A Sustainability

7/29/2019 A Sustainability

1/16

A sustainability evaluationof government-led urban

renewal projectsGrace K.L. Lee and Edwin H.W. Chan

Department of Building and Real Estate,The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose This study is founded on an assessment model derived by the authors in previous studies.It aims to identify the applicability of the model by using it to assess the urban design aspects of twolocal urban renewal projects against a set of pre-determined performance indicators.

Design/methodology/approach First of all, a brief on the details of the assessment model isprovided. Then, this study introduces how case study can evaluate the effectiveness of the model inassessing the government-led urban renewal projects in the real world. Afterwards, it identifies theway of selecting appropriate urban renewal projects for the case study, sets out the process of theassessment, and highlights the assessment results and its implication.

Findings The case study conducted here has proved that the assessment model is able to producereliable and valid assessment results for evaluation of the sustainability performance of local urbanrenewal projects. In addition to the assessment of the overall performance, the model also helps toidentify the deficiencies of the renewal projects, and the level of satisfaction of the affected persons andthe concerned parties to the renewal projects being assessed.

Originality/value By assessing the design of two pre-selected urban renewal projects againstindividual indicators through case study, it can be ensured that the model derived by the authors inprevious studies is theoretically and practically feasible. In addition, this study has demonstrated that

the model is able to measure the design quality and the sustainability level of individual urban renewalproject in real life context.

Keywords Economic sustainability, Urban regions, Government policy, Hong Kong

Paper type Case study

IntroductionNowadays, sustainable development is a common goal of many worldwide urban(re)development policies (Shutkin, 2000; Berke, 2002; Chan and Lee, 2006). To identifythe capability of the urban (re)development projects to achieve sustainabledevelopment, the objective measurement tools should be found and used for theassessment. However, the majority of sustainability evaluation models are mainly

derived for assessing the environmental performance of the projects (CRISP, 2001;Hakkinen, 2006). Many of them adopt indicator-based approach with quantitativeassessment criteria, which fails to recognize the importance of subjective factors andhuman aspects. In addition, limited assessment or evaluation tools are found availableto examine the extent to which the urban renewal projects have generated sustainableoutcomes (Hemphill et al., 2004). In view of it, Lee and Chan (2007) have initiated a

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

This study is supported by research grant provided by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

FAC26,13/14

526

Received January 2008Accepted June 2008

Facilities

Vol. 26 No. 13/14, 2008

pp. 526-541

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-2772

DOI 10.1108/02632770810914280


2/16

study to fill this research gap. They have developed an assessment model on the basisof Hong Kong context to evaluate the sustainability level of individual urban renewalproject by assessing the design quality of the projects. This research is a follow upstudy which aims to find out the applicability of the model by means of case study.

Formation of the modelThe assessment model developed by Lee and Chan (2007) is called Sustainable UrbanRenewal Project Assessment Model (SURPAM). It is made of a hierarchy consisting ofthree major levels, i.e. goal level, objectives level, and design criteria level (Figure 1). Thegoal level describes the ultimate achievementof the model. It attemptsto generate the mostsustainable urban renewal design for an area undergoing urban renewal. The objectiveslevel comprised of three aspects namely economic sustainability, environmentalsustainability and social sustainability. The design criteria level consists of 17 criteriawhich are the most important urban design considerations highlighted in previous studies(Chan and Lee, 2007a; Chan and Lee, 2007b; Chan and Lee, 2008).

In recent years, the authors have conducted numbers of studies for the developmentof the assessment model. At the beginning of the past studies, a total of 46considerations short-listed from the literature were scrutinized and verified through apilot test. After that, a questionnaire containing 30 urban design considerationsapplicable to local context was prepared and a survey was conducted with the help of anumber of architects, planners and property development managers who assumeprominent role in urban (re)development in Hong Kong as well as a number of selectedlocal citizens. All respondents were asked to rate the importance of individual urbandesign considerations to the sustainable urban renewal according to a five-point Likertscale (1 least important while 5 most important). The data collected fromthe questionnaire survey underwent an exploratory factor analysis and the majorcomponents of the hierarchy in the design criteria level were then derived.

To provide a clear picture to the readers, the definitions of individual design criteriacontained in the third level of the hierarchy are shown in Table I.Apart from the framework of the SURPAM, Lee and Chan (2007) have also

illustrated the assessment mechanism of the model. The sustainability level of anurban renewal project is represented by an overall score which is equal to ten or below,and it is calculated by multiplying the final weight of each design criterion and thescore indicating the performance of the project with respect to individual criterion. Theoverall score of a project is calculated using the formula as shown in equation (1):

Pk SjWj Skj; 1

where Pk is the overall score of an urban renewal project k, Wj is the final weight ofcriterion j in third level, Skj is the score of project k on criterion j, and j is the 17 designcriteria.

