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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8335.htm

JPMD
1,3 To rehabilitate or redevelop?
A study of the decision criteria
for urban regeneration projects
272
Yung (Simon) Yau
Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, People’s Republic China, and
Ho Ling Chan
Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, People’s Republic China

Abstract
Purpose – To develop a multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating different schemes
of urban regeneration project.
Design/methodology/approach – Urban decay in Hong Kong has long warranted community
concern. To tackle the problem, there are generally two different approaches, namely building
rehabilitation and redevelopment. In the past, urban regeneration was dominated by complete
redevelopment. However, with the rise of the concept of sustainability, the choice of building rehabilitation
is becoming increasingly popular. Nevertheless, with either option, difficulties are often encountered in
balancing the diverse interests of the stakeholders, who have varied aims and ambitions for the
achievements of a project. Therefore, we have developed a framework, which contains the factors to be
considered when planning an urban renewal project. To obtain the relative importance of these factors in
a reliable but reasonably inexpensive manner from the building-related professionals, the Non-structural
Fuzzy Decision Support System was employed. In total, 34 building surveyors and 31 town planners were
interviewed using structured questionnaires.
Findings – The set of perceived weightings of the decision criteria obtained from building surveyors
was quite different from that from town planners. People of different backgrounds hold divergent
views towards the relative importance of the decision criteria in an urban regeneration project.
Research limitations/implications – Due to the resource limitations, individuals from the
professions of building surveying and town planning were studied only.
Practical implications – To achieve a credible decision-making process, it is therefore advisable to
have a balanced mix of members in any urban regeneration project decision making panel. Also, the
framework developed in this study can be used to facilitate the decision making process in the future
project.
Originality/value – This paper is the first attempt to explore the relative importance of various
criteria for the decision-making process in urban regeneration projects perceived by different
professionals.
Keywords Urban areas, Regeneration, Decision making, Hong Kong
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Place Management and Introduction

Development Urban decay is an inevitable result of the growth of a city (Badcock, 1932; K’Akumu,
Vol. 1 No. 3, 2008
pp. 272-291 2007). Whilst benefiting from economic growth, the community in the Hong Kong
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8335
Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “Hong Kong”),
DOI 10.1108/17538330810911262 also suffer from the problem of urban decay. In the city, there are around 39,000 private
buildings territory-wide (Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau, 2005). Of this stock, To rehabilitate
about one quarter are 20-years old or older and suffer dilapidation in various degrees. or redevelop?
Given the high-density high-rise development pattern in Hong Kong, derelict buildings
do not only ruin the cityscape, but also jeopardize the health and safety of the
community as a whole. Therefore, urban regeneration has become a matter of great
urgency. As far as sustainable development of Hong Kong is concerned, urban
regeneration plays a very important role because vigilant urban regeneration helps 273
release the pressure on land supply without compromising the natural environment of
the city. Nevertheless, the pace of the urban regeneration process in Hong Kong has
been painfully slow (Jim, 1994). Yeh (1990) and Ng (2002a) ascribed the sluggishness to
the protracted land assembly exercises.
In view of the age-old urban decay problem in Hong Kong, literature on urban
regeneration in the city abounds. Most of these previous studies discussed the
difficulties encountered in the urban regeneration process. Poor institutional
arrangements (Adams and Hastings, 2001) and non-people-centred policy (Ng et al.,
2001; Ng, 2002b), unfair compensation (Kam et al., 2004) are drivers of these problems.
Yet, none of these studies focused on the difficulties in balancing the diverse interests
of the stakeholders in deciding the way forward for an urban regeneration project.
Perhaps, a good example for illustrating such an issue is the Sai Yee Street project,
which is also known as K28 project, in Mongkok. Soon after the Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) announced its general intention to redevelop 14 residential/
commercial (R/C) buildings in the project in March 2006, disputes between the affected
domestic owners and retail operators began about how the project should proceed.
A series of debates over the choice between redevelopment and rehabilitation then
followed (But, 2007; Lai, 2007a, b). The URA is now identifying ways of looking after
the interests of both the residents and the retail operators, as well as the general
aspirations of the community.
However, in reality, the battle in K28 project is just a beginning and the battlefield has
recently moved to the proposed redevelopments in Lee Tung Street and Graham Street
(Wu and Lo, 2007; So and Cheung, 2007). In many old districts such as Kennedy Town,
Yau Tsim Mong and Sham Shui Po, dilapidated buildings awaiting improvement or
redevelopment can found. That means similar clashes are foreseeable in the near future
so the authority should find ways to improve their decision-making process in urban
regeneration. In this light, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria decision-making
framework for evaluating various schemes of an urban regeneration project. The criteria
or factors to be considered in the decision-making process are weighted by local
professional building surveyors and town planners using the Non-structural Fuzzy
Decision Support System (NSFDSS). These results bear noteworthy practical and policy
implications on urban regeneration in Hong Kong.
This paper is organized as follows. In next section, the practice of urban
regeneration in Hong Kong is overviewed, and the pros and cons of building
redevelopment and rehabilitation are discussed. They are followed by the development
of a 4 £ 4 criterion matrix for decision making. Then, the relative importance of the
criteria to be considered in the decision-making process is determined. Afterwards,
the weights of the decision criteria perceived by different professionals are compared
and the results are discussed. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the major findings
and contributions of this study.
JPMD Approaches to urban regeneration in Hong Kong
Urban regeneration or renewal is not a “slash and burn” process (Planning and Lands
1,3 Bureau, 2001). In reality, it is a process by which deteriorated buildings are improved
through various methods, ranging from modernization, rehabilitation to clearance and
redevelopment (Dumouchel, 1975; Prasad, 1989; Roberts, 2000, p. 17) defined urban
regeneration as:
274 [. . .] comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban
problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical,
social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change.
In the words of Couch (1990) and Zielenback (2000), the primary aim of urban
regeneration is to upgrade a whole neighbourhood through improving blighted areas,
ameliorating traffic situation, and providing open space and better urban
infrastructure. Andersen (2003) added that urban regeneration benefits economic
and social development through job creation.

