Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Underlying social factors for evaluating heritage conservation in urban

renewal districts
Esther Hiu Kwan Yung*, Qi Zhang, Edwin H.W. Chan
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Urban renewal usually involves large scale demolition of areas, which can lead to the destruction of social
Received 12 August 2016 networks and local character. It has been increasingly recognized that heritage conservation in older
Received in revised form districts undergoing urban renewal has a significant impact on enhancing a community's sense of place,
1 June 2017
identity and development. However, a clear understanding of the social factors which contribute to
Accepted 6 June 2017
successful heritage conservation in urban renewal is still lacking. This study aims to identify the social
Available online 17 June 2017
role of heritage conservation in urban renewal. It also investigates whether certain underlying social
factors vary among different districts, according to density, socio-demographics and the extent of
Keywords:
Social factors
redevelopment. In order to expose the factors, a survey of three hundred and twelve people in two urban
Evaluation renewal districts in Hong Kong was conducted using questionnaires. The identified social factors provide
Heritage conservation an evaluation framework for examining the collective impact of conservation of historic buildings, rather
Urban renewal than individual historic buildings on a renewal district. The findings reveal that socio-demographics of an
Hong Kong area, local characteristics, type of heritage buildings and the extent of urban renewal do not exert a
significant influence on the composition of social factors. Several policy recommendations are also
provided for urban planners and decision makers incorporating heritage conservation in urban renewal
strategies.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Redevelopment in a city inevitably involves urban renewal
processes. Urban renewal is intended to improve the urban envi-
ronment in accordance with the changing economic and social
needs of the people. Urban renewal is considered to be important
for many reasons. First, deteriorated buildings and housing stock
can be upgraded. Second, historic buildings and structures can be
preserved. Third, a city can be reshaped by improving urban lay-
outs, open spaces, road networks and other infrastructures. How-
ever, while urban renewal can successfully help maintain the
function and vibrancy of urban centres, urban renewal can also lead
to potentially negative social issues, including social exclusion,
gentrification and discontinuity of social lives, among others
(UNESCO, 2004; 2005; He & Wu, 2005). These issues are not only
common in a Northern and Western context, but they are also
apparent in the Southern sphere and in third world countries,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: esther.yung@polyu.edu.hk (E.H.K. Yung), hbzq007@gmail.com
(Q. Zhang), bsedchan@polyu.edu.hk (E.H.W. Chan).
including South Africa (Visser & Nico Kotze, 2008) and the Middle
East (Abu-Dayyeh, 2006). For instance, the lack of community
involvement in the renewal process revealed in Istanbul has
undermined social justice and equity (Ercan, 2011). Thus, the major
problem lies in how a city can carry out successful renewal with a
view to attaining overall urban sustainability for the future.
In recent years, urban renewal has transformed from taking a
‘growth-first’ economic-oriented approach to a more socially
conscious approach (Wang, 2011). Urban renewal processes now
increasingly incorporate heritage conservation elements in the
overall urban renewal plan. Heritage conservation means all the
processes involved in looking after a place so as to retain its heri-
tage significance and cultural heritage value (Australia ICOMOS,
1999). In this paper, these heritage places refer to monuments
and historic buildings that have historical, architectural, aesthetic
and social values and which reflect the living conditions and culture
of the people of the cities.
In certain cities, like New York, there has been criticism that
historical conservation practices contribute to the proliferation of
gentrification in the urban core (Zukin, 1982). Similar critiques of
gentrification and identity have been directed at conservation in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.06.004
0197-3975/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
136 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
cities undergoing urban renewal, for instance, Malaysia (Idid, 2005;
Shamsuddin & Sulaiman, 2002), Singapore (Yeoh & Huang, 1996;
Yuen & Hock, 2001) and Bangkok (Sirisrisak, 2009).
Previous studies have proposed a set of critical factors and
corresponding indicators to be considered when undertaking sus-
tainable urban renewal (Chan & Lee, 2007; Couch & Dennemann,
2000; Lee, 2003; Ng, 2002). Phillips and Stein (2013) have pro-
vided indicators for a framework that evaluates the impact of
heritage conservation on community economic development.
Zancheti and Hidaka (2012) propose indicators for measuring the
conservation of urban world heritage. However, little work has
been done that measures the social effects of a group of heritage
conservation projects on an urban renewal district. Given the
changing trend of conservation of single buildings to groups of
buildings and extending the scope from a project level to a
neighborhood and district level (Donaldson & Du Plessis, 2013;
Edwards, 2009; Laprise, Lufkin, & Rey, 2015), a more comprehen-
sive representation of the social factors that enhance better heri-
tage conservation is needed.
Thus, this paper aims to develop a set of social evaluation factors
that should be considered when assessing the social impact of
conserving groups of heritage buildings in urban renewal districts.
Hong Kong has been chosen as a case study since it is a dense urban
city that is in the process of undertaking many redevelopment
projects in its old decayed districts. Two urban renewal districts,
Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po, were selected for the study. Although
neither of them is designated conservation areas, the compact form
of the areas and the close proximity of different historic buildings
scattered within the districts has a significant effect on the local
neighborhoods. The study also intends to examine whether
different socio-demographics and the extent of redevelopment
plans in the two urban renewal districts might affect people's
evaluation of the social impact of heritage conservation on the
community.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Interplay between heritage conservation and urban renewal
Urban renewal involves the demolition or restoration of decayed
and obsolete buildings so as to create better living environments.
Inevitably, urban renewal plans often involve large scale redevel-
opment projects. Although urban renewal has gradually changed
from the bulldozer approach to regeneration and revitalization,
emphasizing a social consciousness that includes economic, phys-
ical, and environmental conditions (Zheng et al., 2014), there are
still many social issues that should be taken into consideration,
such as the discontinuation of everyday community life, loss of
sense of identity and loss of collective memories (Hayden, 1995).
For instance, forced eviction of the original habitants and tradi-
tional businesses is a common occurrence (Cheung & Leung, 2012;
Ng, 2005). Moreover, urban renewal tends to prioritize economic
growth and physical improvement. This can lead to the homoge-
neity of urban renewal districts and thus lack of identity of place.
After years of wide-spread demolition, slum clearance and
physical redevelopment in urban areas, and the realization of the
social problems inherent in such actions, the urban renewal process
has increasingly incorporated a heritage conservation approach in
the overall planning and revitalization of older urban areas so as to
create a better place identity (Couch, Sykes, & Boerstinghaus, 2011;
Yuen & Hock, 2001). At the same time, heritage conservation has
begun advocating the importance of district-wide approaches that
not only focus on individual historic buildings, but also on the ur-
ban fabric as a whole (Cohen, 1999; White, 1999).
UNESCO has initiated the Historic Urban Landscape approach
which advocates looking beyond the boundaries of built heritage
sites to include a broader urban context, thereby highlighting the
importance of social and cultural practices and values, economic
processes and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to
diversity and identity (Definition 9, UNESCO, 2011). For instance, in
many areas, urban renewal districts contain local neighborhoods
where many historic buildings are not classified as monuments or
listed as buildings of international or national significance. Nor are
they considered to be beautiful or of historic importance
(Lowenthal, 1979). However, for the residents, they are associated
with treasured memories and the history of the local community
(Delafons, 1997; Lamei, 2005). In these cases, urban renewal and
heritage conservation can compliment and support each other,
resulting in the local people building new place attachments and
having a sense of belonging. In doing so, this new approach to
heritage conservation contributes to the physical fabric and char-
acter of a surrounding environment. As such, the role this plays in
engendering a sense of place identity and place attachment among
local people and social networks in different renewed districts is
worthy of detailed investigation (Yuen, 2006).
2.2. Social factors of heritage conservation
The literature on conservation around the world discusses the
ways that heritage conservation can contribute to the social well-
being of people in urban renewal and regeneration districts.
However, the existence of heritage buildings in a community does
not mean that they always have a positive impact on communities,
quality of life and sustainable development (Phillips & Stein, 2013).
The following section briefly explains the social benefits of heritage
conservation, which form the theoretical framework of this
research study. These social factors have five major facets.
2.2.1. Sense of community and cultural identity
Sense of community can be defined as “a feeling that members
have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another
and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be
met through their commitment to be together.” (McMillan &
Chavis, 1999). Heritage conservation can enrich people's under-
standing of their community (English Heritage, 2005). It contrib-
utes to a unique sense of place and community tradition. As a result,
people's sense of community and of belonging is strengthened.
Within a community, people usually share collective memories,
defined by Halbwachs (1980) as the social construct shaped by the
political, economic and social concerns of the present. When a
heritage building is torn down, people's collective reaction to that
loss can be that of deep bereavement (Fried, 1963).
