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

net/publication/263255655

Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings: Differences between

the laymen, professionals and policy makers

Article in Facilities · August 2013

DOI: 10.1108/F-03-2012-0023

CITATIONS READS

20 1,205

2 authors:

Esther Yung Edwin H W Chan

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
30 PUBLICATIONS 1,166 CITATIONS 222 PUBLICATIONS 5,335 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

So cial Considerations in Planning Public Open Space to Integrate Elderly People in Urban Renewal View project

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

All content following this page was uploaded by Edwin H W Chan on 17 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Facilities
Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings: Differences between the laymen, professionals
and policy makers
Esther H.K. Yung Edwin H.W. Chan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Esther H.K. Yung Edwin H.W. Chan, (2013),"Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings", Facilities, Vol. 31 Iss
11/12 pp. 542 - 564
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2012-0023
Downloaded on: 17 October 2016, At: 01:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 912 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2011),"Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings", Structural Survey, Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 411-421 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630801111182439
(2012),"Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme: A case study of the Mei Ho House in Hong Kong",
Property Management, Vol. 30 Iss 2 pp. 176-189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211213415

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:272833 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

F
31,11/12 Evaluation for the conservation of
historic buildings
Differences between the laymen, professionals
542 and policy makers
Esther H.K. Yung and Edwin H.W. Chan
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hung Hom, Hong Kong
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine whether there are significant differences between laymen’s,
professionals’ and policy makers’ evaluations of the conservation of historic buildings.
Design/methodology/approach – The research began with interview surveys using a sample of
laymen and professionals in the built environment and it examined their evaluation standards of a
sample of 25 historic buildings in Hong Kong. The research also used the controversial Queen’s Pier
case to examine the extent to which different preferences of conservation between laymen and
professionals and policy makers has led to its conservation campaign.
Findings – The results indicate that laymen and professional groups evaluate historic buildings
based on slightly different criteria. The research also reveals that their preference for what is worth
conserving is different from policy makers. The debate over the conservation of the Queen’s Pier
illustrates a wide range of issues other than differences of preference that may have stimulated the
campaign.
Research limitations/implications – The sample size of the respondents and the sample
buildings are limited due to manpower resource and funding. Further study can expand the sampling
size.
Originality/value – The study is original research which illustrates the differences between
laymen’s, professionals’ and policy makers’ evaluation criteria and assessment of historic buildings. It
recommends a greater understanding of all stakeholders’ interests in heritage conservation and the
incorporation of the public’s view into legislative and administrative procedures in designating and
listing historic buildings.
Keywords Evaluation, Historic buildings, Laymen, Professionals, Policy makers, Strategic evaluation,
China, Building conservation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Research shows that the public’s and professional’s perceptions of place qualities are
highly variable (Pugalis, 2009) and differences exist between lay people’s and experts’
evaluation of historic sites (Coeterier, 2002). Whether a qualitative or quantitative
approach is used, several fundamental issues concerning the evaluation of the
significance of heritage places are often raised. Whose heritage is it? Who decides what
Facilities is significant? What is the best process? Should the process be transparent? How to
Vol. 31 No. 11/12, 2013
pp. 542-564 derive consensus? These issues are an important area for research.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-03-2012-0023 This study is supported by a research grant provided by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
 On the one hand, evaluation of historic buildings is often regarded as the experts’ Conservation of
realm (Pendlebury and Townshend, 1999) and the general public’s attitude and their historic
contributions to determine what is worth conserving are often not concerned (Coeterier,
2002). On the other hand, there is a growing trend where citizens play a much larger buildings
part in deciding what to conserve. There are ongoing debates on whether designation
by experts is always a good indication of the value of an historical building and site
(Tweed and Sutherland, 2007; Dupagne et al., 2004; Yung and Chan, 2011), particularly 543
in conserving familiar and cherished local scenes (Delafons, 1997; Lamei, 2005).
However, how to strike a balance between the general public, which includes both
laymen and professionals, and policy makers is always a topic of controversy.
Conservation decisions have traditionally been dominated by experts and elites in
Hong Kong (Cheung, 2011). There has been no official mechanism by which the public
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

