See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233529088

Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage conservation: Two

controversial cases in Hong Kong

Article  in  Habitat International · July 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.12.004

CITATIONS READS

111 2,341

2 authors:

Esther Yung Edwin H W Chan

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
33 PUBLICATIONS   1,347 CITATIONS    234 PUBLICATIONS   6,237 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building a livable Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Bay Area: Current issues and policy suggestions (Code: C2019A009) View project

Effects of environment-related experiences on well-being in Hong Kong (Public Policy Research Scheme) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edwin H W Chan on 09 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage conservation:

Two controversial cases in Hong Kong
Esther H.K. Yung*, Edwin H.W. Chan
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Since the last two decades, public participation has become a worldwide issue as the bottom-up approach
Public participation has spread across the field of heritage conservation and city planning. This paper aims to examine the
Built-heritage conservation
problematic issues in public participation in built-heritage conservation. The paper begins by highlighting
Stakeholders
the importance of public participation in built-heritage conservation and provides an understanding of
the role of public participation in decision-makings in other countries; then, it examines a theoretical
framework by which to understand the extent of public participation. Two controversial cases in Hong
Kong illustrate the major problem issues in public participation in built-heritage conservation. This study
found that the issues include different preferences regarding what is worthy of conservation; the lack of
an effective public participation mechanism and integrated heritage conservation approach in the
decision-making process; the different and conflicting interests of various stakeholders; power disparity;
propaganda and mobilisation of interest groups; and the lack of knowledge on heritage conservation.
According to the issues identified in the case studies, corresponding policy implications and recommen-
dations to enhance public participation are made.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Examples of two historically and socially significant, but contentious

Major cities in developing countries face similar issues related to
high development pressure, a lack of concern for cultural heritage,
and little or no public participation in the decision-making process
in urban development and conservation (Kong & Yeoh, 1994;
Steinberg, 1996). Decisions on heritage conservation in Hong Kong
have traditionally been dominated by experts and technocrats since
the establishment of the first heritage legislation in 1976, and public
participation has been considered insignificant. Since the change in
sovereignty in 1997, the majority of Hong Kong’s people have
become increasingly attached to built heritage and have actively
sought their right to participate in city development and heritage
conservation matters. However, proper and effective consultation
process in heritage conservation has yet to be established and
enhanced.
This paper aims to examine the major problem issues of public
participation in the field of heritage conservation. By examining the
public involvement in the built-heritage conservation, Hong Kong is
used as a case study which faces intensive redevelopment pressure.
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ86 852 2766 5829.
E-mail addresses: bseyung@inet.polyu.edu.hk, ehkyung@gmail.com (E.H.K. Yung),
Edwin.Chan@inet.polyu.edu.hk (E.H.W. Chan).
historic building sites, the Queen’s Pier and Chinese historic tene-
ment houses in Wing Lee Street are chosen for study. Both cases
attract tremendous international attentions and provide insights
into the major issues in public participation in heritage conservation.
The debates on conservation of the Queen’s Pier in 2007 have raised
unprecedented public awareness and conservation activities in the
society, which in fact, have accumulated and largely driven from
the unsuccessful campaign to save the Star Ferry Pier in 2006 and the
subsequent debates on urban renewal projects which involved
demolition of historic buildings. It is undoubtedly that the Queen’s
Pier and the previous conservation campaigns have impacted on
the government’s heritage conservation policy and initiatives to
more actively invite the public views. However, the recent debates
on conservation of tenement buildings in Wing Lee Street highlight
similar issues which have encountered in the Queen’s Pier in light of
the continued public enthusiasm to participate in heritage conser-
vation. The two cases, therefore, are paramount examples of the
problem issues in public participation in heritage conservation.
Case studies were chosen as the most appropriate approach. The
paper is not intended to use these two cases to reflect all the issues
regarding public participation in heritage conservation in Hong
Kong, but is to provide detail descriptions of the mechanism,
institution and governance involved, and highlight the problematic
issues and difficulties in public participation in these specific cases.

