This scene makes me think of a different meaning of the word "economy." The most commonly used Chinese version of the word refers to the complex network of human behaviour concerned with production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. "With economic construction as a core" has become a cliche in the rhetoric of many officials to emphasize the importance of money-making activities.

Believe it or not, another meaning of the word refers to the careful management of resources to avoid unnecessary expenditure or waste. It seems to have been forgotten - or intentionally ignored.

The word "economy" meant domestic management in ancient Greece, implying the reasonable use of resources to avoid waste.

The repeated digging up of a road is a particular economic process, which involves investment, recruiting of migrant workers and consumption of resources such as cement and asphalt. The benefits of this construction process should be gauged by how well it serves those that use the road. If that is the case, the repeated digging up of the road surface has brought nothing but chaos to the flow of traffic.

If the process is indeed necessary, those responsible for the unified management of a road should undertake a thorough study of the situation before making an excavation plan to make sure the project does not have to be repeated.

Economic construction should be a primary force behind development. The concept of sustainable development can only materialize through frugal practice in the process of economic construction and production.

In November 2001, the blowing up of a multi-storey cultural centre building in Beijing's Chongwen District triggered a heated debate on city renovation policy. The building was only 14 years old and still structurally sound and of good quality, but was removed to make way for a new building. "Not being in harmony with the style of new buildings around" was the sole reason offered.

A Chinese newspaper report said: "The fact that a building of only 14 years old was blown up indicates how fast the city's development is."

This construction approach is not economical. If it can be called development, then it is not sustainable.

Demolition of the old and construction of the new has become a model for unprecedented urban renovation nationwide. I cannot match this practice with economic development. It is rather a waste of money and resources.

We are acting as though we had money to burn and resources to squander. In fact, we still have tens of millions of people struggling to find enough to eat and wear; there are still many students hesitant to enter university because they cannot afford the tuition fees and living expenses, and we still have many poor regions where very basic infrastructure must be built from scratch or updated with meagre funding.

Some may argue the large-scale urban renovation and construction drive have created jobs for surplus labour from rural areas and a large market for construction materials, and thus pushed economic development forward.

Nevertheless, running a country is like managing a family, in some ways. No well-managed family throws away belongings that are still useful, only to replace them with new, expensive ones.

Quite apart from the waste of resources, unnecessary urban renovation projects disturb the normal lives of urban dwellers.

For developers, making profits from construction projects is their ultimate goal, but for urban planning regulators, development should be a way of making life better and easier for citizens.

A nationwide campaign is calling on citizens to lead a frugal life to save resources such as oil, electricity and water.

It will make a difference if every citizen is thrifty. But I would argue it would make a bigger difference if prudence could be employed when urban renovation plans are drawn up to avoid duplicate construction and extensive waste of resources.