launches a request for designating a historic building a monument. The public is

neither consulted before or after designation of monuments. In general, the extent of
citizen participation in planning has been poorly rated (Ng, 2005) and is one of the
flaws in urban planning (Fong, 2001). Due to the problem of land scarcity, intense
development pressure and emphasis on economic growth, the conservation of historic
buildings has been extremely difficult. Many of the buildings with significant heritage
value have been demolished. With the growing efforts to understand, appreciate and
assert a local identity in Hong Kong since 1997, heritage conservation has becoming
increasingly an important source of identity (Henderson, 2001). The unprecedented
protests that were voiced over the controversy of the Queen’s Pier, in 2007, have not
only showcased the differences between government policy makers and different
groups of the public regarding evaluation standards of heritage conservation, it has
also highlighted the importance of public preference and the wider socio-economic
issues pertaining to heritage conservation (Henderson, 2008; Lu, 2009).
This paper addresses a very important question: How do ordinary citizens evaluate
the value of historical buildings for conservation when, more often than not, heritage
preservation is controlled and implemented by policy makers and the public is
excluded from this process. This paper underscores the importance of understanding
the public’s perception of what constitutes built heritage as a prerequisite for a better
heritage conservation policy and sustainable urban conservation. It also calls for a
rethinking of the discrepancies between the public and government officials, which is
worthy of further study. As such, this study does not intend to develop an exhaustive
list of criteria for the evaluation of historic buildings, nor obtain a large sample of the
public and different stakeholder groups through the surveys. The case study provides
an overview of the social, economical, environmental and political contexts of heritage
conservation and questions whether it is only the difference in how heritage
conservation is evaluated that leads to the tremendous oppositions in the conservation
campaign.

Aims and objectives

This study aims to address the issues of difference in the evaluation criteria regarding
conservation of historic buildings between the laymen, professionals and policy
makers in a dense city. The objectives of this paper are to:
.
reveal the major differences between laymen’s and professionals’ preferences
regarding conservation of historic buildings;
 F .
illustrate that laymen’s evaluations are a reliable source of reference for
31,11/12 decision-makers;
.
evaluate whether the importance of incorporating the public’s preference
regarding the conservation of historic buildings; and
.
address the major driving forces that may have cumulatively led to the
unprecedented campaign for the conservation of the Queen’s Pier.
544
Literature review
Importance of public’s preference in heritage conservation
Public perception has becoming increasingly important due to evolving shifts in
cultural heritage management. First, the role of heritage in society has moved from
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

representing national identity and generating revenue from visitors to that of

providing wider economic and social benefits and social inclusiveness (Clark, 2001;
Feilden and Jokilehto, 1998; Throsby, 2006). Second, the support for conservation has
increased from an elitist upper-middle-class minority to a grass-root majority (Hobson,
2004). Third, the people’s interpretation of built heritage has shifted from purely
architectural and historical to societal and cultural aspects. Fourth, the lead voices in
the interpretation of built heritage items has shifted from experts who mainly come
from building and archaeology disciplines to facilitators who come from
multi-disciplinary backgrounds (Sirisrisak, 2009; Hobson, 2004; Clark, 2001).
The Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas 1987
(Washington Charter) clearly stated that: “The participation 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 when
community and experts’ values differ (Kerr, 2000b; Pignataro and Rizzo, 1997). The
importance of public preference is reinforced by Townshend and Pendlebury (1999)
who state that public perceptions of conservation are much broader than those set out
in planning legislation and policy. Moreover, heritage by appropriation emerging from
perceptions and interactions between people and the built environment rather than
through organised lobbying arguably reflects the public’s view on cultural built
heritage better than a designation determined by experts’ evaluations (Rautenberg,
1998; Dupagne et al., 2004; Tweed and Sutherland, 2007).

Evaluation of heritage buildings

In regard to evaluation methods, few studies have examined the ways to obtain the
general public’s views on conservation of historic buildings (Tweed et al., 2002; Tweed
and Sutherland, 2007), though some conservationists provide simple assessment
methods for experts to evaluate historical buildings in multi-criteria and decision tree
settings (Kalman, 1980; Federal Heritage Building Review Office, 2008).
The literature indicates that there is no universal set of criteria adopted in
evaluating historic buildings. Table I shows some of the better known value categories
that have been developed and proposed by individuals and the international
conservation organisations for the evaluation of historic buildings. The diversity of
 Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Feilden and Burra Charter Antiquities Antiquities English

Kalman Jokilehto (Australia Monument Office, Monument Office, Throsby Heritage FHBRO
(1980) (1998) ICOMOS, 1999) Kerr (2000a, b) Hong Kong (1976) Hong Kong (2004) (2006, p. 43) (2007) (2008)