0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.12.004
458 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Findings are based on an in-depth analysis on the mass media
sources such as newspapers, internet and forums, communication
letters of professional associations, NGOs and local concern groups,
journal papers and policy documents, this study provides the
perspectives that are publicly presented and identifies the major
issues of inadequacies and ineffectiveness in public participation in
heritage conservation. The issues identified were then verified
by 15 in-depth interviews with experts and representatives from
the major stakeholders, such as the professionals in planning
and conservation disciplines, concern groups, owners, tenants and
politicians at the latter stage of the research study. Quotations
convey the opinions of and positions adopted by them. In the last
section, the paper provides policy implications and recommenda-
tions for a more effective policy on public participation in built-
heritage conservation.
Literature review
Importance of public participation in built-heritage conservation
Public participation can be defined as ‘a process by which
people, especially disadvantaged people, can exercise influence
over policy formulation, design alternatives, investment choices,
management, and monitoring of development interventions in the
communities’ (The World Bank, 1992: p. 2). Arnstein (1969) defines
public participation as “the redistribution of power that enables
the have-not citizens. to be deliberately included in the future”
(Arnstein, 1969: p. 216).
The Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban
Areas 1987 (Washington Charter) clearly stated that: “The partici-
pation and the involvement of the residents are essential for the
success of the conservation programme and should be encouraged.
The conservation of historic towns and urban areas concerns their
residents first of all” (ICOMOS 1987, Article 3). The Burra Charter
emphasises that heritage conservation cannot be sustained without
community participation (ICOMOS, 1999, Article 12).
Public participation in cultural heritage management can
resolve conflicts (Sirisrisak, 2009), and it also helps to define the
meaning of heritage in which community and experts’ values are
usually different (Kerr, 2000; Pignataro & Rizzo, 1997). In addition,
several trends in cultural heritage management have evolved
(Hobson, 2004) and made public participation an essential part in
decision-making process (Clark, 2000). First, the significance of
the heritage has shifted from the national importance to a familiar,
local interest, second, the support has also transformed from an
elitist upper-middle-class minority to a grass-roots majority and
third, people’s interests have shifted from the purely architectural
and historic to the societal and cultural. It also argues that heritage
by appropriation emerging from public perceptions rather than
through organised lobbying can reflect the public’s view on cultural
built heritage better than a designation determined by an expert’s
evaluation (Tweed & Sutherland, 2007).
The role of public participation in the decision-making
process in heritage conservation
Public participation in heritage conservation in other countries
shows the possible roles in which it can play in the decision-making
process. In U.K., Australia, and Singapore, an advisory committee
which composes of representatives from the general public and
professionals in different fields is set up (Yu, 2008). Proposals
publish for conservation matters are then submitted for public
discussion. Interestingly, the general public is involved in the
identification of heritage items through the nomination of a place
for designation in the UK (Chan & Ngao, 2004; English Heritage,
2010) and Australia (NSW Heritage Office, 2010). In some
countries, there is evidence of integration between urban planning,
conservation, and the involvement of the public in heritage matters.
Australia’s local community is involved in the preparation and
assessment of the Development Plan. In Singapore, the planning
consultation process emphasises partnership with the community
on how to make it a distinctive city and in making an identity plan
(Yuen, 2006). In Bangkok, the Master Plan contributes well to the
safeguarding of cultural heritage in which local communities are
encouraged to make the Local Plan (Sirisrisak, 2009). There is also
evidence of the increasing role of the voluntary and community
sector in the policy-making process (Taylor, 2007).
Theoretical framework for understanding the extent
of public participation
Arnstein (1969) stresses that the success of public participation
depends on the power to influence decision-making. Arnstein
(1975) used eight different forms of participation according to the
degree of participants’ power to influence decisions and illustrated
the hierarchy in a ladder pattern (Table 1) called “a ladder of citizen
participation”. Painter (1992) criticises Arnstein’s model by
suggesting that understanding power requires an assessment of
outcomes. He also argues that consultation is not merely ‘tokenistic’
as the ‘exercise of influence [by participants] is effective’. Lane
(2005) asserts that any analysis of public participation in planning
must be concerned with both formal and informal policy-making
arenas. Wilcox (1994) advances Arnstein’s theory by adding two
other dimensions: first, the different phases in implementing public
participation; second, the importance of identifying different types
of stakeholders who carry different interests and seek different
levels of participation.
Issues in public participation in built-heritage conservation
A number of issues in public participation are identified in the
literature review. The success of public participation depends on the
power to influence decision-making (Abbott, 1996; Arnstein, 1969,
1975). By contrast, tokenism is only a superficial exercise in which
community participants become mere information providers, at
best involved in consultation and not in more important and
effective positions with decision-making power (Arnstein, 1969).
The issue of tokenism in public participation may also affect
the public’s willingness to participate as people do not feel that they
can influence the outcome to readily participate, and thus, may not
really wish to be involved in planning exercises and are happy to