Urban regeneration in Hong Kong before 1990s

Urban regeneration has a long history in the development of Hong Kong. The first slum
clearance scheme was initiated by the government as early as 1884 (Adams and
Hastings, 2000). The primary motivator of the scheme was the insanitary living
conditions in Hong Kong which was well documented by Chadwick (1882). In the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, the colonial government attempted
comprehensive slum clearance in Tai Ping Shan, Lower Lascar Row and Kau U Fong
in response to the dreadful scourge of bubonic plague (Jim, 1994). In response,
redevelopment projects were undertaken to resettle the sufferers of typhoons and fires at
that time (Cuthbert and Dimitriou, 1992). Afterwards, the government relied heavily on
the private sector to revive the old urban areas. In light of the ramshackle living
environments in the early 1960s, urban regeneration once again became a priority for the
colonial government (Fong, 1985). Across the territory, the problems in Sheung Wan
were the most severe; as such the government took a determined step in 1965 to
designate this area as an “Urban Renewal District” (Ng, 2003). Although the government
dedicated to redevelop the whole area, inadequate funding for land resumption and lack
of coordination among government departments held up the process.
Learning from this lesson, the government shifted its focus from comprehensive
redevelopment to area improvement in 1973. Area improvement projects, in which all
existing land lots held under non-renewable leases were resumed for the provision of
community and recreational facilities, were undertaken in Wanchai, Yaumatei, Shek
Kip Mei, Tai Kok Tsui, Cheung Sha Wan and Kennedy Town (Ng, 2003). In 1974, the
Hong Kong Housing Society[1] launched its Urban Improvement Scheme to redevelop
properties with fragmented or absentee ownership and rehouse the affected residents
in the same locality.

Urban regeneration in Hong Kong in the 1990s

Nonetheless, the government intervention in urban regeneration in the 1970s and
1980s was rather ad hoc and patchy (Ng, 1998). As inspired by the British and
American experience, developmental partnership between the public and private
sectors was commonplace in Hong Kong in the later 1980s. The Land Development
Corporation (LDC) was established in 1988 to facilitate private sector participation
and to speed up urban regeneration. The LDC was an independent statutory body To rehabilitate
responsible for the site assembly of redevelopment projects. After the acquisition of or redevelop?
land, the LDC worked with private developers to plan and develop the sites. Strictly
speaking, the LDC was operated under prudent commercial principles (Adams and
Hastings, 2000). However, it lacked direct resumption power so it relied on private
negotiations to acquire properties (Kam et al., 2004). By mid-1996, only ten
redevelopment projects were completed by the LDC (Adams and Hastings, 2000). 275
Given the difficulties in urban regeneration, the government launched a public
consultation on the strategy of urban renewal in Hong Kong in 1995. In the policy
statement on urban renewal in Hong Kong released in 1996, the government proposed
to transform the LDC into an URA which would be equipped with statutory power to
purchase land for redevelopment in the public interest (Planning, Environment and
Lands Branch, 1996). Besides, the government realized that proper repair and
maintenance could extend the serviceable lives of buildings, and thus relax the urgency
for redevelopment. To achieve this, the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch
(1996) proposed to offer incentives to the building owners for carrying out building
improvement works to their buildings. In other words, the government started
advocating building rehabilitation, in parallel with the redevelopment programmes.
In fact, the Hong Kong government was behind its Western counterparts in
recognizing the importance of building rehabilitation. In the 1970s, many European
countries replaced massive redevelopments by area-based gradual renewal with a
great emphasis placed on rehabilitation (Wood, 1991). It was because the destructive
social impacts of massive slum clearance were recognized by public administrators in
these countries that “cautious regeneration” (Elander, 1995) began to be advocated.

Urban regeneration in Hong Kong from 2000 onwards

After the handover, the new Hong Kong government developed a new urban renewal
strategy in 1999. In the strategy, a two-pronged approach which, included
redevelopment and rehabilitation was adopted to tackle the urban regeneration
problem in the territory. The Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (Chapter 563 of the
Laws of Hong Kong) was enacted in 2000 and the URA was finally established in May
2001. The URA works through a holistic “4Rs” strategy, comprising Redevelopment,
Rehabilitation, Reservation and Revitalisation[2]. By this strategy, the scope of work of
the URA is much broader than that of the LDC (Kam et al., 2004). In addition, a
“people-centred” approach was adopted to implement the urban regeneration policy.

Redevelopment vs building rehabilitation

The owners of a building, facing obsolescence, need to decide whether to rehabilitate the
building or to tear it down and redevelop the site. That is why the built environment is “a
product of an incremental decision-making process” (Bryson, 1997, p. 1443). Generally
speaking, building redevelopment allows an opportunity to eliminate substandard
buildings, incompatible land uses and environmental nuisances (Thomas, 1977). Also,
through comprehensive redevelopment, the land lots can be realigned or rearranged to
fully exploit the development potential of a site. Owing to the extremely high land price
in Hong Kong, therefore, redevelopment is often an attractive economic proposition.
In addition, open space and community facilities such as libraries and sports centres can
be provided in the redevelopment sites. So, the surrounding neighbourhoods of the sites
JPMD are also benefited. Although redevelopment inevitably involves dislocation of people,
1,3 moving people from one place to another by means of redevelopment could have
beneficial effects to the community (Sigsworth and Wilkinson, 1967). For example,
through resolving the problems related to social segregation.
On the other hand, Jacobs (1961) placed an immense emphasis on the importance of
the social function of cities. In her opinion, social life should be revived, rather than
276 suffocated, by urban regeneration. Nevertheless, redevelopment projects, be they
small-scale in-fill redevelopments or large-scale comprehensive ones, unavoidably
displace the original residents and thus destroy the social network in most cases.
In particular, those low-incomers and other deprived groups are often expelled from the
redevelopment areas (Rothenberg, 1969). Apart from the residents, businesses are also
displaced (Thomas, 1977). Homelessness and unemployment sometimes result from
this displacement. For this reason, Needleman (1966) was in favour of building
rehabilitation because it caused less social disturbance. Besides, building rehabilitation
is a cheaper and quicker option to improve the quality of the building stock. It is
particularly true in Hong Kong in view of the lengthy land assembly process.
Moreover, building rehabilitation is regarded as a more sustainable or environmental
friendly approach to urban regeneration. Compared with redevelopment, rehabilitation
generates less construction and demolition waste. In consideration of the limited
capacity of the public landfill in Hong Kong, the speed of dilapidation would probably
exceed the capability of the landfill to absorb this volume of redevelopment.