Architecture Identity Aesthetic Historical Architectural merit Architectural merit Aesthetic Evidential Historical
History value Historic Historical Historical Group value Spiritual Historical association
Environment Relative Scientific association significance Physical condition Social Aesthetic Architecture
Usability artistic Social Aesthetic Social significance Educational value Historical Communal Environment
Integrity Rarity Social Rarity Display value Symbolic
Economic Technical/ age Authenticity
Functional research Historical
Educational Rarity significance
Social Representativeness Association with
Political Integrity historical event
Availability
Alteration
Maintenance
viability
Note: Most commonly stated criteria are italicised
buildings

buildings
historic

significance of historic
Evaluation criteria for the
545

Table I.
Conservation of
 F criteria being used among different organisations has been heavily influenced by the
31,11/12 economical, social, cultural and political values of the context.

Conservation of historic buildings in Hong Kong

Under the sovereignty of the British colonial government in Hong Kong, from 1841 to
1997, people had little interest in its heritage. The colonial government has only asserted
546 a higher priority on heritage conservation in the years immediately preceding 1997
(Henderson, 2001). The exercising of both zoning and limited land supply as its primary
land use policy has made Hong Kong’s situation unique. It is claimed that Hong Kong’s
economy is too dependent on land and property development (Hopkinson, 2007). This
dependence has provided the incentives for a high-rise and high density built
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

environment. Government has also relied heavily on land sales and land premiums as
major sources of revenue (Brown and Loh, 2002). Escalation of property prices makes
property owners unwilling to sacrifice their profits for heritage conservation.
Since 1997, the Hong Kong people have increasingly strived to establish their own
identity (Henderson, 2001, 2008; Teather and Chow, 2003). The 2008 government policy
statement on heritage conservation recognises the importance of cross-sector
collaboration and the active engagement of stakeholders and the general public in
enhancing conservation that matches different stakeholders’ needs and interests
(Development Bureau, 2008). One of the missions of The Culture and Heritage
Commission, established in 2000, is to foster a sense of belonging and establish a
cultural identity amongst the public (Culture and Heritage Commission, 2002).
The role of heritage conservation has evolved in the last two decades. The need for
social equity in acquiring more social space and more democratic rights, particularly in
city planning and development, is growing (Lu, 2009). Heritage conservation has also
been used as a tool by the community to attack the government’s economic
development model (Lu, 2009). The public consciousness on issues relating to heritage
assets and their protection and conservation has increased, to a large extent, owing to
the conservation of key heritage sites, the younger generation and the local interest
groups, all of whom have a strong influence on policy making (HKIA, 2007; HKIP,
2007).

Designation of historic buildings

The two main government organisations that play a key role in the identification and
evaluation of Hong Kong’s heritage are the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) and the
Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) which were established under the
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in 1976. AMO, which oversees the preservation
of heritage sites throughout Hong Kong, is the executive arm of the Antiquities
Authority, currently the Secretary of the Development. The Authority may, after
consultation with the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) which comprises of experts in
different disciplines selected by the AMO, and with the approval of the Chief
Executive, by notice in the Hong Kong Government Gazette (official publication of
Hong Kong laws, ordinances, and regulations), declare a place, building, site or
structure of outstanding historical, archaeological or paleontological significance to be
a monument for protection. There were 94 declared monuments in Hong Kong as of
June 2010. Monuments once statutorily declared, are strictly prohibited from
demolition; any alteration must have the approval of the AMO.
 Apart from the declared monuments, historic buildings are graded by the Conservation of
Antiquities Advisory Board on an administrative basis. The AAB classifies historic historic
buildings into three categories:
(1) Grade 1: Buildings of outstanding merit. Every effort should be made to
buildings
preserve these if possible.
(2) Grade 2: Buildings of special merit. Efforts should be made to preserve these
selectively. 547
(3) Grade 3: Buildings of some merit. Preservation in some form is desirable, and
alternative means could be considered if preservation is not practicable.

Unlike monuments, with graded historic buildings, demolition and alteration are not
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

prohibited. They have no legal protection. The AAB revealed that 54 out of 607 graded
historic buildings have been demolished. There were also a few instances of grade one
historic buildings demolished in the past. Since the AMO was established, the
government has made conservation decisions in a “black box”, without adequate
transparency and public consultation. Whether the experts’ opinions truly reflect the
preference of the public in Hong Kong was a subject of criticism (Conservancy
Association, 2005; HKIP, 2007). It was not until January 2007 that 496 graded historic
buildings were announced to the public. Before the release of the list, even owners did
not know how their property was graded until an application was made to the
government for redevelopment. Moreover, the government did not announce the
evaluation criteria to the public. Only until the AAB recommended an expert panel to
undertake an in-depth assessment of the heritage value of 1444 historic buildings was
the evaluation criteria published in March, 2009.