defer to experts (Potter, 1985).
Table 1
A ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969, pp. 217e224).
Citizen Control These two highest levels allow the have-nots Degree of
Delegated to have major decision-making or Citizen Power
Power full managerial power.
Partnership Allows the have-nots to negotiate and engage
in trade-offs with traditional power holders.
Placation Ground rules allow the have-nots to advise, Degree of
but retain for the power holders Tokenism
the continued right to decide.
Consultation Allow the have-nots to hear and to
Informing have a voice. However, “they lack
the power to insure that
their views will be heeded by the powerful”.
Therapy Real objective is not to enable people Non-
Manipulation to participate in planning or conducting participation
programmes, but to enable power holders
to “educate” and “cure” the participants.
 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
In addition, a wide range of stakeholders has emerged in recent
years. Different interests, aims, and goals often arise. Conflicts also
arise between and among stakeholder groups, about who knows
best regarding what criteria and principles should be followed
(Cotter, Boyd, & Gardiner, 2001; Fowler, 1981).
Furthermore, the lack of adequate understanding of heritage
conservation concept and sufficient information provide to the
public lead to criticism of the reliability of public views (Coeterier,
2002; Hubbard, 1994; Larkham, 2000; Morris, 1981). However, no
consensual view among whether people really understand the aims
and objectives of heritage conservation (Pendlebury & Townshend,
1999) and little qualitative evidence of the public’s lack of under-
standing of conservation value (Datel & Dingemans, 1984) is found.
However, study found that public perceptions of conservation
extend far beyond definitions set out in planning legislation and
policy (Townshend & Pendlebury, 1999).
Lastly, culture adds an extra dimension to the complexity of
public participation particular to cultural heritage conservation in
which the role of culture in establishing the identity of people
(Zukin, 2000). However, these aspects will not be in the scope of
analysis in the cases described in this paper.
Hong Kong’s built-heritage conservation
Public’s perception of built heritage
Since the sovereignty of British colonial government in 1841,
Hong Kong people had little interest in heritage prior to 1997.
The majority of Hong Kong residents are migrants from Mainland
China, and other countries in the late 19th century to the 1970s, as
such, they did not have a strong sense of belonging to Hong Kong,
and thus had little concern about its heritage. In addition, rapid
economic growth, property development and profit making have
been the ideology in Hong Kong. Escalation of property prices
makes property owners having no incentive to sacrifice their profit
for heritage conservation. Government has also relied heavily on
land sales and land premium as a major source of revenue. Cultural
heritage was not on the colonial government agenda. As a result,
many of the significant historic buildings have been demolished to
make way for commercial, residential and social services high-rises.
After 1997, Hong Kong people have increasingly strived for their
own identity (Henderson, 2001, 2008; Teather & Chow, 2003), and
the need for social equity in acquiring more social space, and more
democratic right, particularly, in city planning and development is
growing (Lu, 2009). Some people also argue that the economic
recession in 1998 made people slow down to look back at what
heritage they and the government has demolished in previous years
(Fong, 2001). The public consciousness of the issues relating to
heritage assets and their protection and conservation has
accumulated, in a large extent, owing to the latest attention to the
conservation of key heritage from the media, the youngsters and the
local interest groups, all having strong influence on policy making
(HKIA, 2007; HKIP, 2007). In particular, the emergence of NGOs
which advocate for more positive action from the government on
heritage conservation has important implications for defining,
highlighting, and safeguarding Hong Kong’s heritage (Cody, 2002).
The participatory process, transparency and sufficiency
of the information provided
Hong Kong has an executive-led government that is not
democratically elected. The government bureaucracy comprises
a highly-centralised structure involving civil servants as the key
policy makers with the support of government-appointed advisors,
elected legislators, and an independent judiciary. As a result, people
459
are used to the mode of top-down approach with support of elitism
in heritage declaration since the enactment of the Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (A&M Ordinance) in 1976. Section
3 of the ordinance empowers the Antiquities Authorities (formerly
the Secretary for Home Affairs) who may, after consultation with
the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) and with the approval of the
Chief Executive, declare places, buildings, sites or structures as
monuments for protection. The Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB)
which consists experts from heritage conservation, and related
disciplines is only responsible for providing advice and guiding the
work of the Antiquities and Monument office (AMO) and has no
decision-making power.
The identification and grading of cultural heritage in Hong Kong
is principally government-initiated and has mainly relied on elites
to identify and designate a heritage item in which little trans-
parency is provided. The government only announced the proposed
grading of the 1444 historic buildings built before 1950 to the
public in March of 2009. A four-month public consultation was
launched and 360 submissions were received from the public.
However, brief information on the historical buildings was mainly
provided on the AMO website which was insufficient for a mean-
ingful public participation.
At present, public consultation in urban development is only
needed in the redevelopment schemes, urban renewal projects
and the infrastructure projects. There is no official mechanism for
the public to launch a request for designating a historic building
as a monument. The public is neither consulted before or after
designation of monuments. In general, citizen participation in