A heritage site is also a common means/ground to link people to
their roots. It helps develop and enrich the cultural identity of in-
dividuals as coherent groups within different locations, history,
aesthetics, religious beliefs, etc. (Ashworth, Graham & Tunbridge,
2007; Guibernau, 1996).
2.2.2. Social interaction and social networks
It is recognized that a heritage resource contributes to
enhancing contemporary social interaction in a community
(Feilden & Jokilehto, 1998, pp. 11e21). This can be achieved by
broadening access to historic sites for present and future genera-
tions through encouraging visitation and by educating the public
on the history of the people, the places and the events connected
with the district (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001; English Heritage,
1997; Atkins & IFA, 2004).
On the other hand, the forced evictions that often occur during
the process of conservation can be direct threats to social networks.
For example, when the reuse of a historic building involves forced
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
eviction, people not only lose their residences or businesses, but
also their neighborhoods, communities and social networks. This
feeling of loss and uncertainty can lead to psychological stress and
adverse physical health effects (Everett, 2001).
2.2.3. Cultural diversity and creativity
It is claimed that acknowledging and maintaining cultural di-
versity can enhance quality of life. Power of Place defines cultural
diversity as “equality and valuing different cultural experiences,
whether they are due to ethnic identities, social or economic situ-
ations” (English Heritage, 2000, p. 15). The importance of cultural
diversity is addressed in the Nara Document on Authenticity which
states that “Cultural heritage diversity exists in time and space, and
demands aspects for other cultures and all aspects of their belief
system’ (para 6, UNESCO, 1994). We argue that a society should
maintain different cultures with the aim to broaden its diversity of
values, ideas, beliefs and traditions. Some research also raises the
point that heritage conservation contributes to a higher degree of
creativity and economic development (Ashworth & Tunbridge,
2000; Hall, 2002).
2.2.4. Community participation and accessibility
The Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban
Areas 1987 (Washington Charter) states that “The participation and
the involvement of the residents are essential for the success of the
conservation programme and should be encouraged. The conser-
vation of historic towns and urban areas concerns their residents
first of all” (ICOMOS, 1987, Article 3). In addition, it is recognized
that public involvement can help to manage and resolve issues and
conflicts that come up in relation to heritage programs (Sirisrisak,
2009) and that affect the sense of belonging (Pendlebury,
Townshend, & Gilroy, 2004). Through public involvement, social
networks and cohesion can be developed. Without effective public
involvement, the appropriate context and definition of heritage
cannot be determined by current community values (Kerr, 2000a,b;
Sarvarzadeh & Abidin, 2012), which can lead to a disconnect be-
tween the intentions behind the conservation and the public and its
needs (Tweed & Sutherland, 2007). Community participation can
provide opportunities for work experience for volunteers or paid
workers in heritage related activities (Atkins and IFA, 2004), such as
guided tours for visitors. In addition, accessibility in terms of use or
enjoyment of the heritage site is a prerequisite for community
participation (Phillips & Stein, 2013).
2.2.5. Local culture and history of city development
Conservation of heritage sites can help develop the place-
specific character of urban regions (Swensen, 2012) and improve
the physical conditions of the environment, while maintaining and
enhancing local life and culture and the uniqueness of a place
(Strange & Whitney, 2003). It is claimed that facilitating the di-
versity of activities can boost the quality of an environment and
people who live within that environment (Zukin, 1998). People's
desire for diversity has been increasingly visible in the proliferation
of lifestyles associated with identity building that enhance the
streetscape and townscape of a city's urban fabric (Cullen, 1961). In
order to conserve local culture and characteristics, the under-
standing of the harmonious relationship between the old and new
is very important (Said, Aksah, & Ismail, 2013). The demolition of
old buildings and their replacement with new ones results in a
failure to safeguard the social and cultural essence of certain areas
(Said et al., 2013) and, consequently, people's sense of place and
identity is adversely affected. In particular, maintaining traditional
business activities in local areas where there is urban renewal is
always a great challenge. The traditional trading that takes place on
the streets and the walkways in front of historic buildings creates a
137
sense of place in the city (Said et al., 2013). On the other hand, the
relocation of marketplaces and the traditional stalls to new high-
rise buildings can result in the loss of the local character and his-
tory of the development of the area.
2.3. Analytical framework for social aspects of heritage
conservation
Methods for assessing what is worth preserving in terms of
heritage conservation are available. Some conservationists provide
experts with simple quantitative assessment methods for evalu-
ating historical buildings in multi-criteria and decision tree settings
(Kalman, 1980; Federal Heritage Building Review Office, 2008).
Other studies provide a qualitative framework of heritage values
that can be used to identify potential national sites (Freestone,
Susan, & Garnaut, 2008). There are also methods to evaluate
reuse selection of historic buildings (Langston, Wong, Hui, & Shen,
2008; Wang & Zeng, 2010) and architectural features (Ipeko _ lu,
g
2006). Phillips and Stein (2013) provide guidelines for a frame-
work that evaluates the impact of heritage conservation on com-
munity economic development. Zancheti and Hidaka (2012)
propose indicators for measuring the conservation of urban world
heritage. In urban renewal, critical social factors and corresponding
indicators have been developed to evaluate the extent of sustain-
able urban renewal. Heritage conservation is one of the factors
considered (Chan & Lee, 2007; Couch & Dennemann, 2000; Lee,
2003; Ng, 2002).
However, the above evaluation methods lack an evaluation
framework that specifically examines the social effects of heritage
conservation on urban renewal districts.
3. Heritage conservation and urban renewal in Hong Kong
Hong Kong's heritage conservation is governed by the Antiq-
uities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (A&M Ordinance)
established in 1976. Section 3 of the ordinance empowers the An-
tiquities Authorities, that is the Secretary for Development, who
can, after consultation with the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB)
and with the approval of the Chief Executive, declare places,
buildings, sites or structures to be monuments for protection. Aside
from declared monuments, other historic buildings can be given
the rankings of Grade 1, Grade 2 or Grade 3. However, unlike
declared monuments, graded historic buildings are not protected
by statutes and can be demolished. The Antiquities and Monuments
Office is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the preserva-
tion of Hong Kong's archaeological and built heritage, including the
assessment of historic buildings and adaptive reuse applications.
The Architectural Services Department carries out the actual con-
servation and restoration work of monuments and historic build-
ings. Under the Secretary for Development, the Commissioner for
Heritage's Office (CHO) was established in April 2008 to provide
support to the Secretary for Development for implementation of
the heritage conservation policies. In the same year, the govern-
ment launched a public private partnership scheme for the revi-
talisation of government-owned historic buildings. The AMO also
assists the Development Bureau in implementing and monitoring
this scheme.
Another key authority involved in the conservation and adaptive
reuse of historic buildings is the Urban Renewal Authority
(formerly the Land Development Corporation). The Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) is a statutory quasi-government body established
in 2001 to accelerate the renewal projects and improve the living
conditions of dilapidated urban areas. Instead of LDC's piecemeal
project-based approach, the URA adopted an area-wide approach
to redevelopment. Heritage conservation's and urban renewal's
138 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
discourse did not clearly intersect until the URA adopted the 4R
business strategy, i.e., redevelopment, rehabilitation, preservation
and revitalization, to rejuvenate older urban areas. As of 2014, there
are 388 historic buildings within the nine districts where the URA
has launched its urban renewal projects (URA, 2014; Antiquities
and Monuments Office, 2014).
The 2007e08 Government Policy Address declared that the
Development Bureau and URA would work together to adopt a
district-based approach for the preservation and revitalization of
some old districts, which contains historical buildings
(Development Bureau, 2007). However, there is no clear evidence
that this approach has been a success and, in fact, heritage con-
servation in urban renewal has highlighted many controversial
social issues.
One of the points that has been raised is that the conservation
and reuse of historic buildings has generated concerns about the
commercialism and gentrification of the areas (Yung & Chan, 2015).
For example, the Wedding Card Street redevelopment project in
Wan Chai, involving the forced eviction of traditional publishing
businesses, showcases the adverse social impact of redevelopment
in the community and has created a serious threat to the local
culture (Gibson, 2007). For instance, the reuse of traditional
pawnshops in Wan Chai has been criticized, as they have been
transformed into expensive restaurants for middle-class people
and tourists (Ng, 2013).
Whether regenerated neighbourhoods have encouraged the
operation of old and new businesses and have had a positive social
impact on the original inhabitants in the districts is also ques-
tionable. There is evidence that evicted inhabitants have sold their
properties to the URA for reuse. The result is that property prices of
historic buildings have gone up and the area has become unaf-
fordable for traditional business owners and local residents. The
heritage conservation projects have inevitably destroyed social
networks and the sense of community. As there are few successful
cases in Hong Kong, it is particularly important to identify specific
social factors that can help strengthen district heritage conserva-
tion planning in urban renewal.
3.1. Two selected urban renewal districts in Hong Kong
Two districts, Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po, were carefully
selected based on the following criteria.

Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po were two of nine districts delin-
eated for redevelopment and rehabilitation actions undertaken
by the URA.

They are old districts with historic buildings that have under-
gone a number of well-known adaptive reuses.

The two districts have quite different socio-demographics (as
shown in Table 1), e.g. density, average household income and
education level.
3.1.1. Sham Shui Po district
Sham Shui Po covers approximately 1047 ha. The district has a
relatively low average household income and the proportion of
Table 1
Brief profiles of the Sham Shui Po and Wan Chai districts.
District Density Population Average household
(persons/km2) (, 000 persons) income (hk$)
in 2011
Sham Shui Po 40,690 388.7 17,900
Wan Chai 15,477 153.1 33,500
(Data Resource: HKSAR Census and Statistics Department, 2013; Urban Renewal Authority, 2014).
elderly population is comparatively large. Many new immigrants
choose to reside temporarily or permanently in the district. Sham
Shui Po is one Hong Kong's earliest industrial and commercial
centers. It is famous for its wholesale and retail textile, clothing,
apparels, construction materials and computer and electronic
goods businesses which are well known and supported by locals.
More recently, the district has accommodated approximately
810,000 square metres of public housing estates.
Because of the local population density and residential living
environment, the URA targeted Sham Shui Po for urban renewal.
There are 14 redevelopment projects completed or in progress in
Sham Shui Po (Fig. 1, URA, 2014). Most of the projects are private
shophouses built from the 1950s to the 1960s. The shophouses are
largely residential with commercial premises on the ground floors.
They are not very well known by the general public. The condition
of these buildings is either poor or deteriorating. A relatively suc-
cessful project, Lui Seng Chun, involved the conversion of an old
traditional Chinese residence to a Chinese medical centre which
was carried out by the revitalizing historic buildings scheme. A
monument, a tomb built during the Han Dynasty and a magistracy
building, which has been reused as an international art education
institution, is also famous in the district.
3.1.2. Wan Chai district
Wan Chai covers an area of about 976 ha. It is one of the earliest
developed areas in Hong Kong along the Victoria Harbour. It is
unique for its harmonious blend of old traditions and new de-
velopments. It is a district with rich cultural traditions and heritage
buildings. Throughout the years, it has evolved from its origins as a
fishing village to being a modern district with exhibitions, busi-
nesses, cultural and sports activities, entertainment and shopping.
It has also been seen as a place where East meets West.
As one of the earliest settlements in Hong Kong, Wan Chai still
has a variety of heritage buildings, including temples, private res-
idences, traditional shophouses and local market buildings, mostly
located in the South part of Wan Chai. As announced in the
2007e08 Government Policy Address, the Development Bureau
and URA would work together to adopt a district-based approach
for the preservation and revitalization of the Wan Chai districts,
which contains ten conservation projects with 29 graded historical
buildings (Development Bureau, 2007). The Wan Chai Heritage
Trail was launched in 2009 to spur public interest and attract
tourists. The URA has either completed or is still undertaking
several renovation shophouses projects. The Blue House Clusters is
one of the pioneer projects under the revitalization of historic
buildings scheme that has attracted a lot of interest and involve-
ment from different stakeholders in the community. Unlike forced
evictions in other previous heritage conservation projects, this is
the first conservation project in Hong Kong that aims to preserve
the buildings, as well as the existing tenants and occupants living in
the traditional tenement buildings. The conservation project has
brought visible social benefits to the community (Development
Bureau, 2009; Yung et al., 2015).
Fig. 2 indicate the context of the districts in terms of the extent
of redevelopment carried out by the URA and the proximity of
Area of redevelop- No. of redevelop-ment No. of heritage Education level
ment plan projects buildings/ (% of Post-secondary
(m2) sites population)
21,878 14 17 26.5%
17,377 4 9 45.2%
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148 139