Supposing there is a renewal project A going to be conducted in an urban area.The final score of project A (PA) is equal to W1 SA1 W2 SA2 W17 SA17. In order to calculate the overall score of a project, it is necessary toidentify the value of each component in the formula. The final weights of 17 designcriteria (W1 2 W17) have already been generated by Lee and Chan (2007) which isshown in Figure 2. However, the scores of individual criteria (Sk1 2 Sk17) have not yet

Urban renewalprojects

527


3/16

Figure 1.The hierarchy ofassessment modeldeveloped by Lee andChan (2007)

FAC26,13/14

528


4/16

Definition

1. Green design It refers to the passive design approach adopted to

optimize the use of sunlight for lighting and heating,and air movement for ventilation and cooling ofindoor spaces. Appropriate solar orientation, use ofthermal mass, proper window placement, installationof wing walls, sunshades or balconies are somecommon examples of passive design

2. Availability of local employment The word local employment denotes jobopportunities offered in an area to be developedbeing close to the place of residence of the citizens

3. Conservation/improvement oflocal distinctiveness

It is about the act of keeping andprotecting/enhancing the distinctive features of anarea. The word local distinctiveness refers to thepersonality and identity of a place shaped by thecombination of its characteristics and qualities, and

determined by the perception of the people who live,work, and visit such place. Local distinctiveness isnot only about how a place looks and feels; what thepeople are and what they do; how they earn moneyand spend it, but also about its architecture, customsand traditions, and events and attractions

4. Provisions facilitating establishmentof different businesses

It refers to the design arrangements that ease thesetting up of various commercial enterprises in theform of shop, firm, or company to conduct activitiesof buying and selling goods and services to earn alivelihood or make a profit

5. Provisions for meeting special needsof the disabled, elderly or children

It concerns the facilities or buildings that aretailor-made for the people who are old, weak or withphysical disabilities. Handrails, ramps and lifts are

some typical examples of those facilities whileelderly residential care homes, child care centers anddisabilities treatment/rehabilitation centers areproperties constructed for those in need of help

6. Building form It concerns physical character and configuration of buildings including appearance, density, height,mass, etc.

7. Adaptability of non-domesticdevelopment to the changing needs

It refers to the non-residential development that isflexible enough to respond to future changes in use,lifestyle and demography without substantialalterations of building structures

8. Convenient, efficient and safeenvironment for pedestrians andpublic transport users

It is related to the required quality of the pedestrianwalkways, e.g. streets, pavements, footbridges, etc.and mass transport systems for the pedestrians andpublic transport users

9. Compatibility with neighborhood It refers to a new development designed in a mannerthat complements surrounding neighborhood, andblends in with the scale, architectural style, and otherphysical characters of the surrounding properties

10. Access to open spaces It focuses on the possibility of approaching the openspaces by roads, streets or pedestrian walkways

(continued)

Table I.The definitions of17 design criteria


529


5/16

Definition

11. Access to work It focuses on the possibility of approaching theworking places of the citizens by roads, streets, or

pedestrian walkways12. Green construction It is related to the construction measures that

minimize the consumption of energy and othernatural resources or use them in an effective andefficient way. These include, but are not limited to,reuse and recycling of materials; use of renewablematerials, durable products or products with a highcontent of recycled materials; installation ofenvironmental benign equipment, e.g. energyefficient components, water saving devices,storm/grey water harvesting system, efficient wasterecycling/management system, etc.

13. Rehabilitation of repairableproperties

It is about the act/process of returning dilapidatedbut repairable buildings or structures to a state ofutility, through repair, alterations and/additions,renovations, in order to make possible a continuinguse of existing properties and improve the health,safety and welfare in them

14. Sense of community It is about a feeling of belonging that the communitymembers have, a feeling that the members areimportant to one another and to the group, and ashared faith that members needs can be met throughtheir commitment to be together

15. Provision of open spaces The word open spaces refers to the public or privateareas reserved/designed for active and/passiverecreational uses, for conservation of the naturalenvironment, or for amenity and visual purposes.

Open spaces include, but are not limited to, plazas,gardens, parks, sitting-out areas, waterfrontpromenades, childrens playgrounds, jogging,cycling circuits, etc.