Evaluation criteria of historic buildings for declaration and grading

The criteria used by the AMO since 1976 for the designation and the grading exercise
were obtained from official AAB minutes, and a grading form for assessing historic
buildings was obtained during an interview with an AMO official conducted in 2004.
The AAB minutes are reports which assess the heritage significance of historic
buildings. The criteria for assessing the historic buildings as monuments include
architectural merit, historical significance, social significance and rarity. The grading
form obtained in 2004 shows an expanded list of criteria used in past AAB’s minutes
and includes architectural merit, group value, physical condition, educational value,
display value, age, historical significance, association with historical event, availability
and alteration maintenance viability (Table I). It can be argued that group value and
physical condition and alteration are further explanations of the “architectural merit”
criteria. Education value and display value are related to the social significance of the
historic building. Age and association with historical event can be grouped under
historical significance. Availability is almost equivalent to rarity. Maintenance
viability is more concerned with the technical aspects of conservation rather than the
heritage significance of the historic building.

Research methods
This study adopts both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The
questionnaire survey examines quantitatively the values used to evaluate the
historic environment of laymen and professionals working in the built environment
 F using a sample of historic buildings. It aims to determine whether there are any
31,11/12 significant differences between the two groups and the policy makers’ decision. The
study adopts a multi-criteria evaluation survey as a possible method for obtaining the
preference. Qualitatively, the paper also describes the controversial Queen’s Pier
campaign which provides a platform for discussion and elaboration of the policy
makers’ decisions. The background information of the case was obtained from local
548 archives, newspapers, books and journals. Interviews with some conservation activists
in the conservation campaign were also conducted.

Identification of evaluation criteria

Criteria used in the survey were initially identified from the literature, different
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

international conservation organisations, and the local practice in Hong Kong by the
research team’s intuitive evaluation. Since the surveys were undertaken in 2006, the list
of criteria disclosed in the grading of the 496 historic buildings and the assessment of
the 1,444 buildings was not known. Thus, the criteria used by the AMO mentioned in
the AAB minutes after 1976 and the grading forms were what we considered.
The authors have consolidated a preliminary list of seven most commonly identified
criteria which takes into account the local context in Hong Kong. A total of ten pilot
surveys were conducted to ensure the criteria were agreed on and understood by the
Hong Kong public. The surveys were completed randomly through face-to-face
interviews on the street. The respondents were asked to indicate whether they think
each criterion is important or not (1 ¼ very important; 2 ¼ neutral and 3 ¼ not
important). The respondents were also given the chance to suggest any other criteria.
The criteria which were agreed on by more than 60 per cent of the respondents were
used, including functional capabilities, strong representation of cultural identity,
architectural merits, social significance and historical significance. Some minor
modifications were made to improve the clarity of the survey. The factors included in
the survey are by no means exhaustive. Explanations of the criteria included in the
current study are described below.
Functional capabilities. With the growing concern about sustainability, the
continued use and reuse of an historic building in contemporary society has become a
better management approach than preserving the building intact. Functional
capabilities are related to the continuity of the original type of function or the
initiation of a compatible new use of a building in the future (Feilden and Jokilehto,
1998). It is generally expected that the higher the functional capabilities, the more likely
the historic building will be conserved. In particular, it is an important criterion in
evaluation of the conservation of historic buildings in the context of Hong Kong which
faces high development pressure, land scarcity and emphasis on economic growth.
Strong representation of local identity. The role of heritage in constructing local
identity has been highlighted and discussed by researchers (Henderson, 2001;
Gospodini, 2004), however, it has yet to be examined in the context of Hong Kong. The
question of Hong Kong identity was “very much at the forefront of the collective
endeavour of the city” in the mid-1990 s (Chan, 1994), as the Hong Kong community
wanted to distinguish itself from Mainland China, and construct their local identity
after 1997 (Henderson, 2001).
Identity is a multi-faceted phenomenon that embraces a range of human attributes,
including the emotional ties of a society to specific objects or sites, features such as age,
 tradition, continuity, memorial, mythology, wonder, sentiment, spiritual, religious and Conservation of
symbolic, political, patriotic and nationalistic (Feilden and Jokilehto, 1998). Built historic
heritage has a role in defining and symbolising people’s identity, i.e. cultivating civic
pride and emotions of attachment, belonging, fostering unity and preventing discord buildings
(Henderson, 2008). Some studies state that the association between built heritage and
place identity is seen as complimentary (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996; Graham,
1998; Graham et al., 2000). Other studies question the ability of historic buildings to 549
work as a place identity generator in post-modern societies (Gospodini, 2004).
Social significance. Social aspects often cover a wide range of factors in urban built
environments (Lee and Chan, 2008). The criterion “social significance” used in this
survey mainly stresses the extent to which the contemporary compatible use of a
historic building or place generates social networks, social equity and social interaction
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