Fig. 1. Map of Sham Shui Po district showing the distribution of historic buildings and urban redevelopment projects.
140 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
Fig. 2. Map of Wan Chai district showing the distribution of historic buildings and urban redevelopment projects.
these redevelopment projects to the historic buildings. In addition,
the figures also show the use of land (zoning) where the historic
buildings are located. These figures help to highlight the intention
of this study which is to investigate whether the impact of con-
servation projects on the residents, the businesses operators,
workers is different.
4. Methodology
4.1. Constructing a theoretical framework
A preliminary list of social considerations to be taken into ac-
count when conserving heritage buildings during the process of
urban renewal were shortlisted through an intensive international
and local literature review, as mentioned in the theoretical section
of this paper. The list of social factors was used to develop the
questionnaire survey. The social considerations included five major
aspects. From these five major areas, a total of 55 factors were
discussed and evaluated by the research team during several
rounds of brainstorming. Ten pilot surveys were then conducted
with a panel of experts and laymen, respectively, to ascertain
whether the variables were clear, reasonable and valid for the
context of Hong Kong. Following the pilot surveys, those factors
which were disagreed on by more than 50% of the experts were
deleted and, finally, 51 factors were included in the final ques-
tionnaire. The overall flow of the methodology is summarized in
Fig. 3.
4.2. Questionnaire design
The five social aspects are briefly explained in the early section
of this paper and their corresponding factors are also elaborated on.
Each of the social aspects contains two to five elaborative factors,
which are the basis of the 51 factors used in the questionnaire.
4.2.1. The questionnaire survey and sampling
The second stage of the methodology, using a questionnaire,
included a survey of local people with the intention of verifying the
extent of applicability of the variables and identifying, with the aid
of factor analysis, the underlying social factors regarding conser-
vation of heritage buildings in the two studied urban renewal
districts.
In this research, the Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po districts were
selected for comparison, as both districts contain many well-
known historic buildings and several representative completed or
undergoing urban renewal projects. The survey helped to provide
valuable insight into the social effects of heritage conservation in
urban renewal districts. It was also the aim of this study to inves-
tigate whether the list of underlying social factors varies in districts
with different socio-demographics and local characters (Table 2).
The target respondents included:
1) people who either live or work in the districts
2) people who have knowledge about built heritage in the Wan
Chai or Sham Shui Po districts
The stratified sampling method was intended to restrict the
respondents to only people who live or work in the districts. As a
result, this research focuses on comparing the social impacts of
heritage conservation on the local residents in the two districts. The
difference of views between local and non-local residents is beyond
the scope of this study.
Among other questions in the survey, respondents were asked
about their familiarity with the heritage buildings in their districts.
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
Fig. 3. Flow of methodology of the study.
This question ensured that only respondents who knew about the
buildings would participate in the survey. This was in order to make
certain that respondents had a reasonable understanding of the
existing and potential social impact of conservation on the renewal
districts.
All respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the
conservation of heritage buildings could affect various social as-
pects in urban renewal districts according to a five-point Likert
scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). A choice of
“don't know” was also included to avoid forcing respondents to
provide a response in the event that they had no idea about the
social aspects.
4.2.2. Questionnaire data analysis
For the analysis of the questionnaire results, factor analysis was
used to extract a small number of factors that can explain more
attributes than the initial list of factors included (Kim & Mueller,
1978; Kline, 1994). Exploratory factor analysis was adopted in the
study as a statistical grouping technique to combine variables into
clusters and reduce the data set to a more manageable size, at the
141
same time retaining the original information of the predictor var-
iables as much as possible. In this paper, factor analysis was
employed to identify and interpret clusters of underlying factors
that could be used to evaluate the social impact of conservation of
heritage buildings on urban renewal districts. The Statistical Pack-
age for Social Science (SPSS v.19) was employed to conduct factor
analysis and other statistical analysis in this study.
5. Results
5.1. Comparison of the two districts
Table 1 summarizes the key profiles of the Sham Shui Po and
Wan Chai districts. There are 17 and 9 heritage buildings/sites in
both districts, respectively. These are located in close proximity to
each other, a walking distance of approximately 15 min. Thus, they
collectively have an impact on the local neighborhoods and the
districts. The number and areas of redevelopment projects and
number of heritage buildings are larger in Sham Shui Po than in
Wan Chai. The redevelopment projects in Wan Chai are relatively
142 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148

Table 2
Socio-demographics of the respondents of the two districts.

Wan Chai (WC) Sham Shui Po (SSP)

Gender
Male 48 (33.3%) 92 (55.8%)
Female 96 (66.7%) 73 (44.2%)
Missing response 1 2
Age Group
Below 19 15 (10.4%) 24 (14.6%)
19 to 35 92 (63.9%) 81 (49.4%)
36 to 50 15 (10.4%) 33 (20.1%)
51 or above 22 (15.3%) 26 (15.9%)
Missing response 1 3
Education
Primary school 5 (3.5%) 10 (6.2%)
Secondary school 50 (35.5%) 108 (67.1%)
University (higher education) 86 (61.0%) 43 (26.7%)
Missing response 4 6
Work or Live
Work 54 (42.2%) 52 (34.9%)
Live 74 (57.8%) 97 (65.1%)
Missing response 17 18
Familiarity With The Built Heritage In The District
(1 represents unfamiliar while 4 represents very familiar) 2.18 2.20

larger in size and are better known. In contrast, the redevelopment
projects and heritage buildings in Sham Shui Po are smaller and are
scattered around the district. Table 1 also provides key socio-
demographics of the two urban renewal districts. It shows that
Sham Shui Po is a much higher density district with a lower average
household income and education level than Wan Chai.
5.2. Survey questionnaires
Questionnaires were distributed to the general public in Wan
Chai and Sham Shui Po from Sept. 2013 to Jan. 2014. There were a
total of 312 completed questionnaires; 145 of them were collected
in Wan Chai and 167 of them were collected in Sham Shui Po.
Table 2 shows the socio-demographic of the respondents in the two
districts. The results show that, on average, the respondents were
reasonably familiar with the heritage buildings in the district. The
sample size for each district is acceptable, as Cattell (1978) states
that a ratio of 3:1 to 6:1 of subjects-to-variables (STV) is acceptable
and Kline (1994) explains that there should be at least twice as
many subjects as variables in factor analysis.
Initially, 14 common factors out of 51 variables were extracted
through factor analysis with a cumulative number up to 71.305 in
Sham Shui Po, while 15 of 51 with a cumulative number of 72.722
were extracted in Wan Chai. The extracted factors were generated
when their eigenvalues were greater than 1.0. The result of the
KMO test (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995), which is a
measure of sampling adequacy, for the variables was 0.805 (Sham
Shui Po) and 0.675 (Wanchai), respectively, and both of them were
acceptable for factor analysis (Kim & Mueller, 1978). However, as
the number of extracted variables was still relatively large, the
rule-of-thumb suggested by Thurstone (1947) was adopted to
reduce the number of representative factors (Acito & Anderson,
1980).
Factors which had fewer than three correlated variables were
removed in Tables 3 and 4. Finally, there were ten underlying fac-
tors for the Wan Chai district and eleven underlying factors for the
Sham Shui Po district. Therefore, the final cumulative percent of
variance of Wan chai and Sham Shui Po was 60.472 and 64.73,
respectively.
The details of the extracted factors, their factor loading, per-
centage of variance explained and cumulative percentage of the
variance are shown in Tables 3 and 4. A statistical test called
Cronbach's alpha (a) was reported. a should be at least equal to 0.7
for a scale to be reliable (Numally, 1978). In this study, a has a value
of 0.895 and 0.940, respectively, in Wan Chai (Table 3) and Shan
Shui Po (Table 4), which implies that the respondents' results for
each of the two districts was reasonably consistent.
A brief explanation of the factors is provided as follows. In this
part, we combined the same or similar factors from the two dis-
tricts to reduce repetitive explanation. Therefore, the number of the
factors below is fewer than the sum of the number of factors
illustrated above in Tables 3 and 4. The different social aspects are
explained in the following section.
5.3. Enhance social interaction and social networks
This factor consists of eight items related to enhancing social
interaction and social networks. Through the provision of oppor-
tunities for gatherings and interactions after revitalization, people
can make new friends while keeping up their close relationships
with their present neighbours. In addition, the revitalized heritage
buildings can help people continue their daily social lives.
Furthermore, as diversity of activities increases through revitali-
zation projects, residents can be provided with more and different
opportunities for social interaction and, hence, develop different
networks. For example, community activities, as a result of the
revitalized heritage buildings, might include exhibitions, work-
shops and catering, etc.
5.4. Collective memory and cultural identity
This factor involves ten considerations related to collective
memory and cultural identity. It reveals that a revitalized heritage
building should be considered a landmark in the district. It should
be able to spur people's collective memories. If the collective
memory of the inhabitants is not retained, renewed areas are
replaced with populations of new inhabitants with little place
attachment (Ardakani & Oloonabadi, 2011). Moreover, heritage
building should reflect self or community identity and enrich daily
social lives, thus, contributing to cultural diversity.
5.5. Public involvement opportunities
This factor is composed of five items related to opportunities
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148 143

Table 3
Social factors for heritage conservation in urban renewal in Wan Chai.