16. Community involvement It concerns the opportunities enabling the membersof a community to actively contribute to andinfluence the development process, and to share thefruits of the development. It also refers to the processof involving the community members indecision-making about public affairs includingpolitical, economic, environmental and social issuesrelated to their needs and aspirations

17. Provision of public facilities The word public facilities refers to the facilities thatare essential to support the daily necessity of the

community, and to enhance the overall quality of lifeof the public. Public facilities include, but are notlimited to, public buildings, structures, or systemsused for functional, institutional, educational,medical, recreational and cultural purposes, e.g. foodcenters, markets, police offices, fire stations, schools,hospitals, sports, performing venues, etc.Table I.

FAC26,13/14

530


6/16

Figure 2.The final weights of

17 design criteria


531


7/16

been confirmed as they vary from project to project depending on the quality of theproject design.

The quality of an urban renewal project in terms of 17 design criteria cannot beassessed unless a set of performance indicators and a point scoring system are

developed. Therefore, the authors have conducted another study to establish a relevantand representative assessment tool for the SURPAM (Lee and Chan, 2008). Theassessment tool is composed of 34 indicators for 17 design criteria, i.e. two indicatorsper each criterion in which both quantitative and qualitative indicators are derived. Inorder to derive appropriate indicators for individual design criteria in the assessmentmodel, the authors have made reference to different sets of indicators developedworldwide (CRISP, 2001; Bentivegna et al., 2002; Curwell and Deakin, 2002; Andresenet al., 2004; Hemphill et al., 2004; Hakkinen, 2006). In addition to those indicatorsdeveloped overseas, this study also examines local standards and assessment models,e.g. Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines; CASET; ComprehensiveEnvironmental Performance Assessment Scheme for Buildings; Hong Kong BuildingEnvironmental Assessment Method, and Building Quality Index or Voluntary

Building Classification Scheme. Although none of them is fully applicable to assess theextent to which the urban renewal projects in the territory have achieved economic,environmental and social objectives simultaneously, these findings form a basis fordeveloping the most appropriate indicators for the assessment model. Table II hasclearly presented the indicators developed for assessing the design quality of the urbanrenewal projects against individual criteria.

Assessment of the applicability of the modelCase study was adopted to investigate the applicability of the SURPAM by assessingthe urban design aspects of two local urban renewal projects. It is a form of descriptiveresearch which draws the conclusions about a particular issue after looking intensely

at the details of an individual case/subject or a small group pool, and a mix ofquantitative and quantitative evidence (Yin, 2003a). Case study examines the interplayof all variables in relation to a specific case in order to deepen the understanding of aconcept, an event or a situation as much as possible (Colorado State University, 2007).

With the aid of two case study projects, this research could present the assessmentmechanism of the model in a clear and simple way, and illustrate how the model couldbe applied in real life to evaluate the sustainability performance of local urban renewalprojects. The case study process was also served as a pilot test to check whether themodel was reliable and valid to assess the local projects before it is extensively appliedin future.

Selection of appropriate urban renewal projectsTo evaluate the decision model effectively, appropriate case study projects have to beselected. The reliability of the validation process increases with increasing numbers ofcases; however, the findings are strong enough to give a convincing remark with asmall number of cases provided that they are carefully selected (Yin, 2003a).

In this study, the projects initiated and implemented by the Urban RenewalAuthority (URA) were chosen. It is because when compared to the projects conductedby the private sector, the details of the URA projects are publicly disclosed and morerelevant information is readily available for investigation. In addition, the URA has the