in the community. It is the meaning of an historic place, often determined by the ways
in which places and landscapes are perceived or experienced by local people and local
communities (ICOMOS, 1999; Kerr, 2000a).
Architectural merits. A building has high architectural merit because it is a notable,
rare, unique example of a particular architectural style, material, and method of
construction, artistic merit, and uniqueness of design, craftsmanship or interior
arrangement (Kalman, 1980; FHBRO, 2008).
Historical significance. A place has influenced or has been influenced by an historic
figure, event, phase or activity. Historical significance also refers to conserving
important physical fabric or other evidence of the past and which illustrates a
significant phase in the development of the community (Kerr, 2000a; ICOMOS, 1999;
English Heritage, 2007).

Design of questionnaire survey

The final questionnaire consisted of three parts (see Appendix 1); Part A contained the
evaluation of five historic buildings and the explanations of the criteria for evaluation.
It also contained information and colour photographs of the five historic buildings.
Photos are claimed to be reliable and valid representations of reality. In addition, Part
A also acted as a screening process for making sure the respondents had reasonable
knowledge of heritage conservation in Hong Kong. The surveys, the information
provided and the interviewers all took a neutral position. In order to minimize any bias
on the respondent’s preference, the current status of the historic buildings as declared
monument, graded historic buildings and demolished buildings were not mentioned in
the information booklet or the survey.
Since it would be too tedious and time consuming for each respondent to evaluate all
25 historic buildings in one survey, an experimental design was adopted to obtain a
manageable number of buildings in one survey and to create different combinations of
buildings. 25 buildings were distributed across the survey in groups of five. That
means each survey only contained five historic buildings. This was done by obtaining
the optimal combination of historic buildings to represent the reliable results with the
aid of a 5 £ 5 Graeco-Latin Square design created by SAS (See Appendix 2).
Graeco-Latin Square design is a special type of comparative design which allows
experiments with a relatively small number of runs. It generates 25 distinct
combinations (C1-C25) of the five historic buildings. As a result, each version of the
questionnaire consisted of one declared monument, two privately owned historic
 F buildings, one publicly owned building, and one demolished historic building. The
31,11/12 numbers of the completed survey was required to be multiples of 25, e.g. 50, 100, 150,
etc., so that each building was assessed by the same number of respondents. It was also
important to ensure that a complete set of questionnaires (C1 to C25) was collected.
Relative importance questions were adopted and respondents were asked to rate all
criteria against the five historic buildings in a 1-6 point relative importance scale
550 (1 ¼ lowest value. . .6 ¼ highest value). The list of criteria developed through intensive
literature review of international practice and local context aimed at providing a basis
for comparing the evaluation criteria of the chosen samples of respondents (i.e. the
laymen and people who work in the built environment). Although the evaluation
criteria used in the survey were the same for both groups, the “OTHERS” option in the
survey allowed respondents to indicate any other criteria which they considered
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

relevant and important.

Part B contained questions that would elicit the respondents’ preferences on
whether the five historic buildings should be conserved or not, requiring simply a “yes”
or “no” answer. To be conserved means that the building is prohibited from demolition,
whereas not to be conserved means the building can be demolished to make way for
redevelopment. The respondents were reminded to consider the costs and benefits of
conserving the building, which included development potential, community benefits
and the opportunity costs for alternative uses.
Part C contained questions about the respondents’ personal background.