Social factors for heritage conservation in urban renewal Factor loading % of Variance Cumulative%
(in descending order) explained of variance

Factor 1: enhance social interaction and social network

29. Provide chances for making new friends 0.761
28. Provide sites for gathering and interaction 0.732
18. Improve ambient environment 0.654
30. Provide chances for cultural development and social inclusion 0.638
32. Keep close relationship with present local neighbor 0.620
16. Continue the people's daily social life 0.588
31. Provide chances for any community activities related to heritage 0.483
0.406
17. Enhance the diversity of activities to see and do 18.388 18.388
Factor 2: collective memory and cultural identity
9. Be proud of the existence of heritage 0.736
5. Recall people's memory 0.718
11. Help to connect to the past and look for the roots 0.626
7. Connect present and the past 0.576
10. Revitalized heritage buildings convey meaning for self/community identity 0.544

14. Be a landmark of the district 0.503

8. The demolition of heritage will frustrate the people 0.488
6. Enrich daily social life 0.429 7.819 26.207
Factor 3: public involvement opportunities
48.Consistent communication between potential operator and community 0.837
45. Public consultation forum 0.812
47. Public participation in decision making on the usage of heritage 0.783
46. Workshop in design stage of urban renewal project 0.703
49. Adopt public-private partnership pattern 0.550 6.454 32.661
Factor 4: accessibility of the heritage building
33.Public is permitted to visit the heritage building 0.774
35.Walkable distance from the public transport station to heritage 0.755
34.Entrance fee is affordable for citizens, including disabled groups 0.745
36.Provide barrier-free access for special needs people 0.627 5.967 38.628
Factor 5: enhance cultural diversity
25. Conserve and respect different values, faiths and traditions 0.844 4.876 43.504
24. Preserve and respect people who have different nationalities 0.770
23. Conserve and respect local conventional industries and businesses 0.584
Factor 6: enhance sense of community
13. Form community behavior and attitudes 0.786 4.221 47.725
12. Promote district's identity 0.771
38. Sense of ownership of place as 'our heritage' 0.489
37. Achieve social participation in the community 0.427
Factor 7: promote public awareness of local heritage and traditional industry
22. Promote the public awareness and education of local heritage conservation 0.798
20. Retain local conventional industry and the history of business 0.659
19. Generate more programmes and activities after revitalization 0.598 3.834 51.559
Factor 8:avoid forced eviction and gentrification
40. Ensure affordable housing price and rental 0.861
39. Will not force the inhabitants living in the heritage to move out 0.800
42. Improve the interdependency between community members 0.459 3.339 54.898
Factor 9: more work opportunities provided after revitalization
43. More heritage conservation professionals after revitalization 0.831
44. More volunteers and research work opportunities provided 0.792
during and after revitalization
2. Easy to describe the heritage 0.390 3.067 57.965
Factor 10: reflect city development and enhance creativity
21. Reflect economic, industrial and planning development 0.628
27. Foster creativity in all its diversity 0.447
26. Build a platform for exchange for diversified cultures 0.414
41. Enhance mutual trust 0.433 2.507 60.472
KMO - 0.5 is minimum (barely accepted), values between 0.7-0.8 is acceptable, and values above 0.9 are superb, Kaiser (1974). 0.675
CRONBACH’S ALPHA - a should be at least equal to 0.7 for a scale to be reliable (Numally,1978). 0.895

for public participation in the process of heritage conservation as
part of urban renewal. Through public consultation forums,
workshops and exhibitions, the general public can become
involved in the planning and design of urban renewal projects and
the decision-making processes concerning the use of the heritage
sites. The government or other stakeholders can also keep abreast
of public opinion by ensuring consistent communication with the
communities. This could be helpful in understanding how the
occupants perceive and interact with the heritage buildings. A
public-private partnership working mode could be beneficial to
the success of a project and provide social benefits to the
communities.
5.6. Accessibility of the heritage building
This factor includes four variables related to public accessibility
of a heritage building. First, the rights of the public to visit the
heritage buildings and to enjoy their use should be a prerequisite
144 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148

Table 4
Social factors for heritage conservation in urban renewal in Sham Shui Po.

Social factors for heritage conservation in urban renewal Factor loading % of Variance Cumulative%
(in descending order) explained of variance

Factor 1: Activities for public participation in the project

46. Workshops/exhibitions in design stage of urban renewal project 0.804
0.791
45. Public consultation forum with government officials 0.731
47. Public participation in decision making on the usage of heritage 0.730
48. Consistent communication between potential
operator and community 25.929 25.929
Factor 2: enhance social interaction and social network
29. Provide chances for making new friends 0.772
28. Provide sites for gathering and interaction 0.719
30. Provide chances for cultural development and social inclusion 0.663
31. Provide chances for any community activities related to heritage 0.571
0.510
32. Keep close relationship with local present neighbor 0.478
18. Improve neighborhood environment 6.315 32.243
Factor 3: preserve local traditional business
20. Recall history of traditional trades and businesses 0.707
15. Conserve unique and traditional businesses and industry 0.659
19. Provide more programmes related to the built heritage after revitalization 0.578
23. Respect local conventional industries and businesses 0.571
14. Become a landmark in the district 0.452 5.578 37.822
Factor 4: enhance sense of community
12. Promote district's identity 0.854
13. Form community behavior and attitudes 0.840
38. Sense of ownership of place as 'our heritage' 0.525
11. Help to link to the roots and the past 0.452 5.185 43.007
Factor 5: enhance cultural diversity
26. Build a platform for exchange for diversified cultures 0.763
27. Foster creativity in all its diversity 0.637
25. Conserve and respect different values, faiths and traditions 0.626
24. Preserve and respect people who have different nationalities 0.491 4.217 47.224
Factor 6: avoid forced eviction and gentrification
40. Keep affordable housing price and rental 0.704
39. Will not force the inhabitants living in the heritage to move out 0.656
42. Improve the interdependency between community members 0.592
41. Enhance mutual trust 0.537 3.761 50.984
Factor 7: recall collective memory for all the citizens
8. Feel a way of loss of life when you hear of the demolition of heritage 0.733
17. Enhance the diversity of street views 0.543
7. Connect the present and the past 0.503
35. Walkable distance from public transport to the heritage 0.501 3.223 54.207
Factor 8: create attachment of meaning to the heritage
2. Easy to describe the heritage building 0.685
3. The heritage building provides diverse experience after urban renewal 0.534
6. Enrich the daily social life and native sense 0.529
4. Feeling of attachment is more valuable than functional value 0.442 2.990 57.197
Factor 9: concern about special needs and social participation
36. Provide barrier-free access for special needs people 0.843
22. Promote public awareness and education on local heritage conservation 0.578
37. Achieve social participation in the community 0.463 2.742 59.939
Factor 10: public interest and accessibility of the heritage building
1. Interest in visiting the heritage 0.729
33. Public is permitted to visit the heritage building 0.665
5. Recall people's memory 0.616 2.516 62.455
Factor 11: affordable entrance fee
34. Entrance fee is affordable for citizens, including disabled groups 0.665
21. Reflects economic, industrial and planning development 0.537
49. Adopt public-private partnership pattern 0.481 2.275 64.73
KMO TEST 0.805
CRONBACH’S ALPHA 0.940