FAC26,13/14

532


8/16

Categ

ories

Designcriteria

Indicato

rs

Me

asurementscales

Quantitative

Qualitative

1.GBD

(a)Incorporat

ionofpass

ive

design

Itmeasurestheextenttowhichthepassivedesignprinciplesaremetinthedesignofthe

urbanrenewalproject

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Qualityofpass

ive

design

Itprovidesaqualitativeevaluationontheeffectivene

ssofthepassivedesigninthe

renewal

project

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

2.ALE

(a)Num

berof

jobscreate

dper1,000m

2

Itdetermineshowmanyjobscanbecreatedper1,000

m2

onaverageuponcompletionof

therene

walproject

Me

asurement-basedscale

p

(b)Qualityof

jobscreate

d

Itevaluatestheadequacy,natureandsalaryofthejo

bopportunitiesavailableinthe

renewal

siteonthebasisofthepublicsperception

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

3.CLD

(a)Appreciat

ionof

loca

lcharacters

Itexaminesthepresenceofcertaincharacteristicsthatcandefinethedistinctivenessofa

renewal

area

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Uniq

uenessofrenewedarea

Itmeasurestheextenttowhichthecitizensinthecom

munityhaveafeelingthatthearea

hasitsowncharacteristicsandpositiveidentityafter

urbanrenewal

Lik

ert-typescale

p

4.PEB

(a)Type

sof

businessprem

ises

Itassessestheavailabilityofdifferenttypesofbusinesspremisesinthedesignofthe

urbanrenewalproject

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Qualityofshopsan

dserv

ices

Itidentifiestheextenttowhichthepeoplewhomaylive/workintherenewalareaare

satisfied

withtherange/mixofshopsandservicesavailableintheircommunityinfuture

Lik

ert-typescale

p

5.PSN

(a)Type

sofprov

isions

for

disa

bled

,elder

lyan

dch

ildren

Itattem

ptstofindoutwhatkindsofprovisionshave

beenprovidedforthedependent

groupsincludingthedisabled,elderlyandchildrenin

thedesignoftheurbanrenewal

project

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Adeq

uacyofaccess

ibledesignan

dspec

ialfac

ilities

Itevaluatestheadequacyofaccessibledesignandsp

ecialprovisionsforthedependent

groupsavailableintherenewalsitefromthecitizenspointofview

Lik

ert-typeScale

p

6.BDF

(a)Dens

ityof

deve

lopmentw

ithinrenewalsite

Itmeasuresthedevelopmentdensitywhichisacritic

alelementinshapingthebuilding

forman

dhasacrucialeffectonthesustainabilityfro

mdifferentperspectives.

Me


p

(b)Qualityof

building

deve

lopment

Itoffers

aqualitativeevaluationonthequalityofthe

buildingdevelopmentintermsof

visuala

ppropriateness,height,bulkanddensity

Lik

ert-typeScalePLUS

p

(continue

d)

Table II.The indicators and

corresponding pointscoring system for

SURPAM


533


9/16

Categ

ories

Designcriteria

Indicato

rs

Me

asurementscales

Quantitative

Qualitative

7.ADN

(a)Capa

bilitytocopew

ithfuturechanges

Itassessesthedesigncapacityofthebuildinganditsimmediatesurroundingareawithin

thenon-residentialdevelopmenttopermitanacceptablelevelofflexibilityadaptingto

futurechangesoflayoutanduses

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Degr

eeofadapta

bility

Itmeasurestheextentofflexibilityinthenon-residen

tialdevelopmentoftherenewal

projecttoallowfutureexpansion,

improvementandm

odification

Lik

ert-typescale

p

8.CST

(a)Frequentmeansoftravel

(except

forwor

k)

Itattem

ptstofindoutthemeansoftravel(eitherbyp

ublictransportoronfoot)thatwill

betakenbythecitizensfrequentlywhengoinginand

outtherenewedcommunityapart

fromwork

Sce

nario-basedscale

p

(b)Qualityofpe

destrianwal

kwaysan

dpu

blictransport

faci

lities

Itinvestigatestheextenttowhichthecitizensaresatisfiedwiththeconvenience,

efficienc

yandsafetyofthepedestrianwalkwaysand

publictransportsystemsavailable

forthem

uponprojectcompletion

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

9.CWN

(a)Harm

oniousenvironment

Itassesseswhetherthedevelopmentoftherenewalp

rojectiscompatiblewith

surroundingareasintermsofuseofcolor,texturean

dconstructionmaterials;physical

designofindividualbuildings;spatialarrangementofstreetsandbuildings;scaleand

formof

development,andlandusezoning

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Impa

ctof

deve

lopment

Itprovidesaqualitativeassessmentonthecompatibilityoftherenewalprojectby

identifyingtheperceivedimpactsofthedevelopment

onthesurroundingareas

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

10.

AOS

(a)Aver

agewal

king

distancetothenearestopenspace

Itassessestheaccessibilitytoanopenplacebymeas

uringitsdirectdistancefroma

referenc

epoint

Me


p

(b)Ease

ofaccesstoopenspaces

Itassessestheextenttowhichthecitizensaresatisfied

withthelevelofaccesstotheopen

spaces

Sce

nario-basedscale

p

11.