Comparison of respondents’ and policy makers’ preferences regarding whether historic

buildings are worth conserving
In fact, it is questionable whether the AAB and the Hong Kong policy makers have
truly considered the criteria provided by AMO in the evaluation process. A pervading
criticism is that the declaration and grading of the historic buildings have been
undertaken in a “black box”. Thus, instead of comparing the actual evaluation criteria
used, this study focuses on comparing the respondents “preferences” as to whether or
not to conserve the historic buildings with that of the government’s policy makers’
final decisions.

Selection of sample historic buildings

25 historic buildings were selected from local books, newspapers, magazines and
tourist brochures in Hong Kong. Through content analysis which systematically
studies large amounts of textual information, the most frequently described historical
buildings and monuments were used for the survey. Thus, the samples of historic
buildings were relatively well-known to the general public and they comprised a
reasonable representation of the historic buildings in Hong Kong. The characteristics
of the buildings are summarised in Table II. The selection of historic buildings
comprised of declared monuments, graded historic buildings and demolished historic
buildings. The declared monuments were designated as such between 1981 and 2004,
but the specific grading for the historic buildings was not known to the public or the
authors when the surveys were conducted in mid-2006. Out of the selection, historic
buildings were designed in the Colonial and Western style, eight in the Chinese style
and a mix of styles. The ownership of buildings intends to highlight the tension
between heritage conservation and the pressure of high development. Although the
 Conservation of
Characteristics Number of buildings Ownership
historic
Conservation status buildings
Declared monuments (A) 5 Private
Historic buildings with private ownership (B) 10 Private
Historic buildings with public ownership (C) 5 Public
Demolished historic buildings (D) 5 Private 551
Architectural style
Chinese 8
Colonial/Western 15
Hybrid 2
Location Table II.
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Hong Kong Island 11 Background of the 25

Kowloon 8 selected historic
New Territories 6 buildings

preferences of the two groups of respondents regarding the conservation of the historic
buildings are unique to this sample of buildings, they could also provide the
framework and methodological basis for evaluation of other historical buildings.

Data collection and analysis

The questionnaires were conducted through two means. A total of 50 questionnaires
were conducted using face-to-face interviews in the streets with a stratified random
sample of citizens living in Hong Kong during May, 2006. These surveys were
conducted in two metropolitan districts, Mongkok and Causeway Bay. In this study,
we stratified our sample as people living in Hong Kong for more than seven years and
who are native Cantonese speakers. This is because this study does not focus on the
multicultural issue which poses the complex phenomenon of “whose heritage.”
Respondents would be ineligible to participate if they did not know the existence of any
one of the buildings in the questionnaire. The other 50 questionnaires were conducted
using face-to-face interviews with professionals who are currently working in the field
of architecture, town planning and heritage conservation in Hong Kong. Invitation
letters for interviews were posted and emailed to randomly-selected architectural and
planning firms in Hong Kong. The sample size of 100 was not intended to draw
conclusive findings which represent the public in Hong Kong. Instead, it represents
statistically significant and proven results for a group of the public. Table III is a
summary of the socio-demographics of all the respondents.

Data analysis procedures

The survey results were analysed using logistic regression. This statistical technique
is an estimation method examining the relative strengths and significance of the
criteria (independent variables) that we hypothesise in explaining the decision to
conserve the building (dependent variable). The logistic regression model avoids the
unboundedness of the dependent variable commonly encountered in simple multiple
regression. In our model, there are only two possible decision outcomes, either
conserved (Y ¼ 1) or not conserved (Y ¼ 0) which are in the form of:
 F
Professionals in built
31,11/12 Laymen environment
Socio-demographics Categories (%) (%)

Sex Female 50 34.8

Male 50 65.1
552 Age Below 20 8 –
21-30 20 18.6
31-40 34 30.2
41-50 18 46.5
51-60 18 4.7
60 or above 2 –
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Education Primary 4 –
Secondary 34 4.7
Tertiary or above 62 95.3
Table III.
Summary of the Living district Hong Kong 52 62.8
socio-demographics of Kowloon 26 9.3
the respondents NT 22 27.9

Y ¼ 1 conserved Pi.
Y ¼ 0 not conserved 1- Pi i ¼ individual.
 
Pi
log e ¼ b0 þ b1 xa1 þ b2 xa2 þ ::::::bn xak þ 1
1 2 Pi
The dependent variable Pi is the probability of conserving a historic building. This is
regressed upon a whole set of factors (xa1 toxak ) that are postulated to have influenced
the evaluation of historic buildings. The relative strength of the factors in determining
the decision outcome is given by the respective coefficients (b1 tobn ). The SAS
statistical package was used for the analysis. The independent factors included in our
full model are functional capabilities (FNCT); architectural merits (ARCH), strong
representation of cultural identity (IDENT), social significance (SOC) and historical
significance (HIST).

