Sustainable Development in Urban Renewal in Hong Kong: A Social Assessment Daniel Chi-wing HO 1, Chi Kwok LAW 2, Yung YAU 3, Sun-wah POON 1, Ernest Wing-tak

Sustainable Development in Urban Renewal in Hong Kong:

A Social Assessment

Daniel Chi-wing HO1, Chi Kwok LAW2, Yung YAU3, Sun-wah POON1, Ernest Wing-tak CHUI2, Yu Cheung WONG2, Kar Mut LEE2,

Lisanne Suk-fun KO4, Hak Kwong YIP5, Kwok Hung KWAN6

1 Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong2 Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong

3 Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong4 Department of Social Work, Chinese University of Hong Kong

5 Policy 21 Limited6 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong

European Real Estate Society Annual Conference 2010

Milan, 23-26 June 2010


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 2

Part ABackground of the Study


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 3

Your impression of Hong Kong …


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 4

Urban Decay and Building Dilapidation


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 5

Extent of Building Problem in Hong Kong

YearDangerous

Advertising Signs

Dangerous Buildings

Dangerous Hillsides

Unauthorized Building

Works

Total Number of Reports

1997 350 3,658 130 12,427 16,9151998 250 3,851 53 12,577 16,7311999 614 4,730 130 16,999 22,4732000 260 4,280 71 13,911 18,5222001 178 6,671 41 12,764 19,654

2002 135 5,956 52 21,844 27,9872003 181 8,665 48 24,870 33,7642004 303 10,407 146 21,123 32,0692005 331 13,999 208 25,683 40,2212006 564 6,758 183 24,861 32,3662007 322 4,566 128 24,633 29,6492008 563 4,412 313 24,942 31,230Source: Buildings Department (various years)


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 6

Built Environment Quality & Sustainability “We give shape to our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”

(Winston Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons in 1943)

Inter-linkage between human beings and built environment

Policy and academic focus of sustainable built environment unevenly placed between new and old buildings existing buildings dominating the building stock more research should focus on existing building stock (Kohler

& Hassler, 2002; Kohler & Yang, 2007)

After the outbreak of SARS in 2003 two public consultations on building

management and maintenance in Hong Kong


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 7

Built Environment Quality & Sustainability (cont’d)

Urban renewal becoming increasingly urgent redevelopment as major renewal mode until late 1990s government, NGO and conservationists promoting building

rehabilitation in the early 2000s redevelopment plans of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA)

challenged

Sai Yee Street (Project K28) Wing Lee Street (Project H19)


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Built Environment Quality & Sustainability (cont’d)

Decision making regarding choice of renewal approach a multi-criteria decision making process e.g. physical quality, economic impact, environmental

concern and social impact social aspirations should also be considered

This study aims to explore how the community perceive different approaches of urban

renewal (i.e., redevelopment and rehabilitation) in HK community’s attitudes towards different approaches

for more informed decision making for urban renewal

8


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 9

Part BResearch Methodology


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Structured Questionnaire Survey

A structured questionnaire survey conducted in 2008

a total of 1,500 respondents

living in four “target areas”, namely

Sham Shui Po (27.5%)

Yau Tsim Mong (42.8%)

Wanchai (5.3%)

Central and Western (24.5%)

69.9% of the respondents being owner-occupiers

56.2% of the respondents living in buildings of at least 30 years old

10


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 11

Central & Western

New Territories

Lantau Island

Hong Kong Island

Kowloon

Wanchai

Sham Shui PoYau Tsim Mong


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Profile of the Respondents

12

Characteristic Number %Gender Male 719 47.9

Female 781 52.1

Age ≤ 19 years old 51 3.420 - 29 years old 162 10.830 - 39 years old 229 15.340 - 49 years old 316 21.150 - 59 years old 293 19.560 - 69 years old 174 11.670 - 79 years old 194 12.9≥ 80 years old 80 5.3Refused to answer 1 0.1

Highest Educational Attainment Non-formal education ／ Kindergarten 133 8.9Primary 278 18.5Lower secondary 332 22.1Upper secondary or sixth form 469 31.3Post-secondary - sub-degree 84 5.6Post-secondary - degree or above 193 12.9Refused to answer 11 0.7


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Profile of the Respondents (cont’d)

13

Characteristic Number %Employment Status Employee 638 42.5

Employer 47 3.1Self-employed 69 4.6Student 92 6.1Housewife 278 18.5Retired 325 21.7Nothing to do / Unemployed 48 3.2Refused to answer 3 0.2

Length of Residence in Hong Kong < 1 year 12 0.8≥ 1 and < 10 years 112 7.5≥ 10 and < 20 years 147 9.8≥ 20 and < 30 years 229 15.3≥ 30 and < 40 years 244 16.3≥ 40 and < 50 years 324 21.6> 50 years 274 18.3> 60 years 147 9.8Refused to answer 11 0.7