planning has been poorly rated (Ng, 2005). Fong (2001) also states
that lack of consultation demonstrates empirically that it is the
shortfall in public participation that causes the flaws in urban
planning.
It was after the change of sovereignty in 1997 that local
communities showing a much greater willingness to participate in
heritage conservation, especially during the last decade. In partic-
ular, heritage assumed a higher political priority in Hong Kong in
2006 when the Star Ferry Pier, which was demolished in January
2007 after an unsuccessful rescue bid, and this has become a ‘sea
change in public opinion’ (Tsang, 2007). There is also evident of
conservation campaigns on privately owned historic properties
initiated by local communities, which were successful.
Notwithstanding the growing concern on heritage conservation,
the government has provided insufficient channels for the public to
participate. The extent of public participation in the conservation
of built heritage and city planning in Hong Kong can be classified as
the ‘consultation’ and ‘informing’ form in Arnstein’s Ladder of
citizen participation.
Public participation in the conservation of built heritage
in Hong Kong - Two case studies
The recent controversial debates on the preservation of the
Queen’s Pier and the Chinese historic buildings clearly demonstrate
the major problem issues in public participation in built-heritage
conservation in Hong Kong. Table 2 and 3 provide the major
chronological events which involves the public in the conservation
of the Queen's Pier and the Chinese tenement buildings. The
following section provides the basic background information about
the cases from the analysis on different sources of materials.
Case 1 - Queen’s Pier
Background
The Queen’s Pier was located at the northern waterfront of Hong
Kong Island, and was built in 1958 (Fig. 1). The Queen’s Pier mainly
460 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Table 2
Major chronological events involving public participation involving public partici-
pation in the conservation of the Queen’s Pier.
 The draft Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan (OZP)
covering CRIII was exhibited for public inspection in
May of 1998 and 70 objections
resulted in a reduction of the reclamation area from 32 to 18 ha.
 The Society for Protection of the Harbour (SPH) applied for a stay
of order and judicial review, prohibiting the government from
continuing with the CRIII in September of 2003.
 Over 1000 protesters dressed in blue marched on the Central Government
Offices calling for a halt to reclamation work on October 5, 2003.
 The High Court announced that the Government may proceed
with the harbour reclamation on October 6, 2003.
 The government announced that the Queen’s Pier would be closed
to make way for a four-lane highway in April of 2007.
 Final option was to preserve the superstructure and storing
it for reassembly in close proximity to its original location.
 The AAB awarded the highest grade 1 rating for historic buildings in
May of 2007 and the Home Affairs Secretary opined that the pier
could not qualify as a protected monument.
 Conservation activists called for a judicial review against the
government’s decision not to declare the pier as a monument.
 The Secretary for Development anticipated the public meeting
with the protestors held at the Pier in late July that the
pier must be removed.
 The public protestors had gathered at the pier on July 30, 2007
and a small group, three of whom were on hunger strike.
 On July 30, 2007, the interest groups applied for a judicial review on the
basis of the former Home Affairs Secretary’s decision in not declaring
Queen’s Pier a monument was ‘unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary’.
 The application was granted, which the judge gave the government
the go-ahead for the demolition.
 In August of 2007, about 200 took part in a candlelight vigil. More than
police 300 policemen moved all the protestors and the operation
lasted 10 h. The Pier was finally demolished.
served as the landing point for new British colonial governors,
royalty, and other state visitors during the colonial period. The fate
of the Queen’s Pier was affected by the Central Reclamation
Development Project Phase III (CRIII) launched in the 1990s, which
will construct two highways, a long ‘harbour-front corridor’, a large
shopping mall, a military berth for the Liberation Army Forces of
Hong Kong, and business office buildings in the area. Table 2
summarises the major chronological events in the conservation of
the Queen’s Pier.
Case 2 - Chinese-traditional tenement buildings
Background
The first example is the conservation of 12 Chinese tenement
buildings (Tong Lau) on Wing Lee Street, Sheung Wan (Fig. 1).
The structure built in the 1950s on a terrace on Wing Lee Street is
interspersed with typical old Hong Kong-style lanes, providing
the community with open space for neighbours. The terrace has
become one of the remaining few structures in Hong Kong that
was once a typical engineering innovation in the hilly Central and
Sheung Wan districts. However, these post-war tenement buildings
are not graded as historic buildings, nor are they one of the 1154
proposed graded historical buildings announced in March of 2009.The
URA proposes to conserve the terrace characteristics of Wing Lee
Street and three post-war low-rise tenement buildings. The rest of the
nine tenement buildings will be demolished to make space for the
residence’s clubhouse and shops within a 30-storey tower (Figs. 3 and
4). Table 3 summarises the major chronological events in the conser-
vation of the Chinese tenement buildings in Wing Lee Street.
Comparison of the two cases
The above two cases facilitate a comparative study of heritage
conservation in Hong Kong which leads to the identification of
Table 3
Major chronological events involving public participation involving public partici-
pation in the conservation of Chinese tenement buildings in Wing Lee Street.
 The tenement buildings are included in the Wing Lee Street and
Staunton Street development project by the Land Development
Corporation (the predecessor of the Urban Renewal Authority) in 1998.
 The Town Planning Board endorsed the draft development scheme
plan in July of 2003, being suitable for publication.
 60 objections were received, but TPB did not amend the draft DSP.