A multi-criteria decision-making framework for urban regeneration

projects
In the discussions above, different approaches to urban regeneration have been clearly
presented. Physical improvement is, in most cases, a necessary element of a successful
regeneration project (Jeffrey and Pounder, 2000), but, on its own, not sufficient.
The planning of any project should truly reflect the circumstances and requirements of the
city or area in which the project is located from a wider perspective (Hausner, 1993).
A sustainable regeneration scheme should therefore endeavour to lessen social exclusion
and boost the economic reintegration of disadvantaged urban areas (McGregor and
McConnachie, 1995; Andersen, 2003). In some cases, urban regeneration should also
contribute to the conservation of structures of architectural merit and significant historical
value ( Jim, 1994). With a view to the protection of the Earth’s resources for future
generations, environmental issues such as material salvage and pollution creation have to
be taken into account.
It is quite clear that urban regeneration is a very complex project and one which can
have long-term impact upon society. Therefore, the conception and planning of such
projects warrants due care. For example, while urban regeneration can eliminate socially
unwelcome activities from an area, it can also displace the worse-off minorities in the
neighbourhoods through the gentrification process (DeFilippis, 2007). In other words,
a poorly planned urban regeneration project can be a source of social conflict. On this
account, it is thus valuable to develop a decision-making tool or model to facilitate the
project planning process. As suggested by Walker (2002), considerations to be taken into
account in an early stage of a building project are political, legal, economic, institutional,
sociological and technical. When planning an urban regeneration project, the social,
economic, environmental and traffic impacts imposed by the project are key issues in the
agenda (Ng et al., 2001). Goodchild (1997) added that building conditions and the degree To rehabilitate
of urgency for the realization of the project also determined the choice of regeneration
strategy.
or redevelop?
Through the consolidation and adaptation of the ideas from these previous studies
to the situation in Hong Kong, a 4 £ 4 decision criterion matrix, as shown in Figure 1,
was devised for an urban regeneration project. At the top of the hierarchy is the goal of
the decision matrix, which is the achievement of sustainability in the urban 277
regeneration project. To achieve this goal, a scheme or proposal for the project is
evaluated based on 16 criteria which are grouped under four categories, namely
“Economic”, “Environmental”, “Physical” and “Social”. These decision criteria were
found from the extant literature search. The descriptions of the criteria are detailed in
Table I, as well as references to the literature they have been developed from.
Although the 16 decision-making criteria in the matrix are regarded as important
concerns in an urban regeneration project, people may have different perceptions
towards their relative importance. This divergence in personal views is perhaps one of
the major sources of disputes over urban regeneration projects in contemporary Hong
Kong. In this light, this study aims to investigate whether such a difference exists in the
perceptions of the different groups of stakeholders, building surveyors and town
planners.

Methodology and data

Determination of relative importance or weights of decision-making criteria can be
achieved through a list of methods. Among the methods, direct assignment of
weightings by the decision-makers is certainly the simplest one. This approach can be
facilitated with the use of checklists. In spite of its simplicity for implementation,

Sustainable
Urban Regeneration

Economic Environmental Physical Social

Preservation of
Creation of
Economic return Amenities historical and
public spaces
cultural integrity

Initial project Traffic impacts Accessibility Social disturbance

cost

Recurrent cost Construction and Structural conditions Welfare and

demolition wastes community facilities

Figure 1.
A 4 £ 4 decision criterion
Impacts on visual
Elimination of matrix for an urban
Job creation quality and micro- Architectural merit
unwelcome uses regeneration project
climate
 1,3

278

Table I.
JPMD

decision criteria
Descriptions of the
Category Criterion Description Relevant literature

Economic Economic return The economic benefits generated by the project Winder (1986); Khaki et al. (1999); Balchin et al. (2000)
Initial project cost The initial cost of the project Balchin et al. (2000); Lee et al. (2003)
Recurrent cost The recurrent cost for the upkeep of the redeveloped or Needleman (1969); Schaaf (1969); Hunt and Rogers (2005)
rehabilitated built environment
Job creation The number of job positions created or destroyed by the McGregor and McConnachie (1995); Zielenback (2000)
project
Environmental Creation of public The area of public spaces such as parks, squares Ng et al. (2001); Randolph and Judd (2000)
spaces walkways and other open spaces created or diminished
by the project
Traffic impacts The degree of relaxation or aggravation of the traffic Ng et al. (2001)
congestion in the area
Construction and The amount of construction and demolition wastes Itard and Gerda (2007)
demolition wastes created in the project
Impacts on visual quality The impacts of the project on the visual quality, air Jim (1994); Hunt et al. (2008)
and micro-climate ventilation and urban island effects on the
neighbourhoods
Physical Amenities Whether the basic amenities such as independent Mukhija (2001)
kitchens and lavatories are provided in the buildings
concerned
Accessibility The degree of improvement of the accessibility of the Davis (1991); Brownill and Darke (1998)
place and building by the disabled and elderly
Structural conditions The expected remaining lives and intended serviceable Matthews et al. (2003); Zavadskas and Antucheviciene
lives of the existing structures (2006)
Architectural merit The architectural merit of the buildings or the place Brooks et al. (1997); Ng et al. (2001)
Social Preservation of historical Whether the historical and cultural fabrics of the place Bassett (1993)
and cultural integrity are preserved in the project
Social disturbance The social impacts such as disturbance of community Rothenberg (1969); Khaki et al. (1999); Ng et al. (2001)
network and displacement of the minorities brought
about by the project
Welfare and community The provision or extinguishment of welfare and Roberts (2000); Zielenback (2000)
facilities community facilities such as community centres and
public libraries are caused by the project
Elimination of unwelcome Whether the project helps wipe out unwelcome practices Goodchild (1997); Raco (2003)
uses such as prostitution in the area
direct weighing is always criticized for the inconsistent results generated. At the other To rehabilitate
extreme, the multi-attribute utility model (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1947; or redevelop?
Savage, 1954), can minimize the subjectivity that tends to dominate the weight
determination process and which can also increase transparency (Shen et al., 1998).
Even in its simplest version, nonetheless, the weighting determination process using a
multi-attribute utility model is very complicated to operate. The operation of the
multi-attribute utility model is highly time-consuming and costly. In addition, the use 279
of advanced mathematical equations in this approach limits its application to a small
group of specialists.