Findings and discussion

Relative importance of the criteria
The results (Table IV) show that the laymen consider that the criteria architectural
merit, social significance and historical significance are statistically significant in
determining whether the historic buildings should be conserved. They also indicate
that the respondents considered architectural merit as the most important criteria,
followed by social significance and historical significance. For the built environment
group, the results show representation of cultural identity and architectural merit are
statistically significant in determining whether the historic buildings should be
conserved. Representation of cultural identity was found to be the most important
criterion. Only three respondents suggested other criteria which were not listed in the
questionnaire and no criterion was agreed on by more than 10 per cent of the
respondents. Thus, they were not reported.
 The regression results for both the laymen and professional groups show the data Conservation of
fits the model significantly well, as indicated by the likelihood ratio Chi-square (see historic
Table III). Cronbach’s alpha was adopted in this study to reveal the true reliability of
the surveyed results (Cronbach, 1951); a should be at least 0.7 for a scale to be reliable buildings
(Nunnally, 1978). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha (a) is 0.784 which indicates that
there is sufficient agreement among the respondents.
Contrary to our expectations, strong representation of cultural identity is not 553
statistically significant for the laymen group. This indicates that the laymen did not
perceive this sample of buildings as significant means to define cultural identity in
Hong Kong. On the other hand, the professionals consider cultural identity as the most
significant criterion. This might reflect the complexity of the notion of identity and its
relationship with heritage and the growing widespread role of heritage. It is recognised
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

that identity must be inferred from its many different forms of expression, and heritage
is only one of the important manifestations (Henderson, 2001). Hong Kong, in
particular, was a part of Imperial China, then a British colony and is now under
communist Chinese sovereignty; people are confronting an “identity crisis” (Lau, 1997).
It is also argued that the people of Hong Kong are not homogeneous and it is difficult to
locate a consensus about heritage and identity. Thus, it is doubtful that one can expect
that every part of Hong Kong’s built heritage can fully reflect Hong Kong’s complex
past and the ongoing evolution of the personal or communal identities of its citizens.

Comparison of public’s preference with the current declaration status of historic

buildings
Table V shows the comparison between the laymen and the professionals’ preferences
with the current status of the historical buildings. It reveals that more than 60 per cent
of the laymen consider that 18 out of the 25 sampled historic buildings should be
conserved and more than 60 per cent of the professionals consider 21 out of the 25
buildings should be conserved. However, according to the current status of these
historic buildings, only five buildings are declared to be monuments.
In general, the results of the survey indicate that the respondents prefer to conserve
more historic buildings than the government has actually declared. These results
reflect the considerable differences existing between the preferences of the two public
groups and that of the government’s policy makers. This finding can possibly be
explained by the following: first, people are normally attached to past events and items
which contribute to a sense of nostalgia which is usually viewed favourably, celebrated

Professionals in built
Citizens environment
Parameter Parameter
estimate estimate
Criteria (b) Sig. (b) Sig.

Strong representation of cultural identity – Not sign. 0.7054 0.0015

Architectural merit 0.3917 0.006 0.5510 0.0039 Table IV.
Social significance 0.3666 0.005 – Logistic regression
Historical significance 0.3618 0.011 – results showing
Intercept 2 3.4567 , 0.0001 2 2.9998 0.0008 statistically significant
Likelihood ratio 64.9474 38.5584 criteria
 F
Public preference (to conserve)
31,11/12 (%)
Bldg. Laymen Professional Current status

Group A 1 100 90 Monument

2 90 100 Monument
554 3 50 80 Monument
4 100 100 Monument
5 80 60 Monument
Group B 6 60 90 Graded
7 80 90 Graded
8 90 90 Graded
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