 TPB decision was legally challenged by one of the objectors and
TPB made amendment to the DSP in respect of the judicial review.
 The DSP was approved by the CE in C on Oct. of 2007 and was
exhibited for public inspection.
 The URA held community workshop on December of 2007 but it has
been criticised that all the options were not presented to the
residents before they were asked to give their views.
 The public consultations received more than 1500 objections to the
URA’s redevelopment plan in April of 2008. The objections resulted in
the scaling down of half of the development project, though nine of
the twelve tenement buildings will still be torn down.
 A self-initiated local community group, the Central and Western Concern
Group (C&W Concern Group) initiated a public hearing of the residents
affected by the URA development plan in the area in June of 2008.
 C&W District Council passed a motion calling on the URA to redraw
the Master Layout plan (MLP) in July of 2008 before it applied to the
TPB for the development plan. However, the URA did not listen to
the view of the communities.
 In response to government policy 2008/9 on heritage conservation,
URA submitted the revised MLP to TPB for approval in Feb. of 2009.
 C&W Concern Group initiated the public to response and object
to TPB on the URA development plan during early 2009.
 The international award-winning film, Echoes of the Rainbow which
made its shot on the street announced in Feb. of 2010.
 C&W Concern Group initiated the owners and the public to sign
their petition in early March of 2010.
 10 conservationists gathered at Wing Lee Street on March 14, 2010,
calling for its preservation.
 The final plan proposed to the TPB in the middle of March of 2010,
suggests preserving all the tenements on the street.
The legal status of a draft DSP before its approval by CE in C, is that there was no
mechanism to prevent the individual owners from carrying out piecemeal rede-
velopment of the sites. However, the draft DSP only has statutory effect once pub-
lished under the Town Planning Ordinance.
issues in public participation in heritage conservation (Table 4).
It shows that although the nature of the building, development
proposal, significance of the building and the final outcome are
considerably different from each other, they both illustrate
common issues of inadequacies in public participation in the
heritage conservation.
The Queen’s Pier which was due to demolition in the infra-
structure and harbour reclamation project and the preservation of
Chinese historic buildings was also under threat in the urban
renewal project. In both cases, the public consultations, workshops
and plan inspections were seen as ineffective and non-transparent,
as people have argued that the information provided to the public
was not complete and even misleading. As a result, the public had
to find other channels to express their preference to conserve the
two heritage sites, local communities initiated campaigns became
the major means.
Major issues in public participation in heritage conservation
The following issues are identified by the authors’ extensive
analysis of varies sources, and a comparison between two cases.
In addition, the issues raised are then, further discussed with the
representatives of different stakeholders in a series of in-depth
interviews. It was found that the interviewees agreed on the
issues, whilst providing further elaborations which engender
 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Fig. 1. Queen’s Pier (source: www.panaramio.com).
a more holistic perspective on the issues and the possible
recommendations.
Different preferences on heritage conservation between
the general public and the government
These two cases also illustrate that the public’ evaluation
and preference on heritage conservation is different from that of
the government. The Queen’s Pier was only designated a grade 1
historic building by the AAB the campaign which demolition is not
prohibited. In contrast, people from various districts in Hong Kong
argued that the pier should be conserved as it belongs to the public,
reflects ‘collective memory’, and symbolises the unique history
of Hong Kong. Several interviewees question whether the conflict
around the Queen’s Pier is mainly derived from the mismatch
between the public and the government decision-makers’ prefer-
ence in heritage preservation, or accumulated from the public
anger towards the government administration and the opposition
against economic development.
Similarly, the tenement buildings are not designated as a graded
historic buildings and the URA clearly states that the buildings were
dilapidated and did not carry significant heritage value. However, in
the later stage, this case has attracted tremendous supports
from the society regarding its preservation. Although the URA has
decided to preserve three of the tenement buildings, the conser-
vationists said that “keeping the last few units on the street would
461
just be a token consolation” (SCMP, 2010b). In both cases, it is
shown that the government is mainly concerned about develop-
ment, whereas, the public shows preference on conserving the
community space and the surrounding areas.
Inadequate knowledge for the public to evaluate
the historic buildings
Elites and experts usually argue that whether the public has the
proper knowledge to determine what is worth for conservation. A
town planner and an architect stated in the interviews that the public
does not really understand the values in heritage conservation.
The protesters in the Wing Lee Street campaign tend to attach to the
award-winning movie rather than the heritage values embraced in
the tenement buildings. In one of the interview, the executive of an
NGO said “the buildings which are more familiar by the public seem
to attract more support in conserving them”. In general, the public
are not best informed about the historic sites and their associated
values for them to determine whether they worth for conserving.
Conflicts of interest from the different stakeholders
There is a wide range of stakeholders in both cases (Table 4), and
conflicts in the interests of different stakeholders arise and affect
the effectiveness of the public participation activities. In broad
term, there are three major groups of stakeholders in the two cases,
462 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466

