Sustainable Development in Urban Renewal in Hong Kong: A Social Assessment

1
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 Kong
• 2 Department of Social Work and Social
  Administration, The University of Hong Kong
• 3 Department of Public and Social Administration,
  City University of Hong Kong
• 4 Department of Social Work, Chinese University
  of Hong Kong
• 5 Policy 21 Limited
• 6 Department of Civil Engineering, The University
  of Hong Kong

European Real Estate Society Annual Conference
2010 Milan, 23-26 June 2010
2
Part ABackground of the Study
3
Your impression of Hong Kong
4
Urban Decay and Building Dilapidation
5
Extent of Building Problem in Hong Kong
Year Dangerous Advertising Signs Dangerous Buildings Dangerous Hillsides Unauthorized Building Works Total Number of Reports
1997 350 3,658 130 12,427 16,915
1998 250 3,851 53 12,577 16,731
1999 614 4,730 130 16,999 22,473
2000 260 4,280 71 13,911 18,522
2001 178 6,671 41 12,764 19,654
2002 135 5,956 52 21,844 27,987
2003 181 8,665 48 24,870 33,764
2004 303 10,407 146 21,123 32,069
2005 331 13,999 208 25,683 40,221
2006 564 6,758 183 24,861 32,366
2007 322 4,566 128 24,633 29,649
2008 563 4,412 313 24,942 31,230
Source Buildings Department (various years)
6
Built Environment Quality Sustainability

• We give shape to our buildings thereafter they
  shape us. (Winston Churchills 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

7
Built Environment Quality Sustainability
(contd)

• 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)

8
Built Environment Quality Sustainability
(contd)

• 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
• communitys attitudes towards different
  approaches
• ? for more informed decision making for urban
  renewal

9
Part BResearch Methodology
10
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

11
(No Transcript)
12
Profile of the Respondents
Characteristic Number
Gender Male 719 47.9
Gender Female 781 52.1
Age 19 years old 51 3.4
Age 20 - 29 years old 162 10.8
Age 30 - 39 years old 229 15.3
Age 40 - 49 years old 316 21.1
Age 50 - 59 years old 293 19.5
Age 60 - 69 years old 174 11.6
Age 70 - 79 years old 194 12.9
Age 80 years old 80 5.3
Age Refused to answer 1 0.1
Highest Educational Attainment Non-formal education/Kindergarten 133 8.9
Highest Educational Attainment Primary 278 18.5
Highest Educational Attainment Lower secondary 332 22.1
Highest Educational Attainment Upper secondary or sixth form 469 31.3
Highest Educational Attainment Post-secondary - sub-degree 84 5.6
Highest Educational Attainment Post-secondary - degree or above 193 12.9
Highest Educational Attainment Refused to answer 11 0.7
13
Profile of the Respondents (contd)
Characteristic Number
Employment Status Employee 638 42.5
Employment Status Employer 47 3.1
Employment Status Self-employed 69 4.6
Employment Status Student 92 6.1
Employment Status Housewife 278 18.5
Employment Status Retired 325 21.7
Employment Status Nothing to do / Unemployed 48 3.2
Employment Status Refused to answer 3 0.2
Length of Residence in Hong Kong lt 1 year 12 0.8
Length of Residence in Hong Kong 1 and lt 10 years 112 7.5
Length of Residence in Hong Kong 10 and lt 20 years 147 9.8
Length of Residence in Hong Kong 20 and lt 30 years 229 15.3
Length of Residence in Hong Kong 30 and lt 40 years 244 16.3
Length of Residence in Hong Kong 40 and lt 50 years 324 21.6
Length of Residence in Hong Kong gt 50 years 274 18.3
Length of Residence in Hong Kong gt 60 years 147 9.8
Length of Residence in Hong Kong Refused to answer 11 0.7
14
Profile of the Respondents (contd)
Characteristic Number
Average Monthly Household Income lt HK2,000 167 11.1
Average Monthly Household Income HK2,000 - HK3,999 33 2.2
Average Monthly Household Income HK4,000 - HK5,999 45 3.0
Average Monthly Household Income HK6,000 - HK7,999 74 4.9
Average Monthly Household Income HK8,000 - HK9,999 105 7.0
Average Monthly Household Income HK10,000 - HK14,999 265 17.7
Average Monthly Household Income HK15,000 HK19,999 228 15.2
Average Monthly Household Income HK20,000 - HK24,999 187 12.5
Average Monthly Household Income HK25,000 - HK29,999 72 4.8
Average Monthly Household Income HK30,000 - HK39,999 103 6.9
Average Monthly Household Income HK40,000 - HK59,999 88 5.9
Average Monthly Household Income HK60,000 34 2.3
Average Monthly Household Income Refused to answer 99 6.6
15
Part CSurvey Findings and Discussion
16
Length of Residence in the District / Property
Length of residence Number
District lt 1 year 52 3.5
District 1 and lt 10 years 365 24.3
District 10 and lt 20 years 272 18.1
District 20 and lt 30 years 277 18.5
District 30 and lt 40 years 207 13.8
District 40 and lt 50 years 173 11.5
District gt 50 years 76 5.1
District gt 60 years 40 2.7
District Refused to answer 38 2.5
Current Residence lt 1 year 91 6.1
Current Residence 1 and lt 10 years 577 38.5
Current Residence 10 and lt 20 years 363 24.2
Current Residence 20 and lt 30 years 280 18.7
Current Residence 30 and lt 40 years 124 8.3
Current Residence 40 and lt 50 years 53 3.5
Current Residence gt 50 years 5 0.3
Current Residence gt 60 years 1 0.1
Current Residence Refused to answer 6 0.4
gt 50
17
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

18
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

19
Preference between Redevelopment Rehabilitation
Preference 30-39 years old 30-39 years old 40 years old or above 40 years old or above
Preference 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
20
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)

21
Any Insights Drawn from the Findings?

• Making choice between redevelopment
  rehabilitation
• building quality gtgt 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

22
Part D Concluding Remarks
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 UNs
  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

24
Thank You !
For comments and questions, please e-mail me at
y.yau_at_cityu.edu.hk
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.