better,

顯然我們還有空間可以改善

and we want to do better, and we're all trying to be green.

我們也想改善，大家都在致力於環保

My final argument in this topic is that

我最後在這個議題的論點是

I think we're trying to be green the wrong way,

我認為我們的環保走錯了方向

and I'm one of many people who believes that

我和很多人一樣認為

this focus on gadgets,

關注小器具

on accessorizing --

關注附加物——

What can I add to my house,

我的住家可以添加什麼

what can I add to what I've already got

我在現有之上可以加點什麼

to make my lifestyle more sustainable? --

才能讓生活方式更能持續？——

has kind of dominated the discussion.

這種思維似乎主導了議題

So I'm not immune to this.

我也跳不出窠臼

My wife and I built a new house

我和妻子在華盛頓特區

on an abandoned lot in Washington, D.C.,

廢棄的土地上蓋新房子

and we did our best to clear the shelves

我們選購居家用品

of the sustainability store.

盡量在綠色商店

We've got the solar photovoltaic system,

我們買了太陽能光伏發電系統

solar hot water heater, dual-flush toilets,

太陽能熱水器，兩段式抽水馬桶

bamboo floors.

竹製地板

A log burning in my German high-tech stove

德國製高科技爐灶燃燒木頭

apparently, supposedly, contributes less carbon

碳排量據稱顯然低於

to the atmosphere than were it left alone

讓木頭在森林中

to decompose in the forest.

自行腐敗

Yet all of these innovations --

然而這些創新

That's what they said in the brochure.

剛才那個來自產品說明

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

All of these innovations together

這些所有的創新加起來

contribute a fraction of what we contribute

效果遠遠不如

by living in a walkable neighborhood

居住在適合步行的鄰里

three blocks from a metro in the heart of a city.

在市中心離捷運三條街的地方

We've changed all our light bulbs to energy-savers,

我家已經全面換裝節能燈泡

and you should do the same thing,

你們也應該這麼做

but changing all your light bulbs to energy-savers

但是全面換裝節能燈泡

saves as much energy in a year

每年省下的能源只等於

as moving to a walkable city does in a week.

搬到適宜步行的城市一周

And we don't want to have this argument.

這點大家避而不談

Politicians and marketers are afraid

政客和商人都不敢

of marketing green as a "lifestyle choice."

把環保宣傳為「生活方式的選擇」

You don't want to tell Americans, God forbid,

誰敢告訴美國人

that they have to change their lifestyle.

應該要改變生活方式

But what if lifestyle was really about quality of life

但如果生活方式攸關生活品質

and about perhaps something that we would all enjoy more,

或許攸關我們更享受的東西

something that would be better than what we have right now?

優於我們現有的東西又如何？

Well, the gold standard of quality of life rankings,

生活品質評比的金字招牌

it's called the Mercer Survey.

叫做默瑟調查 (Mercer Survey)

You may have heard of it.

你們或許聽過

They rank hundreds of nations worldwide

他們評比世界上百個國家

according to 10 criteria that they believe add up

認為生活品質有十個標準：

to quality of life: health, economics, education,

健康、經濟、教育

housing, you name it.

住家等等

There's six more. Short talk.

還有六個，但時間有限

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And it's very interesting to see that

有趣的是

the highest-ranking American city, Honolulu,

美國排名最前面的是檀香山

number 28, is followed by kind of the usual suspects

第28名，其次的城市也在意料之中

of Seattle and Boston and all walkable cities.

西雅圖和波士頓，都適宜步行

The driving cities in the Sun Belt,

陽光帶的開車城市

the Dallases and the Phoenixes and, sorry, Atlanta,

達拉斯、鳳凰城之類，抱歉亞特蘭大

these cities are not appearing on the list.

這些城市都沒上榜

But who's doing even better?

但哪些城市更名列前茅？

The Canadian cities like Vancouver,

加拿大的溫哥華

where again, they're burning half the fuel.

我提過他們的耗油量少一半

And then it's usually won by cities where they speak German,

德語城市也常上榜

like Dusseldorf or Vienna,

例如杜塞道夫和維也納

where they're burning, again, half as much fuel.

他們的耗油量也少一半

And you see this alignment, this strange alignment.

兩種指標成正比，出乎意外

Is being more sustainble

採取更永續的生活方式

what gives you a higher quality of life?

能提高生活品質嗎？

I would argue the same thing

我認為讓我們生活

that makes you more sustainble

更能持續之事

is what gives you a higher quality of life,

確實會提高我們的生活品質

and that's living in a walkable neighborhood.

那就是住在適宜步行的鄰里

So sustainability, which includes our wealth

生活可持續與否，包括財富

and our health

和健康

may not be a direct function of our sustainability.

未必是影響我們持續的關鍵因素

But particularly here in America,

但是尤其在美國

we are polluting so much

我們污染過多

because we're throwing away our time

是因為我們浪費時間

and our money and our lives on the highway,

金錢和生命在公路上

then these two problems would seem to share

似乎這兩個問題

the same solution, which is to make our cities

解決辦法相同，那就是讓城市

more walkable.

更適宜步行

Doing so isn't easy, but it can be done,

要做到不容易，但是絕對可行

it has been done,

已有成功的例子

and it's being done now in more than a few cities,

成功實行的城市

around the globe and in our country.

在全球和美國並不罕見

I take some solace from Winston Churchill,

邱吉爾的話讓我感到安慰

who put it this way:

他是這麼說的：

"The Americans can be counted on

「可以信賴美國人

to do the right thing

做對的事情

once they have exhausted the alternatives." (Laughter)

只要等他們錯事做盡了。」 （笑聲）

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）