ATW

(a)Worktravel

ing

habits

Itaimstofindoutthemainmodeoftransportthatwill

beselectedbythecitizensregularly

whenth

eytraveltoworkafterurbanrenewal

Sce

nario-basedscale

p

(b)Average

journa

ltime

forthecitizenstogettowork

Itmeasuresthedurationofeachjourneyonaveragehastobetakenbythecitizensfor

travelingfromtheirhometoworkbymeansofvarioustypesoftransportexcluding

cycling/

walking

Sce

nario-basedscale

p

(continue

d)

Table II.

FAC26,13/14

534


10/16

Categ

ories

Designcriteria

Indicato

rs

Me

asurementscales

Quantitative

Qualitative

12.

GBC

(a)Incorporat

ionofenvironmenta

llyfriend

lypractices

Itidentifieswhethernumbersofenvironmentallyfriendlypracticeshavebeen

incorporatedinthedesignoftherenewalproject

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Qualityofenvironmenta

llyfriend

lypractices

Itassessesthequalityofthesepracticesadoptedina

renewalprojectbycomparingitto

otherpr

oject(s)insimilarscale

Yes/NoScale

p

13.

RRP

(a)Percentageofex

istingproperties

beingreta

ined

Itestimatesthetotalpercentageoftheexistingprope

rtiesbeingretainedintherenewal

area

Me


p

(b)Degr

eeofre

habilitat

ion

Itmeasurestheextenttowhichthecitizensinthecommunitythinkthattheproperties

beingre

pairableandhavingtheirutilityvaluesareproperlyretainedandrehabilitatedin

urbanrenewalprocess

Lik

ert-typescale

p

14.

SOC

(a)Socialco

hesion

Itexaminewhetherthecitizenscanmaintaincloserelationshipwiththeiroldneighbors

friends,

andexistingsocialgroups,andwhetherthey

canmakenewfriendsafterurban

renewal

andarewillingtoworkfortheirnewcommu

nity

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

(b)Citizenssatis

fact

ionw

iththe

loca

lcommun

ity

Itattem

ptstofindoutwhetherthelocalareaisagoodplacetostayafterurbanrenewal

fromthecitizenspointofview

Lik

ert-typeScale

p

15.

POS

(a)Percentageofopenspaces

beingprov

ided

Itcalculatesthetotalpercentageoftheopenspacesb

eingprovidedintherenewalarea

Me


p

(b)Qualityofopenspaces

Itidentifieswhethertheopenspacesprovidedbythe

renewalprojectareadequateand

properly

located,andofappropriatedesign

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

16.

CYI

(a)Form

ofinvo

lvement

Itidentifiesthenumbersofactivitiesthecitizenscanparticipateinduringurbanrenewal

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Degr

eeofpart

icipat

ion

Itexaminestheadequacyofthecommunityparticipat

ionopportunitiesandtheweightof

thepublicviews

Lik

ert-typescalePLUS

p

17.

APF

(a)Publicfaci

litiesw

ithin500mofaccommodat

ion

Itattem

ptstofindoutwhatkindsofpublicfacilitieshavebeenprovidedforthecitizens

withina

manageablewalkingdistanceintherenewal

area,anddeterminehoweasythey

cangainaccesstothebasicservicesservingtheirdailylifeoperation

Counting-basedscale

p

(b)Ease

ofaccesstopu

blicfaci

lities

Itevaluatestheextenttowhichthecitizensaresatisfiedwiththelevelofaccesstothe

publicfacilitiesafterurbanrenewal

Sce

nario-basedscale

p

p

Source:LeeandChan(2008)

Table II.


535


11/16

social responsibility to provide a satisfactory living environment for the local citizensthrough urban renewal and it has to follow the Urban Renewal Strategy prepared bythe Government which has adopted sustainable development as the guiding principlefor the planning and development of Hong Kong. Its mission is in line with the

expectation of this research to promote sustainable urban renewal in the territory infuture.

A total of 53 urban renewal projects have been announced by the URA (the former isthe Land Development Corporation) since 1988 in which 23 of them have completedwhile 30 of them are in progress. In this research, two projects were selected from each oftwo categories. Two projects instead of a single project were chosen because thisarrangement could increase the chances of producing compelling arguments and robustresults (Yin, 2003b). Although the SURPAM attempts to assess the extent to which anurban renewal project is able to achieve the sustainable development objectives beforeimplementation, post occupancy evaluation of a completed project in this study is stillvaluable to prove its applicability. After a preliminary study of 53 projects, it was foundthat the Queens Terrace in Sheung Wan and the Kwun Tong Town Centre projectshould be selected. The rationale behind such selection is presented as follows:

(1) The scale of most of the projects completed was small and 2/3 of them only had asite area of not more than 2,000 m2. Many urban design criteria highlighted in themodel were found not applicable to those small-scale redevelopment projects andthus merely medium to large-sized projects having a site area of at least 8,000 m2

were considered. From the list of 23 completed projects, only four of them namelyLangham Place, the Center, Queens Terrace and Tsuen Wan Town Center met theselection criterion. However, the Langham Place and the Center were commercialbased projects without any residential elements. In order to have a full evaluationof the decision model, either Queens Terrace or Tsuen Wan Town Centre whichcovers a wider mix of development should be chosen. As the Tsuen Wan Town

Centre was newly built in May 2007, and the pre-sale of flats and leasing of thecommercial premises had not yet completed, it is meaningless to conductpost-occupancy evaluation for this project. In view of this, the Queens Terrace wasselected as it had completed and been occupied for more than four years.

(2) A total of 30 projects were found in progress but the Kwun Tong Town Centreproject was selected finally because it was the largest single redevelopmentproject undertaken by the URA and it had drawn a lot of public attention sinceannouncement. Both practitioners and citizens were familiar with the contentsof the project even it had not yet completed. Hence, a detailed introduction andexplanation of the project was not required during the assessment process whenit was selected as case study. In addition, the Kwun Tung Town Centre projectwas proposed to have a variety of provisions including commercial andresidential developments, leisure and recreational amenities, communityfacilities, open and landscaped spaces, government offices, clinics and publictransport interchange. This large-scale project is especially applicable to beused for testing the SURPAM which is tailor-made for the assessment ofcomprehensive urban renewal projects in future.

From above, it can be observed that the reason for selection, the scale and thebackground of two cases are significantly different, but both of them are the exemplary

FAC26,13/14

536


12/16

case in their category. It is believed that the pre-selected cases can produce contrastingbut cogent results when conducting case study.

Process of assessing the case study projects

The assessment of each case study project on the basis of 34 indicators has to be facilitatedby three major groups of people, i.e. the researcher of this study, the designer/person incharge of the projects, and the representatives of the citizens/the residents of the area tobe/has been renewed. After gathering all relevant information of the developmentschemes, I, as the researcher of this study would conduct the desktop study. Based on theactual facts, some of the indicators could be assessed objectively. Since not all details of theprojects were accessible for public inspection, the designer/person in charge of the projectsshould be contacted in order to identify the missing link and verify the preliminaryassessment results generated from the desktop study.

For the indicators requiring citizens inputs especially for the qualitative ones, aquestionnaire survey with local citizens and the residents representatives, i.e. districtcouncil members were arranged accordingly. Due to limited research resources, a fullsurvey that involves all of the affected persons, groups and interested parties inexpressing their views about the selected projects was not possible. Therefore, the casestudy only attempted to interview the residents of the Queens Terrace (QT) and thepopulation directly affected by the Kwun Tung Town Centre (KTTC) project. Nearbypopulation outside the boundary of two renewal sites were excluded from the survey,but the district councilors in the vicinity were engaged.

With the help of the property management office of the QT, a notice asking whetherthe residents there would like to join the survey was issued and finally 35 out of 1,148households had given their positive reply. Since numbers of surveys had beenconducted during a lengthy public consultation period, many affected persons in theKTTC were not willing to be surveyed again even the purpose of this survey was

different. As a result, only 36 residents were contacted successfully to join theassessment process for this study. In addition, a questionnaire was sent throughfax/email to a total of 60 district councilors in which 18 were from the Central andWestern District while 42 came from the Kwun Tong District. However, only 1/6 of theCentral and Western district members and 1/3 of the Kwun Tong district memberswere interested in assessing the case study projects. In order to ensure that theresponses of all assessors reflected the truth, the point scoring system of the indicatorswas not disclosed to them during the project assessment.

Assessment results and discussionTable III has shown the results of the assessment. From the table, it can be observedthat each indicator is capable of scoring a maximum of five points and a scale of 1-5

(1 the minimum level of contribution to sustainable urban renewal in respect of aparticular design aspect while 5 the optimum level of contribution) was usedunder column (a) and (b). No point would be awarded to a particular indicator if theproject fails to meet its corresponding assessment requirements. The relativeimportance of each of two indicators to individual design criterion is assumed equalbecause it impacts on the whole assessment are insignificant, and the significance ofeach design criteria has already been reflected by the final weight as mentioned inequation (1). Obviously, a design criterion containing two indicators can score a


537


13/16

maximum of 10 points. However, none of the projects can score 10 points under thedesign criteria. On the contrary, the projects have only obtained a relatively low scorein certain aspects.