when considering accessibility. Secondly, most visitors do not
appreciate it if distances between public transport stations and
heritage buildings are too far. Therefore, walkability is an indicator
of accessibility to the heritage buildings. Third, the entrance fee
should be affordable for the regular public, including disadvan-
taged groups. Finally, barrier-free access and amenities should be
provided for people with special needs in order to enhance equal
opportunities for visiting the buildings.
5.7. Enhance cultural diversity
This factor covers three points concerning conservation and the
respect of different values, faiths and traditions, people with
different nationalities and also local conventional industries and
business. The former two items are the main elements which
contribute to cultural diversity in a living community after urban
renewal. As well, conservation of local and unique characteristics of
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
businesses during or after urban renewal may also prevent existing
entrepreneurs and inhabitants from moving away from the areas
and, hence, enhance cultural diversity.
5.8. Enhance sense of community
This factor contains five items intended to enhance a sense of
community. First, revitalized heritage buildings can affect the
behavior and attitudes of the members of the community collec-
tively and help them form some kind of bond. Second, as land-
marks, the heritage buildings should be able to promote a district's
identity. Third, if a revitalized heritage building can retain the in-
habitants' sense of ownership of place, this may contribute to
improving their self-esteem. Furthermore, social participation
should be promoted and the public reminded that after renewal the
heritage buildings are part of community property. Thus, public
involvement should be encouraged.
5.9. Promote public awareness of local heritage and preserve local
traditional industries
This factor mainly concerns public awareness of local heritage
and traditional industries. First, the public concern for heritage
conservation should be promoted in urban renewal through
educating people and teaching them more about the local cultural
and commercial history. The project should respect and conserve
unique local traditional industries and commerce. Secondly, it is
well recognized that the past and its interpretation as local history
or heritage confers social benefits. Thus, revitalized heritage
buildings can benefit society by acting as reminders of the history
of traditional trades and businesses. Finally, after revitalization, the
heritage buildings should become landmarks in the districts whose
own symbolic meanings arise from symbols, spirit, emotions and
nostalgia of place. More programmes and activities should be
generated after revitalization and the diversity of community life
enhanced.
5.10. Avoid forced eviction and gentrification
This factor consists of four aspects, including ‘ensure affordable
housing prices and rentals’, ‘avoid forced eviction’, ‘improve inter-
dependency between community members’ and ‘enhance mutual
trust’. Affordable housing prices and rentals can encourage previ-
ous inhabitants to continue staying in the areas, which is a way to
preserve traditional lifestyles. Forced evictions may cause conflicts
and social instability in communities. When families are forced to
move, they lose not only their land and houses but also neighbor-
hoods, communities and social networks. This may also lead to
psychological stress and adverse health conditions caused by un-
certainty (Everett, 2001). In contrast, mutual trust between com-
munity members could be developed through a heritage
conservation regime.
5.11. More work opportunities provided after revitalization
This factor involves three considerations related to providing
more work opportunities after revitalization of the heritage sites,
especially for professionals in heritage conservation working for
revitalized projects. More volunteers and research work opportu-
nities could be created during and after the revitalization projects.
At the same time, the workplace could offer a place for social
contact and interaction. This factor is in line with that advocated by
Omann and Spangenberg (2002).
145
5.12. Reflect city development and enhance creativity
This factor includes four items which are intended to reflect city
development and enhance creativity. The revitalized heritage
buildings can reflect the economic, industrial and planning devel-
opment of districts or cities of the past. The heritage buildings can
also act as platforms for exchanging diversified cultures and to
foster creativity. As well, mutual trust can be developed through
regular communication during the implementation of the urban
renewal and heritage conservation projects.
5.13. Create attachment of meaning to the heritage
This factor comprises of four items regarding attachment of
meaning to the heritage. After revitalization, it should not be
difficult for people to recognize a heritage building within the
community. Inhabitants’ daily social lives should be enriched and
their native sense strengthened through the revitalization projects.
Moreover, feelings of attachment help inhabitants find their roots
and strengthen their sense of local identity, belonging and security.
Therefore, social values are provided beyond the functional use
value of heritage buildings.
6. Discussion and policy implications
Table 5 shows that most of the underlying factors in the Wan
Chai and Sham Shui Po are quite similar. Despite the different socio-
demographics and the number and size of urban redevelopment
projects undergone in the two districts, there are eight factors
which Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po have in common which include
‘enhance social interaction and social network’, ‘collective memory
and cultural identity’,’ public involvement opportunities', ‘accessi-
bility of the heritage building’, ‘enhance cultural diversity’,
‘enhance sense of community’, ’promote public awareness on local
heritage and preserve traditional industries', ‘avoid forced eviction
and gentrification’.
The results also show a few differences between the composi-
tions of social factors in the two districts. Factor 9, ‘more work
opportunities provided after revitalization’, and factor 10, ‘reflect
city development and enhance creativity’, are only elicited in Wan
Chai, whereas factor 8, ‘create attachment of meaning to the heri-
tage’, factor 9, ‘concern about special needs and social participa-
tion’, and Factor 10, ‘public interest’, are only elicited in Sham Shui
Po.
Wan Chai is a metropolitan district with relatively high average
household incomes and educational levels (HKSAR Census and
Statistic Department, 2013), therefore, it is reasonable that local
people are more concerned about the intangible social benefits
generated from the heritage conservation projects, which include
opportunities for volunteering and research. The factor, ‘reflect city
development’ was only elicited in Wan Chai and not in Sham Shui
Po. This can be explained by the fact that Wan Chai residents are so
proud of its history, from its origins as a fishing village to a vibrant
commercial area with a diversified culture and activities. In addi-
tion, the revitalization of shophouses to art and creative industry
has been completed by the URA in the area, which has definitely
contributed to creativity in the community.
In comparison with Wan Chai, Sham Shui Po is one of the oldest
industrial and commercial districts where mainly local people go to
buy everyday goods. Although the district contains different types
of historic buildings, locals have not yet developed a strong
connection to them nor a deep understanding of the meaning
attached to the places. This may due to the fact that peoples'
146 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
Table 5
Comparison of the underlying factors for the two districts.
Wan Chai
Factor 1: enhance social interaction and social network
Factor 2: collective memory and cultural identity
Factor 3:public involvement opportunities
Factor4: accessibility of the heritage building
Factor 5: enhance cultural diversity
Factor 6: enhance sense of community
Factor 7: promote public awareness on local heritage and conventional industry
Factor 8: avoid forced eviction and gentrification
Factor 9: more work opportunities provided after revitalization
Factor 10: reflect city development and enhance creativity
average education level within the district is relatively low
compared to Wan Chai's. From this, the factor, ‘create attachment of
meaning to the heritage’ was derived. Moreover, since Sham Shui
Po has relatively poor, mixed ethnic groups and a high proportion
of an aged population, it is not surprising that special needs, such as
barrier-free access and equal opportunities for social participation
for minorities and disadvantaged groups, are emphasized. In
addition, the aspect of public interest in heritage buildings has also
been raised in Sham Shui Po. This reflects the fact that although
Sham Shui Po has a larger number of heritage buildings in the
district than Wanchai, the local community has not shown much
interest in them and, consequently, they have less social impact.
This may be due to the education level of the residents and the
relatively low appreciation for the heritage value of the historic
buildings.
Overall, our findings reveal that generally the socio-
demographics of an area, the local characteristics, the type of her-
itage buildings and the extent of urban renewal do not exert a
substantial influence on the composition of underlying social fac-
tors to be considered. Therefore, additional social factors have been
added to evaluate the social impact of heritage conservation pro-
jects in the two studied districts based on their special local