Fig. 2. Conservation Campaign at Queen’s Pier (source: www.chinadaily.net).

the government, the general public and the tenants and occupants. concerned with constructing and enforcing their identity and local
Both the government and the URA tend to focus on development culture since the change in sovereignty in 1997 (Henderson, 2008)
while URA also has a claimed mission to improve quality of the and they are also increasingly opposed to the high-rise develop-
living environment. The public and the interest groups are more ment that favours the property developers in Hong Kong and also

Fig. 3. Chinese tenement buildings in Wing Lee Street, Sheung Wan (source: the authors).
 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Fig. 4. Map showing the site of 12 tenement buildings on Wing Lee Street, Sheung Wan (source: AMO’s website and modified by authors).
sees heritage conservation as a means to take part in the decision-
making in city planning and development (Lu, 2009). Different
views also held within the citizens. Some residents said that the
pier should give way to development and was an ugly and
unwanted relic from colonial days (So, 2007) .In the tenements
case, the owners’ and occupiers’ responses to the conservation of
the tenement buildings varied. During the interviews, a landlord
said they wanted to see the place preserved because it was full of
childhood memories, whereas, another landlord wants to get
some compensation to move to public housing and improving their
living quality after retirement. In sum, the different interests of
stakeholders lead to the challenge in resolving these conflicts in
public participation and decision-making.
Lack of effective public participation mechanisms
and supportive government framework
Although TPB and URA organised consultations and workshops
in the earlier stage of development, community participants
criticised that insufficient information was provided to the public
for comments. Representatives of the local concern group said “the
workshop seemed to have presumptions. URA only presented four
options which emphasised on development. In addition, people
attended the workshop were mainly those concerned and informed.
It also seemed that URA only selectively listened to the public’s
comments.” Likewise, the former chairman of the conservation and
heritage committee of a professional body also expressed that the
consultations are more or less tokenistic as people only have the
right to know and to express rather than the right to make decision.
Paradoxically, the TPB and the URA have amended the draft Devel-
opment Scheme Plan (DSP) and the Master Layout Plan (MLP)
respectively, not as a response to the public objections, but to the
government newly announced policy on conserving the adjacent
heritage building and the surrounding area (Table 3). It was also
clearly shown on the public forums organised by the activists at the
463
Queen’s Pier. The critics said the public meeting with the Secretary of
Development at the site in late July was just a political show because
it was told before the forum that there would be no negotiations to
preserve the Pier (Wu & Wong, 2007).
The minimal integration between planning, urban renewal and
conservation and thus the public participation mechanism is high-
lighted in both cases. The conservation of the Queen’s Pier and the
tenement buildings were neither emphasised in the TPB’s OZP nor
the URA’s DSP for public consultations and community workshops.
The government provides inadequate legal provision, institutional
and administrative government framework to support the integra-
tion of public participation in the conservation and planning regime.
Power disparity
Both cases show the negotiation between the relatively less
powerful, the residents, the interest groups and the general public
and those with dominating power, the government and private
owners. These cases also reinforce what Arnstein stresses, that is,
the need of power to affect the final outcome in public participa-
tion. These cases also portray that government agencies, officers,
and representatives are still the dominant power holders, and
unwilling to redistribute power to the ‘have-not’ citizens in urban
planning and conservation, which may result from persistent top-
down narratives as well as the communities’ lack of capacity and
competency in managing heritage matters (Heyd & Neef, 2004). In
the Queen’s Pier case, the government has the power to make
decision on not preserving the pier, despite the numerous interest
groups activities and protests. The former Chairmen of the AAB
stated that they knew that the government had already made the
decision to demolish the Pier before they assessed the building.
Likewise, in the conservation of tenement buildings, the TPB has
consolidated public opinion to preserve all of the tenement build-
ings; however, it lacks the power to influence the URA’s develop-
ment proposal.