The respondents who joined the assessment process for the QT project are entirelydifferent from those for the KTTC project. Most of the respondents in the QT are thecitizens currently living there while those in the KTTC are the citizens going to leavethat place. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare the individual scores obtained bytwo projects directly. However, the pattern of the assessment results could providesome insights for further discussion. When looking into the Table III, it can be noticedthat the KTTC project performs significantly better than the QT project undernumbers of design criteria including GBD, ALE, CLD, PEB, ATW, GBC, and CYI.

The QT project was commenced in mid-1990s and completed in 2003 while theKTTC project has just been launched in early 2007. During last decade, thegovernment policy on urban (re)development and the expectations of the general publicfor the projects have changed a lot. Since 1996, the Hong Kong Government hascommitted to achieve sustainable development at the policy making level. Numbers ofstudies, e.g. Territorial Development Strategy Review, SUSDEV 21 and Hong Kong

2030 had been conducted, and several executive arms such as Commission on StrategicDevelopment and Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) had been established. Startingfrom early 2000s, the Buildings Department has issued various joint practice notes,conducted several consultancy studies and set up a Building Innovation Unit topromote environmentally friendly design and construction in order to facilitate the

sustainable development in Hong Kong. Since then, the green design and constructionbecame more and more popular in the local construction industry and the developmentprojects to be conducted nowadays more or less include some of those features.

Case study projects QT KTTCScore of indicator Score of Indicator

Points obtained/designcriteria

(a)(out of 5)

(b)(out of 5)

Sub-total(out of 10)

(a)(out of 5)

(b)(out of 5)

Sub-total(out of 10)

GBD 3 3.684 6.684 5 3.673 8.673ALE 1 3.211 4.211 2 3.571 5.571CLD 1.263 2.947 4.210 2.184 3.714 5.898PEB 2 2.763 4.763 4 3.755 7.755PSN 2 3.553 5.553 2 3.510 5.510BDF 4 3.658 7.658 4 3.571 7.571ADN 2 3 5 2 3 5CST 2.868 3.737 6.605 2.816 3.735 6.551CWN 1.947 3.921 5.868 2.245 3.857 6.102AOS 5 3.737 8.737 5 3.694 8.694ATW 2.237 2.947 5.184 2.571 3.429 6GBC 1 2 3 5 4 9RRP 0 3 3 0 3.020 3.020SOC 3.158 4 7.158 3.143 3.612 6.755POS 3 3.132 6.132 2 3.694 5.694CYI 1 3.395 4.395 4 3.367 7.367APF 5 3.895 8.895 5 3.531 8.531

Table III.Assessment results oftwo pre-selected cases

FAC26,13/14

538


14/16

Throughout the years, the requirements and expectations of local citizens for the(re)development projects have increased. More and more people have emphasized thatthe new developments should have their own characteristics and identity, and thestructures reflecting their collective memories should be properly retained in urban

renewal process. In addition, public consultation through a traditional or single meansno longer satisfies the citizens. They believe that a comprehensive public engagementexercise for the projects is required and more channels should be provided for them toexpress their views on the developments. Based on the discussions as mentionedabove, it is not surprising that the QT project could only get a low score under thedesign criteria GBD, GBC, CLD, and CYI when its design being formulated in the late1990s was assessed against the SURPAM which was derived on the basis of currentstandards/expectations.

In comparison with the QT project, it is anticipated that the KTTC project can meetvarious sustainable development objectives to a greater extent. It is becausesustainable development, a concept newly acknowledged in Hong Kong in late 1990s,

was not well-considered in urban development when preparing the design for the QTproject, and this idea became more mature when planning for the KTTC project inprevious years. After conducting the case study, it can be found that the assessmentresults confirm what we have expected. When the sub-totals stated in Table III are putinto the equation (1), the overall score of each project can be calculated. The overallscore of the KTTC project (6.754) is much higher than that of the QT project (5.679)which indicates that the performance of the former project in meeting the sustainabledevelopment objectives during urban renewal is much better than the other.

In addition to the assessment of the overall performance, the SURPAM also helps toidentify their deficiencies. Even though the KTTC project performs better in theassessment, there is still room for improvement as it has obtained a relatively low scoreunder several design criteria. The most obvious example is the design criterion RRP.