The non-structural fuzzy decision support system (NSFDSS)

To strike a balance between the creditability of the results and practicability of the
method, the NSFDSS was adopted in this study to determine the relative importance of
the criteria in the decision-making model. The working principles of the NSFDSS are
very similar to those of the well-known analytic hierarchy process (AHP) developed by
Saaty (1980). They comprise decomposition, comparative judgment and synthesis of
priorities (Tam et al., 2002; Ho et al., 2004). Decomposition means the breakdown of the
problem (or the goal) into different levels of independent elements, with an increasing
degree of specificity. By means of comparative judgment or pair-wise comparison, the
relative importance of each decision criterion is compared with others in the same level.
Similar to the AHP, checking of the internal consistency of the results of each respondent
is allowed in the NSFDSS, ensuring the rationalization of the final decision. This benefit
does not result from statistical approaches like regression analysis. Finally, the relative
importance of the attributes is synthesized with reference to the goal.
In spite of the similarities between the AHP and NSFDSS, the latter is preferable to
the former because pair-wise comparison can be more straightforward and convenient
in the NSFDSS. In addition, 21 semantic operators are used in the NSFDSS for priority
ordering to measure difference in the magnitudes of the first ordered decision and
others while there are only 17 semantic operators in the AHP. In other words, the
NSFDSS can generate more precise ordering of the decision criteria. Accordingly,
the NSFDSS is chosen for this study for analyzing professional judgments and
generating the set of relative importance of various decision criteria. The working flow
of the NSFDSS is illustrated in Figure 2.
In the process of pair-wise comparison, each pair of decision criteria under the same
category or each pair of categories are compared with reference to their relative
importance to the goal. The exercise can be facilitated using an input matrix, which is
illustrated in Table II. Following the method used by Tam et al. (2002), the decision-makers
can choose one out of the three output values, namely 0, 0.5 and 1, for each pair-wise
comparison. For example, an output value of 1 is assigned when the “Economic” category
(the column element) is perceived as more important than the “Environmental” category
(the row element). A value of 0 is used when the “Environmental” category is perceived
less important than the “Social” category. When the “Economic” and “Social” categories
are perceived as equally important, a value of 0.5 is allotted.
After the completion of each input matrix, the internal consistency of the inputs can be
checked. As shown in Figure 1, the decision criterion matrix is a 4 £ 4 one so the number
of decision elements to be considered in each level is always four in this case. Therefore, the
matrix of pair-wise comparison of the goal or corresponding decision category is:
JPMD Identification of
1,3 the problem

Breakdown of the problem into

independent elements for decision making

280 Group the elements under respective decision criteria to form

a hierarchy of decision elements

Collection of data (through interview)

Generation of comparison
Generation of comparison
matrices for all elements under
matrices for decision criteria
each decision-making criterion

Consistency checking and

modification of all matrices

No Are all matrices

consistent?

Yes
Formulation of consistent output matrix

Priority ordering of each element

Assignment of percentile to each element and decision criterion

Construction of the contribution matrix with the final priority of the elements
Figure 2.
Work flow of the
non-structural fuzzy Solution to the problem
decision support system
Source: Ho et al. (2004, p. 103)

Input value
Element Economic Environmental Physical Social

Table II. Economic 0.5 1 1 0.5

An example of input Environmental – 0.5 1 0
matrix for pair-wise Physical – – 0.5 0
comparison Social – – – 0.5
 2 3
a11 a12 a13 a14 To rehabilitate
6 7 or redevelop?
6 a21 a22 a23 a24 7 x ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
6 7
A6 7 ¼ ðaxy Þ for ð1Þ
6 a31 a32 a33 a34 7 y ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
4 5
a41 a42 a43 a44
281
where axy is the logical indicator of pair-wise comparison with decision elements x and y.
The matrix of pair-wise comparison, which is a square matrix, can be completed using the
input matrix although the latter comprises only the upper triangle. The lower triangle is
obtained by subtracting the transposed upper triangle from 1. The check of internal
consistency is done by identifying the case of intransitivity (e.g. a12 . a13 but a23 , a24).
In case of intransitivity, the decision-maker will be asked to revise his or her input values in
the input matrix concerned.
The next step is to prioritize the decision categories and criteria according to the
results of the pair-wise comparison. For the pair-wise comparison matrix of the goal or
a particular decision category Cn, the values in each row are summed up, as shown in
Table III, and rearranged in descending order of magnitude. Based on the priority
order, a percentile is assigned to each decision category under the goal, or each decision
criterion under Cn. The top element is assigned with 100 percent, while the remaining
elements are compared to it one by one to distinguish the relative importance between
them. Each percentile is assigned a semantic score sm in the range of [1, 0.5], with
1 meaning “same importance” and 0.5 meaning “not important”, as shown in Table IV.
Then, the semantic score is converted into a priority score rm in the range of [1,0] by
applying fuzzy set theory through the following equation:
1 2 sm
rm ¼ ; 0:5 # sm # 1 ð2Þ
sm
Subsequently, the localized weights of the decision categories and criteria can be
calculated by normalizing the priority scores in the same level, as demonstrated in
Table V. Finally, a contribution matrix can be constructed to show the global weights
of the decision criteria. The global weight of a particular decision criterion m, which
comes under category n in the decision criterion matrix, with respect to the goal is
given by the multiplication of localized weight of criterion m and the localized weight
of category n.