Table 4
Comparisons on the two case studies.
Queens’ Pier
Nature and (re)development Public building and space
proposal The Pier was demolished to make way for the Central
reclamation phase III and the highways
Significance of the site - Historic significance in the British Colonial period
- Provide social space and collective
memory for the Hong Kong people
Grading Grade I
Stakeholders Government departments and Community
Development Bureau, TPB, AAB,
- 17 Interest groups: CA, SPH, Harbour-front
enhancement committee, Civic Exchange,
Local Action, etc.
- Politicians, district councillors,
Nature of public involvement Public consultation for infrastructure project -
The Central Reclamation Phase III
Channels for public - Drafted outline zoning plan for public inspection, forum
engagement - Protests/march, hunger strikes, wrote letter with
blood to Secretary of Development Bureau, candlelight vigil
- Judicial review against court decision
Transparency Public engagement exercises are open to the public at large
Insufficient information The government provided misleading information
provided - The legal requirements for justifying the reclamation,
- The government’s proposal to sell reclaimed land for
massive property development has not been properly
presented to the public (Chu, 2007; Loh, 2007a, 2007b)
Final outcome Demolished in 2008. Government attempts
to resemble the pier in a new location
Chinese tenement buildings
Private residential buildings
The tenement buildings were part of the urban
renewal project for high-rise residential
- One of the few remaining examples of local
tenement buildings
- Provide social space for the local residents
No grade
Government departments and Community
URA, TPB
- Interest groups: C&W Concern Group,
- District councillors, residents in Central
conservationists, owners, occupiers
Urban renewal project workshop
- Development Scheme Plan
(DSP) for public inspection
- TPB’s public consultations
- URA community workshop
- District councillor consult residents
- Letters to gov. departments, signing petition
- Workshops held by URA are small scale
and have not been widely publicised
- Final decision to preserve has no proper reason,
- All the options for redevelopment has not
been presented to the public in the
URA workshops
- An engineering report which advised
against large-scale development has
not been disclose publicly (Lai, 2010)
Conserved all 12 buildings, declare
the street area a preservation zone
464
Remarks
Public space provides public access, more familiar
by people, arouse more public concerns
Local significance for Hong Kong society as a
whole vs. community space for the district
E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Initially no grading was assigned to both sites
Different stakeholders have different and even
conflicting interest
Public consultations were held but heritage
conservation is not the emphasis
- Conservation appeals in both cases were
initiated by local communities
- The award-winning movie and the mass media
mobilisation plays a vital role in the tenement case
- Public consultations on the reclamation are
more well known to the public than the URA’s
workshop for the Wing Lee Street
- Decision-making process not open to public
Incomplete and even misinterpreted
information for the two building sites
 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Propaganda and mobilisation of interest groups
The rise of the role of local interest groups has been the result of
the non-transparent, non-democratic decision-making system.
The mobilisation of interest groups has become the major means for
the “have-not” to express their views. In the Queen’s Pier case,
tremendous conservation campaigns and protests were organised
(Fig. 2). Although the building was demolished, the case has mobi-
lised the open and transparency of the assessment of historic
buildings which also has initiated public consultations. In the tene-
ments case, it is questionable whether the public interests generated
by the award-winning film shot on Wing Lee Street strive the
government’s determination to make the “reversal” on preserving
the street. Did the determined opposition by young protesters in the
demolition of the Star Ferry and Queen’s Pier have any effect?
Whether the plan was the result of a political decision, some
geotechnical problems, or the victory of the preservation interest
groups and the protests still remains unanswered. The URA first
agreed that the buildings did not have much character and deep
historic value. In the later stage, a new proposal to preserve the
whole street was launched without discussion on the rationale
behind within the URA board members (SCMP, 2010a).
Two representatives of the local concern group and NGO raised that
the more the people show concerns on the preservation of the site, the
more pressure the government faces, and the more likely the building
will be conserved. In sum, these cases reflect clearly that the success of
urban conservation usually relies on political factors rather than the
doctrines used. It is not the charters or the conservation tools per se
that ensure conservation, it is political will (Stovel, 2002).
Policy implications and recommendations
The success of public participation lies in identifying the different
stakeholders involved in built-heritage conservation, identifying the
difference between the needs and perceptions of different stake-
holders, and balancing the different and even conflicting interests
of the stakeholders through an appropriate conflict analysis and
resolution mechanism. In general, successful stakeholder consulta-
tions are characterised by an emphasis on transparency and carefully
planned process for issue resolution (Du Cros, Lee, Lung, & Distefano,
2007). A winewin situation for all the stakeholders could be ach-
ieved if the concept of ‘irreversibility’ of heritage, reasonable and fair
compensation to the owners, and planning to improve the living
quality are taken into account.
In addition, the issue of power disparity can be minimised by
providing a thorough understanding of the political environment
and developing a supportive legal, institutional, and administrative
framework to facilitate public participation in decision-making of
heritage conservation matters. In doing so, economic, social, cultural,
and political factors must be considered holistically and incorporated
into the public participation mechanisms for heritage conservation.
Furthermore, incorporating public participation into integrated
conservation and planning policy should be beneficial to all parties.
Both cases reveal a considerable discrepancy among the commu-
nity and policy makers in what is worth conserving. Thus, the
suggestion to engage the public in the phase of identifying and
nominating historic buildings for conservation, making strategic plans
which take into consideration of heritage items, and making choices in
city development and planning, rather than mere consultation, should
be followed. For example, a bottom-up approach which involves the
general public to nominate a list of historic buildings for conservation
in their local areas can be advocated.
Furthermore, the government can also be more proactive in
initiating public engagements in heritage conservation rather than
leaving to the NGO and concern groups to mobilise campaigns. The
465
government can publicise the planning, development, and urban
renewal schemes and also providing objective information on the
pros and cons of each development project with particular emphasis
on heritage matters. The government can also make publicly
accessible the consultation documents submitted by all the conser-
vation interest groups and the communities. Finally, the government
should strengthen education, capacity building, and the empower-
ment of the public through the knowledge of heritage conservation.
Conclusion
Examples of two socially and historically significant, but
contentious historic building sites, Queen’s Pier and Chinese
Tenement buildings in Hong Kong were used to demonstrate
some of the issues which are affecting the process and outcome of
public participation in heritage conservation. However, the issues
in public participation in heritage conservation are more complex
than the issues outlined in these two cases, as the final decision-
making in conservation still largely depends on the political will. In
sum, the cases reinforce the role of community-initiated interest
groups as an informal channel for public participation in the deci-
sion-making process in heritage conservation. The paper also raises
the following questions: who should be involved? When should the
public be involved in the process? Lastly, how the public should
be involved? These questions require further investigation. The