context. In summary, eight common underlying social factors
should be considered for better planning of heritage conservation
in urban renewal.
These underlying factors are interrelated and can affect each
other. To begin with, it is important to provide public involvement
opportunities during the heritage conservation and urban renewal
process. In addition, better accessibility to heritage buildings could
elicit better public participation. Moreover, as part of the urban
renewal strategy, promoting public awareness of local heritage and
the preservation of traditional industries is essential for achieving
more successful heritage conservation. Forced evictions and Cattell,
R. B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Ple-
numgentrification must be avoided in order to encourage the
continuation of people's lifestyles and traditional businesses. As
well, a heritage conservation project is considered to be socially
beneficial if it can enhance social interactions and social networks
in the community and is associated with collective memory, which
helps to create a stronger cultural identity and sense of community.
At the same time, a heritage conservation project should also
enhance cultural diversity and engender creativity.
In response to these underlying social factors, conservationist,
urban planners and government policy makers who are under-
taking district-based urban renewal should carefully consider the
social impact of heritage conservation on a district.
To ensure the success of a conservation project, the factors we
have proposed should be taken into account. Possible policies
should include, but are not limited to the following aspects.
First, develop a mechanism to facilitate evaluation of the
Sham Shui Po
Factor 1: workshop and public participation
Factor 2: enhance social interaction and social network
Factor 3: preserve local traditional businesses
Factor 4: enhance sense of community
Factor 5: enhance cultural diversity
Factor 6: avoid forced eviction and gentrification
Factor 7: recall collective memory for all the citizens
Factor 8: create attachment of meaning to the heritage
Factor 9: concern about special needs
Factor 10: public interest and accessibility of the heritage building
Factor 11: affordable entrance fee
identified factors by professionals and policy decision makers, as
well as the public. Adequate and effective participation mecha-
nisms should be incorporated throughout different stages of the
conservation process (Yung & Chan, 2011). Second, ensure acces-
sibility of heritage buildings by charging affordable fees, ease of
access and informing the public about the buildings’ histories and
relevance. The general public can access a buildings easily if there
are fewer restrictions and barriers. Third, promote public aware-
ness of local heritage and traditional industries through better
public education, such as organizing guided tours, workshops and
exhibitions to showcase the histories of the heritage buildings and
traditional businesses in the districts. Fourth, avoiding the forced
eviction of inhabitants and local business can be achieved if the
government forms policies to encourage the original habitants to
stay in the historic buildings after revitalization. In addition, rent
control, incentives and subsidies for the original inhabitants and
local businesses could be provided in order to prevent escalating
rents and gentrification and loss of local character.
With the implementation of responsive policies and the orga-
nization of community events and activities, heritage conservation
can enhance social interaction and social networks, enrich collec-
tive memory and create cultural identity, cultural diversity and
sense of community.
7. Conclusion
This paper investigates the social factors that need to be care-
fully considered and addressed when urban renewal strategies
attempt to incorporate heritage conservation. The study advocates
that heritage conservation in urban renewal districts should not
only address the physical fabric of the historic buildings and the
surrounding environment, but also the social impact and the
intangible values of a community as a whole as they are of para-
mount importance.
In Hong Kong, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) claims to
have adopted a district-based urban renewal and people-first
approach. However, it is by no means easy to achieve and there is
little evidence of successful cases. As urban renewal districts usu-
ally contain unique local culture and history, undertaking heritage
conservation projects in the districts can be even more challenging.
Therefore, it is particularly important to have a good understanding
of the underlying social factors that need to be addressed in order
to enhance more sustainable heritage conservation during the
process of urban renewal. If the key social factors identified in this
study are properly addressed, they can enhance the potential social
benefits to the community. Thus, these social factors should pro-
vide insight for urban planners and conservationists when formu-
lating urban renewal plans for incorporating and balancing
redevelopment and conservation.
District-based urban renewal and the advocacy of looking at the
 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
broader context in heritage conservation are in fact mutually in-
clusive. Both require initiatives that go beyond the mere physical
fabric of urban environment and extend to more intangible social
and cultural facets. Thus, it is important to stress the collective
social impact of heritage conservation projects on the people of a
district. To do so, it can engender a more sustainable relationship
between heritage conservation and overall planning in urban
renewal.
Acknowledgments
This research was partly supported by a funding support by the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HKSAR (Project No.I-ZE54).
References
Abu-Dayyeh, N. (2006). Prospects for historic neighborhoods in atypical Islamic
cities: The view from Amman, Jordan. Habitat International, 30(1), 46e60.
Acito, F., & Anderson, R. D. (1980). A Monte  Carlo comparison of factor analytic
methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 228e236.
Antiquities and Monuments Office. (2014). Geographical information system on Hong
Kong heritage. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www5.lcsd.gov.hk/
gishinter/html/viewer_en.htm.
Ardakani, M. K., & Oloonabadi, S. S. A. (2011). Collective memory as an efficient
agent in sustainable urban conservation. Procedia Engineering, 21, 985e988.
Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2007). Pluralising pasts:heritage,
identity and place in multicultural societies. London: Pluto Press.
Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). The tourist-historic City: Retrospect and
prospect of managing the heritage city. Oxford: Pergamon.
Atkins Heritage and Institute of Field Archaeologists. (2004). Measuring the social
contribution of the historic environment. a project by the Institute of Field Ar-
chaeologists and Atkins Heritage for the National Trust, London. available at:
www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/pubs/soccont.pdf
(accessed 10 November 2015).
Australia ICOMOS. (1999). The burra charter, the Australia ICOMOS charter for places
of cultural significance. Australia ICOMOS Inc.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.
Chan, E. H. W., & Lee, G. K. L. (2007). Critical factors for improving social sustain-
ability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 243e256.
Cheung, C. K., & Leung, K. K. (2012). Social mitigation of the impact of urban renewal
on residents' morale. Social Indicators Research, 106(3), 523e543.
Cohen, N. (1999). Urban conservation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Couch, C., Sykes, O., & Boerstinghaus, W. (2011). Thirty years of urban regeneration
in Britain, Germany and France: The importance of context and path de-
pendency. Progress in Planning, 75, 1e52.
Couch, C., & Dennemann, A. (2000). Urban regeneration and sustainable develop-
ment in Britain: The example of the liverpool ropewalks partnership. Cities,
17(2), 137e147.
Cullen, G. (1961). The concise townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Delafons, J. (1997). Politics and preservation: A policy history of the built heritage,
1882-1996. London: E & FN Spon.
Development Bureau. (2007). Legislative council panel on home affairs heritage-
related initiatives in old wan chai area. LC Paper no. CB(2)/700/07-08(01)
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0102cb2-700-1-
e.pdf.
Development Bureau. (2009). Revitalising historic buildings through partnership
scheme: Blue House Cluster resource kit. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from
http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/doc/rhbtp/ResourceKit_BlueHouseCluster.pdf.
Donaldson, R., & Du Plessis, D. (2013). The urban renewal programme as an area-
based approach to renew townships: The experience from Khayelitsha's cen-
tral business district, Cape Town. Habitat International, 39, 295e301.
Edwards, C. (2009). Regeneration works? Disabled people and area-based urban
renewal. Critical Social Policy, 29(4), 613e633.
English Heritage. (1997). Sustaining the historic environment: New perspectives on the
future: An english heritage discussion document. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage. (2000). Conservation-led renewal: Unlocking the value. Chapter 2in
power of place. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
publications/power-of-place/ accessed on 1 July.2016.
English Heritage. (2005). Regeneration and the historic environment Heritage as a
catalyst for better social and economic regeneration.
Ercan, M. A. (2011). Challenges and conflicts in achieving sustainable communities
in historic neighbourhoods of Istanbul. Habitat International, 35(2), 295e306.