Structured questionnaire survey and the respondents

To facilitate the collation of views from the experts, a structured questionnaire is designed
and used. The questionnaire comprises three parts, including the particulars of the

Input value
Element Economic Environmental Physical Social Row sum

Economic 0.5 1 1 0.5 3

Environmental 0 0.5 1 0 1.5 Table III.
Physical 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 An example of
Social 0.5 1 1 0.5 3 priority ordering
JPMD
Percentile (percent) Semantic score, sn Priority score, rn
1,3
100 0.500 1.000
95 0.525 0.905
90 0.550 0.828
85 0.575 0.739
282 80 0.600 0.667
75 0.625 0.600
70 0.650 0.538
65 0.675 0.491
60 0.700 0.429
55 0.725 0.379
50 0.750 0.333
45 0.775 0.290
40 0.800 0.250
35 0.825 0.212
30 0.850 0.176
25 0.875 0.143
20 0.900 0.111
15 0.925 0.081
Table IV. 10 0.950 0.053
Table for conversion 5 0.975 0.026
between percentile, 0 1.000 0.000
semantic score and
priority score Source: Ho et al. (2004, p. 105)

Element Percentile (percent) sn rn Normalization Weighting, wn

Table V. Economic 100 0.500 1.000 1.000/2.812 0.3556

An example of priority Social 100 0.500 1.000 1.000/2.812 0.3556
score assignment for Environmental 75 0.625 0.600 0.600/2.812 0.2134
calculating localized Physical 35 0.825 0.212 0.212/2.812 0.0754
weightings Total 2.812 1.0000

respondent, an input matrix for priority ordering and the assignment of priority scores
after priority ordering. The questionnaire survey was conducted in the setting of
workshops, where the respondents were first notified of the background and objectives of
the survey. They were then given instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. In
order to ensure a common understanding of the decision categories and criteria to be
weighed by the respondents, key terms used in the questionnaire were clearly explained
and the respondents are allowed to ask questions to iron out any ambiguities. This is an
indispensable process facilitated by a workshop setting to guarantee consistent
interpretations of the terminology so that the results can be analyzed in a meaningful way.
In this study, the perceptions of practising building surveyors and town
planners of the relative importance of the decision criteria for a sustainable urban
regeneration project were explored. These two tribes of professionals were chosen for
investigation because they both take important roles in the process of urban
regeneration in Hong Kong while they may have different foci in the process due to the
dissimilarities in their professional training and practices. Building surveyors are
widely recognized as the “doctors of buildings” (The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, To rehabilitate
2007). The expertise of building surveyors includes project planning, design and or redevelop?
management, building management and maintenance, building survey and safety
inspection, facility management, and disputes resolution. Above all, the survey and
maintenance of buildings are the core practices of building surveyors in Hong Kong. In
the process of urban regeneration, building surveyors are involved in surveying the
conditions of target buildings, supervising rehabilitation works, and managing 283
redevelopment projects. On the other hand, town planners are conversant with design
of urban areas, land use planning and transport analysis. For a particular development
project, they look at the integration of the development with the neighbourhood and its
impacts on the district from a wider perspective. Therefore, in urban regeneration
projects, the role of town planners is more related to project planning.
Given the dissimilar expertise of these two tribes of professionals, they may hold
different attitudes towards the relative importance of the decision criteria, and thus
towards the choice of redevelopment and rehabilitation in an urban regeneration project.
The investigation into the disparity in views can give the local authority administrating
urban regeneration invaluable insights into the decision-making process. If divergent
visions are evidenced by the study, there is a strong proposition that people of different
professions should be involved in the decision-making process for urban regeneration to
achieve a balanced view. For the empirical investigation, 34 building surveyors and
31 town planners were surveyed between April and June 2007. As shown in Table VI,
a few more respondents came from the public sector (e.g. the URA, Buildings
Department, Architectural Services Department and Planning Department).

Survey findings
The aggregate weight of each decision category or criterion is given by the simple
average of the weights of this category or criterion perceived by all the surveyed
professionals of the same type. The aggregate weights of the decision criteria perceived
by the surveyed building surveyors and town planners are summarized in Figure 3,
and Tables VII and VIII. It is indicated that in the eyes of building surveyors,
structural conditions of the subject buildings were considered as the most imperative
factors of considerations in an urban regeneration decision making, followed by the
economic return of the project and the basic amenities provided in the subject
buildings. On the other hand, town planners regarded the impacts of the project on the
visual quality and micro-climate of the neighbourhoods as the most important decision
criteria, with social disturbance and creation of public spaces by the project being the
second and the third, respectively. When the decision categories are concerned,
building surveyors weighed “Physical” and “Economic” considerations more while
town planners leaned more towards “Environmental” and “Social” aspects.

Public sector Private sector

Profession Number Percentage (percent) Number Percentage (percent) Total number

Building surveyor 18 52.9 16 47.1 34 Table VI.

Town planner 17 54.8 14 45.2 31 Distribution
Overall 35 53.8 30 46.2 65 of respondents
 1,3

284
JPMD

Figure 3.

16 decision criteria
The weightings of the
Economic Return 15.53%
8.66%
Initial Project Cost 5.18%
2.89%
Recurrent Cost 9.32%
2.89%

ECONOMIC
Job Creation 0.40%
0.96%
Creation of Public Spaces 6.46%
11.01%
Traffic Impacts 2.29%
8.07%
Construction and Demolition Wastes 3.38%
3.36%
Impacts on Visual Quality and Micro-climate 7.89%

ENVIRONMENTAL
13.46%
Amenities 13.52%
9.75%
Accessibility 3.88%
3.25%
Structural Conditions 18.29%
5.25%

PHYSICAL
Architectural Merit 1.48%
1.08%
Preservation of Historical and Cultural Integrity 3.28%
6.23%
Social Disturbance 4.92%
12.94%
Welfare and Community Facilities 3.64%

SOCIAL
6.97% Building Surveyors
Elimination of Unwelcome Uses 0.55% Town Planners
3.24%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
From the above, it seems that building surveyors thought quite differently than town To rehabilitate
planners in respect of the weightings of the decision criteria. To confirm this assertion, or redevelop?
the Spearman’s rank correlation test was conducted on the two sets of criterion
weightings given by building surveyors and town planners. The correlation coefficient
returned from the test was 0.45. Nonetheless, the null hypothesis that there was no
relationship between the rankings in terms of perceived relative importance of the two
sets of decision criteria was not rejected at the 5 percent level. In other words, the set of 285
perceived weightings of the decision criteria obtained from building surveyors was
quite different from that from town planners.