lesson of public participation in Hong Kong built-heritage conser-
vation will offer insights for other places, particularly in developing
countries which face intense development pressure, that tend to
have a similar approach in conservation and heritage management.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by a research grant provided by the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
References
Abbott, J. (1996). Sharing the city: Community participation in urban management.
London: Earthscan Publications.
SCMP. (2010a). URA members question decision on saving Wing Lee Street. South
China Morning Post, 18 March, 2010.
SCMP. (2010b). U-turn on ‘star’ street. The Standard, 15 March, 2010.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216e224.
Arnstein, S. R. (1975). Public participation in technology assessment - working
model for public participation. Public Administration Review, 35(1), 70e73.
Chan, E. H. W., & Ngao, D. W. Y. (2004). Administrative mechanisms and incentive
schemes for conserving built heritage: a comparison of international experi-
ence. HKIA Journal, 40(4), 12e17.
Chu, W. (2007). Logic defied on phase III. South China Morning Post, . 18 January,
2007.
Clark, K. (2000). From regulation to participation: cultural heritage, sustainable
development and citizenship. In Forward planning: The functions of cultural
heritage in a changing Europe (pp. 103e113).
Cody, J. W. (2002). Heritage as hologram: Hong Kong after a change in sovereignty,
1997. In The disappearing “Asian” city protecting Asia’s urban heritage in a glob-
alizing world (pp. 185e207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coeterier, J. F. (2002). Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 59, 111e123.
Cotter, M., Boyd, B., & Gardiner, J. (2001). Heritage landscapes: Understanding place
and communities. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.
Datel, R. E., & Dingemans, D. J. (1984). Environmental perception, historic preser-
vation, and sense of place. In T. Saarinen, D. Seamen, & J. Sell (Eds.), Environ-
mental perception and behaviour. Department of Geography Research Paper 209.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Du Cros, H., Lee, Y. S. F., Lung, D., & Distefano, L. (2007). Economic growth and cultural
identity. In H. Du Cros, & Y. S. F. Lee (Eds.), Cultural heritage management in China,
preserving the cities of the Pearl River Delta (pp. 85e116). LLC: Hudson Hills Press.
English Heritage. (2010). Application form to designate a heritage asset. http://www.
english-heritage.org.uk/professional/designation/process/online-application-form/.
Fong, G. (2001). Public participation in Hong Kong case studies in community urban
design. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sept. 2001.
466 E.H.K. Yung, E.H.W. Chan / Habitat International 35 (2011) 457e466
Fowler, P. J. (1981). Archaeology, the public, and the sense of the past. In M. Binney,
& D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Our past before us. London: Temple Smith.
Henderson, J. C. (2001). Heritage, identity and tourism in Hong Kong. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 7, 219e235.
Henderson, J. C. (2008). Conserving Hong Kong’s heritage: the case of Queen’s Pier.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(6), 540e554.
Heyd, H., & Neef, A. (2004). Participation of local people in water management:
Evidence from the Mae Sa watershed, northern Thailand. Washington: Interna-
tional Food Policy Research Institute. Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/divs/
eptd/dp/papers/eptdp128.pdf Accessed 19.01.06.
Hobson, E. (2004). Conservation and planning: Changing values in policy and practice.
London: Spon.
HKIA. (2007). The Hong Kong institute of architects response to built heritage
conservation policy public consultation. Press release, 18 January, 2007, available
at: http://www.hkia.net/UserFiles/Image/position_paper_press_release/BHCP_
20070118_eng_final.pdf Accessed 10.08.10.
HKIP. (2007). Heritage conservation policy in Hong Kong. Position paper, March 2007,
available at: http://www.hkip.org.hk/En/Content.asp?Bid¼7&Sid¼42&Id¼71
Accessed 20.04.10.
Hubbard, P. (1994). Professional versus lay tastes in design control: an empirical
investigation. Planning Practice and Research, 9(4), 271e287.
ICOMOS. (1987). The ICOMOS charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban
areas. Available from: http://www.icomos.org Accessed 04.02.09.
ICOMOS. (1999). Burra charter. Available at http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html.
Kerr, A. (2000). Public participation in cultural resource management: a Canadian
perspective. In ICOMOS general assembly entitled “Patrimonio y conservación.
Arqueología. XII Asamblea General del ICOMOS”. Mexico City: INAH.
Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. (1994). Urban conservation in Singapore: a survey of state
policies & popular attitudes. Urban Studies, 3, 247e265.
Lai, C. (2010). Heritage activist wants to preserve central for the people, not the
developers. South China Morning Post. 5 April, 2010.
Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. The
Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283e299.
Larkham, P. J. (2000). Residents’ attitudes to conservation. Journal of Architectural
Conservation, 6(1), 73e89.
Loh, C. (2007a). An overriding public need. South China Morning Post, . 4 January, 2007.
Loh, C. (2007b). Who’s guilty on the harbour? South China Morning Post. 1 March,
2007.
Lu, T. L. D. (2009). Heritage conservation in post-colonial Hong Kong. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(2e3), 258e272.
Morris, C. J. (1981). Townscape images: a study in meaning. In R. Kain (Ed.), Planning
for conservation. London: Mansell.
View publication stats
Ng, M. K. (2005). Quality of life perceptions and directions for urban regeneration in
Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 71, 441e465.
NSW Heritage Office. (2010), Available online: http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/.
Painter, M. (1992). Participation and power. In M. Munro-Clarke (Ed.), Citizen
participation in government (pp. 21e36). Sydney: Hale & Ironmonger.
Pendlebury, J., & Townshend, T. (1999). The conservation of historic areas and public
participation. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 2(5), 72e87.
Pignataro, G., & Rizzo, I. (1997). The political economy of rehabilitation: the case of
the Benedettini monastery. In M. Hutter, & I. Rizzo (Eds.), Economic perspectives
of cultural heritage (pp. 91e106). Baasingstoke: Macmillan.
Potter, R. B. (1985). Urbanization and planning in the third world. Kent: Croom Helm.
Sirisrisak, T. (2009). Conservation of Bangkok old town. Habitat International, 33(4),
405e411.
So, U. (2007). Death knell on pie. The Standard. 30 July 2007.
Steinberg, F. (1996). Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing
countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 463e475.
Stovel, H. (2002). Approach to managing urban transformation for historic cities. In
Cultural institute of the Macau SAR government, review of culture, International
edition 4 (pp. 35e44). Macau SAR: Cultural Institute of the Macau SAR
Government.
Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: opportunities and
pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297e317.
Teather, E. K., & Chow, C. S. (2003). Identity and place: the testament of designated
heritage in Hong Kong. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9, 93e115.
The World Bank. (1992). Participatory development and the world bank: Potential direc-
tions for change. Discussion paper number 183. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Townshend, T., & Pendlebury, J. (1999). Public participation in the conservation of
historic areas: case-studies from north-east England. Journal of Urban Design, 4
(3), 313e331.
Tsang, D. (2007). Letter to Hong Kong: Heritage preservation. Press release, 28 January
2007.
Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban
development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62e69.
Wilcox, D. (1994). The guide to effective participation. Brighton: Delta Press.
Wu, H., & Wong, O. (2007). Forum on pier’s fate a publicity stunt, say activist. South
China Morning Post. 19 July, 2007.
Yu, M. (2008). Built heritage conservation policy in selected places. Hong Kong:
Research and Library Services Division Legislative Council Secretariat.
Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming cultural heritage in Singapore. Urban Affairs Review, 41,
830e854.
Zukin, S. (2000). Whose culture? Whose city? In R. T. LeGates, & F. Stout (Eds.), The
city reader (pp. 131e142) London; New York: Routledge.