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Profile of the Respondents (cont’d)

14

Characteristic Number %Average Monthly Household Income < HK$2,000 167 11.1

HK$2,000 - HK$3,999 33 2.2HK$4,000 - HK$5,999 45 3.0HK$6,000 - HK$7,999 74 4.9HK$8,000 - HK$9,999 105 7.0HK$10,000 - HK$14,999 265 17.7HK$15,000 – HK$19,999 228 15.2HK$20,000 - HK$24,999 187 12.5HK$25,000 - HK$29,999 72 4.8HK$30,000 - HK$39,999 103 6.9HK$40,000 - HK$59,999 88 5.9≥ HK$60,000 34 2.3Refused to answer 99 6.6


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 15

Part C

Survey Findings and Discussion


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Length of Residence in the District / Property

16

Length of residence Number %

District < 1 year 52 3.5≥ 1 and < 10 years 365 24.3≥ 10 and < 20 years 272 18.1≥ 20 and < 30 years 277 18.5≥ 30 and < 40 years 207 13.8≥ 40 and < 50 years 173 11.5> 50 years 76 5.1> 60 years 40 2.7Refused to answer 38 2.5

Current Residence < 1 year 91 6.1≥ 1 and < 10 years 577 38.5≥ 10 and < 20 years 363 24.2≥ 20 and < 30 years 280 18.7≥ 30 and < 40 years 124 8.3≥ 40 and < 50 years 53 3.5> 50 years 5 0.3> 60 years 1 0.1Refused to answer 6 0.4

> 50%


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Complaints and Satisfaction Levels

Among all respondents, complaints against concrete problems (20.1%) water seepage (7.1%) unauthorized building works(16.1%)

Respondents quite satisfied with their living environments 76.1% liked to live in their current residences 60.0% satisfied with their current residences 63.6% satisfied with the hygienic condition 62.3% satisfied with the fire safety 65.9% satisfied with the structural safety 64.6% satisfied with the amenity facilities

17


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Intention to Move

61.0% of the respondents expressed that they did not want to move out from the buildings they were currently living in

Reasons behind:

“having accustomed to the district” (11.9%)

“feeling convenient to live in the district” (5.7%)

“satisfied with the current living conditions” (4.5%)

“unable to afford the cost of living in other places” (4.4%)

Among those who intended to move, 56.4% opted to continue to live in the same district as before

a strong adhesion to local areas or neighbourhoods

18


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Preference between Redevelopment & Rehabilitation

19

Preference

30-39 years old

40 years old or above

No. % No. %

No comment 155 45.1% 239 47.9%

Strongly support rehabilitation but oppose redevelopment 10 2.9% 8 1.6%

Strongly support rehabilitation 6 1.7% 8 1.6%

Support rehabilitation 60 17.4% 68 13.6%

Support redevelopment 91 26.5% 136 27.3%

Strongly support redevelopment 9 2.6% 15 3.0%

Strongly support redevelopment but oppose rehabilitation 13 4.5% 25 5.0%

pro-rehabilitation 16.8%

pro-redevelopment 35.3%


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Preference between Redevelopment & Rehabilitation

Why rehabilitation?

buildings not dilapidated to become non-repairable (30.6%)

wanted to live in the same flat (10.6%)

wanted to live in the same building (9.4%)

Why redevelopment?

building dereliction (43.6%)

chance to move to a new home (10.0%)

thoroughgoing improvement of built environment quality (8.3%)

20


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010

Any Insights Drawn from the Findings?

Making choice between redevelopment & rehabilitation

building quality >> social and environmental concerns

Dilemma of redevelopment

respondents prefer redevelopment to building rehabilitation

majority of respondents wanted to stay in the same locality

Rehousing or resettlement of the affected residents

conventional cash compensation may not work

in-situ flat-for-flat compensation or rehousing in the same district

technique of land readjustment

21


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 22

Part D Concluding Remarks


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 23

Concluding Remarks

Sustainable development in policy agendas for country or city development in the 21st century social, economic and environmental quality of human

settlement development set out in the UN’s Agenda 21

Urban renewal becoming increasingly important more informed decision making required

social stakes of different parties to be duly considered

benefitting stakeholders of building sustainability e.g. public administrator, homeowners, developers and general public


Milan, 23 – 26 June 2010 24

Thank You !

For comments and questions,

please e-mail me at [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. 7009-PPR-4) which made this research possible.

Documents

Sustainable Development in Urban Renewal in Hong Kong: A Social Assessment Daniel Chi-wing HO 1, Chi Kwok LAW 2, Yung YAU 3, Sun-wah POON 1, Ernest Wing-tak