Implications of the findings and discussions

Implications of the results
The results of this study bear far-reaching policy implications on urban regeneration in
Hong Kong. Plenty of research has been dedicated to the influence of professional
backgrounds on attitudes and work value (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Olson et al., 2001,
Hobman and Bordia, 2006). It is well-established that professionals from different
backgrounds are informationally dissimilar because they have different skills, knowledge
bases, abilities and perspectives. This is a reflection of social categorization of people.

Building surveyor Town planner

Category Weighting (percent) Rank Weighting (percent) Rank

Economic 30.42 2 15.39 4

Environmental 20.02 3 35.90 1 Table VII.
Physical 37.18 1 19.33 3 Weightings and rankings
Social 12.39 4 29.38 2 of the decision categories

Building surveyor Town planner

Weighting Weighting
Criterion (percent) Rank (percent) Rank

Economic return 15.53 2 8.66 5

Initial project cost 5.18 7 2.89 13
Recurrent cost 9.32 4 2.89 13
Job creation 0.40 16 0.96 16
Creation of public spaces 6.46 6 11.01 3
Traffic impacts 2.29 13 8.07 6
Construction and demolition wastes 3.38 11 3.36 10
Impacts on visual quality and micro-climate 7.89 5 13.46 1
Amenities 13.52 3 9.75 4
Accessibility 3.88 9 3.25 11
Structural conditions 18.29 1 5.25 9
Architectural merit 1.48 14 1.08 15
Preservation of historical and cultural integrity 3.28 12 6.23 8
Social disturbance 4.92 8 12.94 2 Table VIII.
Welfare and community facilities 3.64 10 6.97 7 Weightings and rankings
Elimination of unwelcome uses 0.55 15 3.24 12 of the decision criteria
JPMD For example, Lo et al. (2000) investigated the differences in the relative importance of
1,3 various factors contributing to fire safety of a building perceived by building surveyors
and building services engineers in Hong Kong. Their study concluded that professional
background matters in the priority setting exercise. Yet, none of these previous studies
have investigated the influence of professional background on the decision-making in
urban regeneration. The empirical findings of this study suggested that building
286 surveyors and town planners have different perceptions towards the relative importance
of decision criteria for urban regeneration, echoing the supposition of Lo and others.
In the organizational hierarchy of the URA, the Planning, Development and
Conservation Committee is responsible for deciding the approach to a particular urban
regeneration project. In 2007, there are eleven members, including the Chairman, in the
Committee. While two members come from town planning profession, it is surprising
that no building surveyors sit in the committee (Urban Renewal Authority, 2007).
Thus, during the decision-making process, the committee probably inclines towards
the environmental and social considerations, leading to imbalanced visions in the
projects. In the K28 project, the retail operators opposed the redevelopment proposal
with two major arguments. First, the buildings involved in the project have not reached
the end of their serviceable lives, and were thus repairable. Second, from an economic
view point, redevelopment could result in tremendous losses of business and jobs.
However, it seems that due to the composition of the members in the Planning,
Development and Conservation Committee, the attentions to these physical and
economic concerns were under-paid. This may have adversely affected the
acceptability of the decisions made by the committee, and created a source of
disputes. Therefore, a balanced and fair mix of members should be observed in the
constitution of the decision-making group.

Problems and recommendations

Serving as a preliminary investigation of the differences in the perceived criterion
weightings between professionals, this study only targeted building surveyors and
town planners. Nonetheless, many other professionals are involved in urban
regeneration in Hong Kong, including architects, engineers and housing managers. It is
meaningful to have a more comprehensive comparison between the sentiments of all
these professionals. Other than these building- or planning-related professionals, the
views from environmentalists, economists, socialists, lawyers, experts specialized in
other aspects and even laymen can be collated and included.
Another possible limitation of this study is the generalisability of the results to
other cities. Since urban areas are complex and dynamic systems, urban regeneration
is a response to the opportunities and challenges which are manifested by urban decay
in a particular place at a specific moment in time (Robson, 1988; Roberts, 2000). In other
words, solutions attempted previously may have little relevance to the contemporary
circumstances, or they are only germane to a particular city or district. As a result, the
approaches to the problems of urban degradation change dynamically with place and
time. Therefore, people in different cities may weigh various decision criteria
differently. Besides, even in the same city, people’s weighting of the decision criteria
may change from one project to another. In this climate, it is valuable to further
investigate whether the weighting set is project-specific, time-specific and/or
location-specific.
Potential application of the decision-making framework To rehabilitate
In spite of the limitations referred to above, the decision-making framework developed or redevelop?
in this study has potential for practical application. For each decision criterion, a
number of indicators can be chosen so that options for urban regeneration can be
assessed or rated with reference to that particular criterion. With the availability of a
set of criterion weightings, an overall rating will be given after all the 16 criteria are
assessed. The best option can then be determined through the comparison between of 287
the ratings of different options. Moreover, it is possible for urban regeneration
managers to use the decision-making framework as a planning and design tool.
Regeneration proposal can be assessed, and refinements to the proposal can be made in
order to achieve a higher rating for the regeneration project subject to time, budgetary
and other practical constraints.

Conclusions
At its very heart, sustainable development is a compromise between the environmental,
social and economic objectives of a community. That means a sustainable urban
regeneration project should take into consideration the interplay between physical,
social, environmental and economic issues. Owing to its multi-disciplinary objectives,
different professionals are involved in the process of urban regeneration. However,
as suggested by the empirical findings of this study, professionals with different
backgrounds possessed divergent views towards the relative importance of the decision
criteria. This case is perhaps one of the major roots of the disputes over urban
regeneration projects in contemporary society.
Given that urban regeneration is a complex process with long-term impacts
upon society, vigilant consideration to the decision-making process must be taken. The
results of this study highlight why there is a need to have a balanced mix of
decision-makers in urban regeneration. Using the framework developed in this paper
may offer a way of facilitating community involvement in the urban regeneration
process, which is currently strongly advocated in Hong Kong. Moreover, the
multi-criteria decision-making model developed in this study is not only suitable for
deciding whether redevelopment or rehabilitation should be adopted; it is also useful
for evaluating different schemes of urban regeneration. Yet, we are conscious of
the universal applicability of the model. Therefore, further examinations are
recommended.