Everett, M. (2001). Evictions and human rights: Land disputes in Bogot a, Colombia.
Habitat International, 25(4), 453e471.
Federal Heritage Building Review Office. (2008). FHBRO evaluation criteria. available
at: www.pc.gc.ca/progs/beefp-fhbro/itm1-/index_e.asp (accessed August 20,
2016).
Feilden, B. M., & Jokilehto, J. (1998). Evaluation for conservation. Chap Management
guidelines for world heritage sites. Rome: ICCROM.
Freestone, R., Susan, M., & Garnaut, S. C. (2008). A methodology for assessing the
147
heritage of planned urban Environments: An australian study of national her-
itage values. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(2), 156e175.
Fried, M. (1963). In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), Grieving for a lost home', in the urban Condition:
People and policy in the metropolis (pp. 151e171). New York: Basic Books.
Gibson, C. (2007). Behind the heritage talk lies a new date with destruction. South
China Morning Post. January 11. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www.
scmp.com/article/578155/behind-heritage-talk-lies-new-date-destruction.
Guibernau, M. (1996). Nationalisms: The Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twen-
tieth Century. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory translated by F J ditter, V Y ditter. New
York: Harper Colophon. first published in 1950.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data
analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, p (2002). Urban and regional planning (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
He, S., & Wu, F. (2005). Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case
study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs,
27(1), 1e23.
HKSAR Census and Statistics Department. (2013). 2011 population Census. Retrieved
August 28, 2014, from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so170.jsp.
ICOMOS. (1987). Charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas.
Washington Chartere1987, London.
Idid, S. Z. A. (2005). Urban conservation approach for a multi cultural historic cities:
The urban planning and design perspective: Case study, historic city of malacca.
Department of Urban Engineering, University of Tokyo.
_
Ipeko lu, B. (2006). An architectural evaluation method for conservation of tradi-
g
tional dwellings. Building and Environment, 41, 386e394.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31e36.
Kalman, H. (1980). Evaluation of historic buildings. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Kerr, J. (2000a). Conservation plan (pp. 11e17). New South Wales: National Trust of
Australia.
Kerr, J. (2000b). Public participation in cultural resource management: A canadian
perspective. In ICOMOS general assembly entitled. Mexico City: INAH. Patrimonio
y conservacio  n.Arqueología. XII Asamblea General del ICOMOS.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how
to do it. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social
sciences, series no. 07e013. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lowenthal, D. (1979). Environmental perception: Preserving the past. Progress in
Human Geography, 3(4), 549e559.
Lamei, S. (2005). Insights into current conservation practices. Museum International,
57(1e2), 136e141.
Langston, C., Wong, F., Hui, E., & Shen, L. Y. (2008). Strategic assessment of building
adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 43,
1709e1718.
Laprise, M., Lufkin, S., & Rey, E. (2015). An indicator system for the assessment of
sustainability integrated into the project dynamics of regeneration of disused
urban areas. Building and Environment, 86, 29e38.
Lee, J. S. (2003). Enhancing sustainability in downtown by triple-value adding to urban
redevelopment efforts: A case study of seoul, korea (Unpublished thesis). Uni-
versity of Washington.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. W. (1999). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6e23.
Ng, J. (2013). HK$700m conservation project lost in time. South China Morning Post.
April 8. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/article/1209396/hk700m-conservation-project-lost-time.
Ng, M. K. (2002). Property-led urban renewal in Hong Kong: Any place for the
community? Sustainable Development, 10(3), 140e146.
Ng, M. K. (2005). Quality of life perceptions and directions for urban regeneration in
Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 71(1e3), 441e465.
Numally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Omann, I., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2002). Land and limits, interpreting sustainability:
The social dimension of sustainability in a socio-economic scenario. In In 7th
biennial conference of the international society for ecological economics, sousse,
Tunisia.
Pendlebury, J., Townshend, T., & Gilroy, R. (2004). The conservation of english cul-
tural built heritage: A force for social inclusion? International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 10(1), 11e31.
Phillips, R. G., & Stein, J. M. (2013). An indicator framework for linking historic
preservation and community economic development. Social Indicators Research,
113(1), 1e15.
Said, S. Y., Aksah, H., & Ismail, E. D. (2013). Heritage conservation and regeneration
of historic areas in Malaysia. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 105,
418e428.
Sarvarzadeh, S. K., & Abidin, S. Z. (2012). Problematic issues of citizens' participation
on urban heritage conservation in the historic cities of Iran. Procedia-social and
Behavioral Sciences, 50, 214e225.
Shamsuddin, S., & Sulaiman, A. B. (2002). The importance of conserving of the old
town centre in achieving a sustainable built environment of the future. In
National seminar on built Environment: Sustainability through management and
technology. Kuala lumper, 5th-6th august 2002.
Sirisrisak, T. (2009). Conservation of Bangkok old town. Habitat International, 33(4),
405e411.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). Neighbourhood Renewal: The National Strategy Action
148 E.H.K. Yung et al. / Habitat International 66 (2017) 135e148
Plan. London: The Stationery Office.
Strange, I., & Whitney, D. (2003). The changing roles and purposes of heritage
conservation in the UK. Planning, Practice & Research, 18(2/3), 219e229.
Swensen, G. (2012). Integration of historic fabric in new urban developmentda
Norwegian case-study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(4), 380e388.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban
development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62e69.
Urban Renewal Authority. (2014). Our projects. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from
http://www.ura.org.hk/en/projects/redevelopment.aspx.
UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a
glossary of definitions, 10 November 2011. available from http://portal.unesco.org/
en/ev.php-URL_ID¼48857&URL_DO¼DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION¼201.html
(Accessed 1 April 2017).
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (1994). Nara document on authenticity. Nara:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1e6 November.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2004). From Istanbul 1996 to Venice 2002: Socially
sustainable revitalization of historical districts; architects speak out.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2005). Experts on ‘social sustainability in histor-
icaldistricts’, France.
Visser, G., & Nico Kotze, N. (2008). The state and new-build gentrification in central
Cape Town, South Africa. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2565e2593.
Wang, S. W. H. (2011). The evolution of housing renewal in Shanghai, 1990-2010: A
‘socially conscious’ entrepreneurial city? European Journal of Housing Policy,
11(1), 51e69.
Wang, H. J., & Zeng, Z. T. (2010). A multi-objective decision-making process for
reuse selection of historic buildings. Expert Systems with Applications, 37,
1241e1249.
White, E. (1999). Path-Portal-Place, Appreciating public space in urban environments.
Tallahassee: Architectural Media Ltd.
Yeoh, B. S., & Huang, S. (1996). The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in
Singapore: The case of the Kampong Glam historic district. Cities, 13(6),
411e422.
Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming cultural heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review,
41(6), 830e854.
Yuen, B., & Hock, N. T. (2001). Urban conservation in Singapore: Tradition or tourist
bane? Planning Practice and Research, 16(1), 39e50.
Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2011). Problem issues of public participation in
built-heritageconservation: Two controversial cases in Hong Kong. Habitat In-
ternational, 35, 457e466.
Yung, E. H. K., Chan, E. H. W., & Xu, Y. (2015). Assessing the social impacts of
revitalizing historic buildings on urban renewal e a case of local participatory
mechanism. Journal of Design Research, 13(2), 125e149.
Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2015). Re-examining the pro-growth ideology in
cities: Conservation of historic properties in Hong Kong. Urban Review Affairs,
32(4), 513e535.
Zancheti, S. M., & Hidaka, L. T. F. (2012). Measuring urban heritage conservation:
Indicator, weights and instruments (part 2). Journal of Cultural Heritage Man-
agement and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 15e26.
Zheng, H. W., Shen, G., & Wang, H. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable
urban renewal. Habitat International, 41(2014), 272e279.
Zukin, S. (1982). Loft living as ‘historic compromise’ in the urban core: The New
York experience. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(2),
256e267.
Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardization in spaces of con-
sumption. Urban Studies, 35(5e6), 825e839.