Under the 4Rs strategy currently adopted by the URA, the sites undergoing urbanredevelopment will be completely demolished and rebuilt, and rehabilitation activitiescan be seldom found in the redevelopment projects. Therefore, the KTTC projectcannot gain a favorable assessment result under this criterion.

ConclusionsThis study has successfully demonstrated how the model works through case study.A full examination of the applicability of the SURPAM cannot be achieved unless allpublic and private urban renewal projects completed/in progress are assessed in the casestudy process. However, due to a limited time, fund, human resource and relevant

information of the projects in particular the private ones, a detailed investigation ofevery project was not possible in this study. Therefore, only two urban renewal projectsconducted by the URA were finally selected for the assessment. It is acknowledged thatlimited numbers of cases may affect the representativeness of the results generated.Nevertheless, this study can bridge the gap between abstract research/theory andconcrete practice by investigating a small group of urban renewal projects, and theassessment process and findings are capable of identifying the effectiveness ofthe SURPAM provided that the case study projects are properly selected.


539


15/16

References

Andresen, I., Aschehoug, ., Matusiak, B., Nesje, A., Panek, A., Pracki, P., Rynska, D. and Sowa, J.(2004), Sustainable Rehabilitation of Buildings: A State-of-the-Art, Warsaw University ofTechnology and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, UN.

Bentivegna, V., Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Lombard, P., Mitchell, G. and Nijkamp, P. (2002),A vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST,

Building Research & Information, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 83-94.

Berke, P. (2002), Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challengesfor the twenty-first century, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-36.

Chan, E.H.W. and Lee, G.K.L. (2006), Design-led sustainable urban renewal approach forHong Kong, The HKIA Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 76-81.

Chan, E.H.W. and Lee, G.K.L. (2007a), Contribution of urban design to economic sustainabilityof urban renewal projects in Hong Kong, Sustainable Development, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 122-30.

Chan, E.H.W. and Lee, G.K.L. (2007b), Design considerations for environmental sustainability in

high density development: A case study of Hong Kong, Environment, Development andSustainability, published online (DOI: 10.1007/s10668-007-9117-0).

Chan, E.H.W. and Lee, G.K.L. (2008), Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urbanrenewal projects, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 243-57.

Colorado State University (2007), Writing Guides: Case Studies, available at: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/casestudy/com2a1.cfm (accessed 11 January 2008).

CRISP (2001), Construction and city related sustainability indicators, available at: http://crisp.cstb.fr/ (accessed 8 October 2007).

Curwell, S.R. and Deakin, M. (2002), Sustainable urban development and BEQUEST, BuildingResearch & Information, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 79-82.

Hakkinen, T. (2006), Assessment of indicators for sustainable urban construction, CivilEngineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 247-59.

Hemphill, L., Berry, J. and McGreal, S. (2004), An indicator-based approach to measuringsustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 1, conceptual foundations andmethodological framework, Urban Studies, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 725-55.

Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2007), The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach forassessment of urban renewal proposals, Social Indicators Research, published online(DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9228-x).

Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2008), Benchmarking urban renewal projects in Hong Kong,Journal of Property Investment & Finance, (under review).

Shutkin, W. (2000), Towards a global/international model for sustainable urbanredevelopment, available at: www.urbanicity.org/FullDoc.asp?ID 268 (accessed20 December 2004).

Yin, R.K. (2003a), Applications of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Yin, R.K. (2003b), Case Study Research: Design and Method, Sage Publications, London.

About the authorsGrace K.L. Lee obtained her BSc (Hons) in Building Surveying from the Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity (HKPolyU). She is a Chartered Building Surveyor by profession and a RegisteredProfessional Surveyor registered under the Surveyors Registration Ordinance of Hong KongSAR. Before joining the HKPolyU, she had practiced in the construction industry for more

FAC26,13/14

540


16/16

than five years. She had worked in the Architectural Services Department, Buildings Departmentand the Hong Kong Housing Society. She is now being a PhD student and a research associate inthe Department of Building and Real Estate of the HKPolyU. Her research interests are inbuilding control, building maintenance, sustainable development, urban design and urban

renewal. Grace K.L. Lee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected] H.W. Chan studied Architecture in England and then learnt Law at London University

and Hong Kong University. He obtained his PhD degree from London University. He is aChartered Architect (Authorized Person) and is also a Barrister-at-Law called to the UK andHong Kong Bars. Before joining the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 1994, he had worked inindustry for over 10 years with practical experience in project management and building controlin the UK and Hong Kong. His research interests include property development controlframework, construction law, administrative and regulatory systems for construction anddispute management.


541

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

A Sustainability