Notes
1. The Hong Kong Housing Society is a non-profit-making housing organization established in
1948. The primary vision of the society is to serve the needs of the Hong Kong community in
housing and related services. To this end, the society has offered low-cost rental housing,
subsidized housing for sale, and in-cash subsidies for home purchase. Since 2003, it has
actively participated in the building rehabilitation and redevelopment in old districts in
Hong Kong.
2. Redevelopment means complete reconstruction on a site after demolition of the existing
buildings, while rehabilitation refers to any efforts for repairing, improving and upgrading
buildings to meet the current standards. Preservation aims to conserve buildings of special
interest which can be historical, cultural or architectural. As for revitalisation, it is a process
to improve local infrastructures and urban environment with view to revival and
strengthening of the economic and environmental fabrics in a district.
JPMD References
1,3 Adams, D. and Hastings, E.M. (2000), Urban Renewal in Hong Kong: The Record of the Land
Development Corporation, RICS Research Foundation, London.
Adams, D. and Hastings, E.M. (2001), “Assessing institutional relations in development
partnerships: the land development corporation and the Hong Kong government prior to
1997”, Urban Studies, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1473-92.
288 Andersen, H.S. (2003), Urban Sores: on the Interaction Between Segregation, Urban Decay and
Deprived Neighbourhoods, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Badcock, F.M. (1932), The Valuation of Real Estate, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Balchin, P.N., Isaac, D. and Chen, J. (2000), Urban Economics: a Global Perspective, Palgrave,
New York, NY.
Bantel, K.A. and Jackson, S.E. (1989), “Top management and innovation in banking: does the
composition of the top team make a difference”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 107-24.
Bassett, K. (1993), “Urban cultural strategies and urban regeneration: a case study and critique”,
Environment & Planning A, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1772-88.
Brooks, C., Cheshire, P., Evans, A. and Stabler, M. (1997), “The economic and social value of the
conservation of historical buildings and areas: economics of conservation”, in Brandon, P.S.,
Lombardi, P.L. and Bentivegna, V. (Eds), Evaluation of the Built Environment for
Sustainability, E & FN Spon, London, pp. 276-94.
Brownill, S. and Darke, J. (1998), Rich Mix: Inclusive Strategies for Urban Regeneration,
Policy Press, Bristol.
Bryson, J.R. (1997), “Obsolescence and the process of creative reconstruction”, Urban Studies,
Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1439-58.
But, C. (2007), “Legislator suggests a compromise on the redevelopment of sneaker street”,
South China Morning Post, 19 March, p. 3.
Chadwick, O. (1882), Report on the Sanitation of Hong Kong, Government Printer, Hong Kong.
Couch, C. (1990), Urban Renewal: Theory and Practice, Macmillan, London.
Cuthbert, A.R. and Dimitriou, H.T. (1992), “Redeveloping the fifth quarter – a case study of
redevelopment in Hong Kong”, Cities, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 186-204.
Davis, J.E. (1991), Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
DeFilippis, J. (2007), “Erasing the community in order to save it? Reconstructing community and
property in community development”, in Beider, H. (Ed.), Neighbourhood Renewal and
Housing Market: Community Engagement in the US and UK, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 271-89.
Dumouchel, J.R. (1975), Dictionary of Development Terminology, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Elander, I. (1995), “Policy networks and housing regeneration in England and Sweden”,
Urban Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 913-34.
Fong, P.K.W. (1985), “Issues in urban development: the land development corporation”,
Built Environment, Vol. 11, pp. 283-93.
Goodchild, B. (1997), Housing and the Urban Environment: A Guide to Housing Design, Renewal,
and Urban Planning, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Hausner, V.A. (1993), “The future of urban development”, Royal Society of Arts Journal, Vol. 141,
pp. 523-33.
Ho, D.C.W, Tam, C.M. and Tiu, C.Y. (2004), “Criteria and weighting of a value age index for To rehabilitate
residential use”, in Leung, A.Y.T. and Yiu, C.Y. (Eds), Building Dilapidation and
Rejuvenation in Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Institute of or redevelop?
Surveyors, Hong Kong, pp. 97-112.
Hobman, E.V. and Bordia, P. (2006), “The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflict
relationship”, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 483-507.
(The) Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2007), Annual Report 2005/2006, The Hong Kong 289
Institute of Surveyors, Hong Kong.
Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau (2005), Public Consultation on Mandatory Building
Inspection, Hong Kong.
Hunt, D.V. and Rogers, C.D.F. (2005), “Barriers to sustainable infrastructure in urban
regeneration”, Engineering Sustainability, Vol. 159 No. 4, pp. 67-81.
Hunt, D.V., Lombardi, D.R., Rogers, C.D. and Jefferson, I. (2008), “Application of sustainability
indicators in decision-making processes for urban regeneration projects”, Engineering
Sustainability, Vol. 161 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Itard, L. and Gerda, K. (2007), “Comparing environmental impacts of renovated housing stock
with new construction”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 252-67.
Jacobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage, New York, NY.
Jeffrey, P. and Pounder, J. (2000), “Physical and environmental aspects”, in Roberts, P. and Skyes, H.
(Eds), Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, Sage, London, pp. 86-108.
Jim, C.Y. (1994), “Urban renewal and environmental planning”, The Environmentalists, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 163-81.
K’Akumu, O.A. (2007), “Sustain no city: an ecological conceptualization or urban development”,
City, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 221-8.
Kam, P.K., Ng, S.H. and Ho, C.C.K. (2004), “Urban renewal in Hong Kong – historical
development and current issues”, in Leung, A.Y.T. and Yiu, C.Y. (Eds), Building
Dilapidation and Rejuvenation in Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong and the
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Hong Kong, pp. 97-112.
Khaki, A., Somma, P. and Thomas, H. (1999), Urban Renewal, Ethnicity and Social Exclusion in
Europe, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Lai, C. (2007a), “Lawmakers condemn urban renewal authority over woes of development”,
South China Morning Post, 27 June, p. 3.
Lai, C. (2007b), “Small traders vow to fight urban renewal plan”, South China Morning Post,
17 January, p. 3.
Lee, C.M., Lee, J.H. and Yim, C.H. (2003), “A revenue-sharing model of residential redevelopment
projects: the case of the Hapdong redevelopment scheme in Seoul”, Korea, Urban Studies,
Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 2223-37.
Lo, S.M., Lam, K.C. and Yuen, R.K.K. (2000), “Views of building surveyors and building services
engineers on priority setting of fire safety attributes for building maintenance”, Facilities,
Vol. 18 Nos 13/14, pp. 513-23.
McGregor, A. and McConnachie, M. (1995), “Social exclusion, urban regeneration and economic
reintegration”, Urban Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1587-600.
Matthews, S., Murray, M., Boxall, J., Bassi, R. and Morlidge, J. (2003), “Maintenance of concrete
buildings and structures”, in Watt, D.S. (Ed.), Concrete: Building Pathology, Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 191-240.
JPMD Mukhija, V. (2001), “Upgrading housing settlements in developing countries: the impact of
existing physical conditions”, Cities, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 213-22.
1,3
Needleman, L. (1966), The Economics of Housing, Staples Press, London.
Needleman, L. (1969), “The comparative economics of improvement and new building”,
Urban Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 196-209.
Ng, I. (1998), “Urban redevelopment in Hong Kong: the partnership experience”, International
290 Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 414-20.
Ng, I. (2003), “Community approach: is a solution to age-old problem of urban renewal in
Hong Kong”, International Journal for Housing Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Ng, I. (2002a), “Urban redevelopment in Hong Kong: an examination of the land development
corporation”, International Journal of Housing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 113-22.
Ng, M.K. (2002b), “Property-led urban renewal in Hong Kong: any place for the community”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 140-6.
Ng, M.K., Cook, A. and Chui, E.W.T. (2001), “The road not travelled: a sustainable urban
regeneration strategy for Hong Kong”, Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 171-83.
Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C., Ruekert, R.W. and Bonner, J.M. (2001), “Patterns of cooperation during
new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: implications for project
performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, pp. 259-71.
Planning and Lands Bureau (2001), Urban Renewal Strategy – Consultation Paper, Planning and
Lands Bureau, Hong Kong.
Planning, Environment and Lands Branch (1996), Urban Renewal in Hong Kong, Planning,
Environment and Lands Branch, Hong Kong.
Prasad, D.R. (Ed.) (1989), Urban Renewal: The Indian Experience, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi.
Raco, M. (2003), “Remaking place and securitising space: urban regeneration and the strategies,
tactics and practices of policing in the UK”, Urban Studies, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 1869-87.
Randolph, B. and Judd, B. (2000), “Community renewal and large public housing”, Urban Policy
and Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
Roberts, P. (2000), “The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration”, in Roberts, P.
and Skyes, H. (Eds), Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, SAGE, London, pp. 9-36.
Robson, B. (1988), Those Inner Cities, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Rothenberg, J. (1969), Economic Evaluation of Urban Renewal: Conceptual Foundation of
Benefit-cost Analysis, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Savage, L.J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York, NY.
Schaaf, A.H. (1969), “Economic feasibility analysis for urban renewal housing rehabilitation”,
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 399-404.
Shen, Q., Lo, K.K. and Wang, Q. (1998), “Priority setting in maintenance: a modified
multi-attribute approach using analytical hierarchy process”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 693-702.
Sigsworth, E.M. and Wilkinson, R.K. (1967), “Rebuilding or renovation”, Urban Studies, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 109-21.
So, U. and Cheung, V. (2007), “Battle lines drawn on central site”, South China Morning Post,
Vol. 2007, 18 October, p. 2.
Tam, C.M., Tong, T.K.L., Chiu, G.C. and Fung, I.W.H. (2002), “Non-structural fuzzy decision To rehabilitate
support system for evaluation of construction safety management system”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 303-13. or redevelop?
Thomas, K. (1977), “The impact of renewal on small firms”, The Planner, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 48-9.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947), Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Urban Renewal Authority (2007), Annual Report 2006-2007, Urban Renewal Authority, 291
Hong Kong.
Walker, A. (2002), Project Management in Construction, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Winder, R.R. (1986), “Physical renewal of the industrial city”, Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, Vol. 488, pp. 47-57.
Wood, C. (1991), “Urban renewal: the British experience”, in Alterman, R. and Cars, R. (Eds),
Neighbourhood Regeneration: An International Evaluation, Mansell, London, pp. 44-69.
Wu, H. and Lo, C. (2007), “Protesters hold vigil in fight over wedding card street demolition”,
Editorial, South China Morning Post, 7 October, p. 3.
Yeh, A.G.O. (1990), “Public and private partnership in urban redevelopment in Hong Kong”,
3rd World Planning Review, Vol. 12, pp. 361-83.
Zavadskas, E.K. and Antucheviciene, J. (2006), “Development of an indicator model and ranking
of sustainable revitalization alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 287-99.
Zielenback, S. (2000), The Art of Revitalization – Improving Conditions in Distressed Inner-city
Neighbourhoods, Garland, New York, NY.

Further reading
Davies, H. (1998), “Repair methods for tile-clad buildings in Hong Kong”, Structural Survey,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 34-8.
Frewer, R. and Sugden, D. (1979), “Limits and potential”, in Markus, I. (Ed.), Building Conversion
and Rehabilitation, Cox & Wyman, London, pp. 95-119.
Pavlov, A. and Blazenko, G.W. (2005), “The neighbourhood effect of real estate maintenance”,
The Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 327-40.
Pozdena, R.J. (1988), The Modern Economics of Housing: A Guide to Theory and Policy for
Finance and Real Estate Professionals, Quorum Books, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Yung (Simon) Yau can be contacted at y.yau@cityu.edu.hk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.