9 50 90 Graded
10 70 70 Graded
11 90 70 Graded
12 70 90 Graded
13 80 90 Graded
14 60 40 Graded
15 100 100 Graded
Group C 16 50 90 Graded
17 50 80 Graded
18 70 90 Graded
19 80 100 Graded
20 90 80 Graded
Group D 21 70 80 Demolished
22 70 90 Demolished
Table V. 23 70 60 Demolished
Public preferences on the 24 80 100 Demolished
conservation of historic 25 60 80 Demolished
buildings compared with
the actual status Note: 60 per cent or fewer laymen and professionals prefer not to conserve the historic buildings

and even glorified (Yeoh and Kong, 1996). This normally happens when social change
is rapid enough to be detectable in one lifetime as is the case in Hong Kong. It might
also reflect the people’s grievances over the demolition of a few key heritage buildings
in Hong Kong in the last two to three decades. This is reflected in the findings that 70
per cent or more of the laymen and 80 per cent or more of the professionals think 4 out
of 5 demolished buildings should be conserved.
Second, the government usually has to consider a wider range of aspects than the
general public and the experts. The AAB’s assessments of the historic buildings only
act as consultation documents which have no decision-making power, whereas the
government also considers other issues such as economic growth, high land price
policy, development pressures, equal distribution of resources, the acquisition and
compensation policy for built heritage conservation, etc. In addition, other hidden
political factors may also influence the final decisions to declare a monument.
Furthermore, the respondents are people not directly affected with the conservation of
the sampled buildings; they tend to support conservation and rarely consider the
questions of “who should pay?” and “how to conserve?”
 Third, the survey reflects that the laymen consider social significance to be Conservation of
important. It is argued that many of the social factors are personal, and collective historic
memory is inherent in the local people (Taylor, 2004; Byrne et al., 2003). On the other
hand, the decision-makers are comprised of policy makers and experts who may not buildings
fully understand the needs of the local community by observing and reading the
history of a place (Taylor, 2004; Byrne et al., 2003). Therefore, the social significance of
the historic building may be underestimated and misinterpreted. 555
Another interesting finding is that concerning one of the buildings; only 50 per cent
of the laymen agreed that it should be conserved. This is because the respondents
assigned relatively moderate to low importance weightings for architectural merit,
social significance and historical significance for this building which was a different
result from that of the professionals and policy makers. Furthermore, the results show
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

a relatively higher preference for the conservation of privately owned historical

buildings than publicly owned buildings. This might be due to the negative view of the
high-rise development model adopted by the private sector. It might also reflect the
view that privately owned buildings usually mean the land which only the owner has
the right to use and access. In fact, the government has a responsibility to adopt
regulations to conserve them, which may mean economic incentives and or benefits for
the private sector.
Although the above empirical surveys and the comparisons of preferences provide
statistically significant results illustrating the differences between the laymen’s and
professionals’ preferences and the policy-makers’ decisions, it primarily focuses on the
evaluation criteria. The decision making of heritage conservation involves a much
more complex range of social, economical and political concerns. Thus, this study
provides a specific case with which to deepen the understanding of the complexity in
determining what should be conserved and examines the possible reasons for the
differences between community preference and the government’s decisions.

Case study – the Queen’s Pier

Background and the conservation campaign
The Queen’s Pier was located at the northern waterfront of Hong Kong Island and was
built in 1958. It mainly served as the landing spot for new British colonial governors,
royalty and other state visitors in the colonial period. The Pier was included in the
Central Reclamation Project launched in the 1990 s. The ongoing development project
will construct two highways, a long “harbour-front corridor”, a huge shopping mall, a
military berth for the Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong and business office
buildings in the area.
The government announced that the Queen’s Pier would be closed to make way for
a four-lane highway in April of 2007. The final decision was to preserve the
superstructure and store it for reassembly in close proximity to its original location.
The AAB awarded it the highest grade 1 rating for historic buildings in May of 2007
but the Home Affairs Secretary opined that the Pier could not qualify as a protected
monument. Local interest groups and conservation activists called for a judicial review
of the government’s decision not to declare the Pier a monument. The Secretary for
Development anticipated that the Pier would be removed in late July. The public
protestors gathered at the Pier on July 30, 2007, and a small group of protestors went
on a hunger strike. On July 30, 2007, the interest groups applied for a judicial review on
 F the basis that the former Home Affairs Secretary’s decision to not declare the Queen’s
31,11/12 Pier a monument was ”unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary.” However, the interest
groups’ application was denied and the judge gave the government the go-ahead for
demolition. In August of 2007, about 200 took part in a candlelight vigil before police
removed all the protestors. The operation involved more than 300 policemen and six
harbour patrol boats and lasted ten hours. The Pier was finally demolished on August
556 1, 2007.

Issues identified from the case

The Queen’s Pier conservation campaign provides further examination of the
multi-faceted issues of heritage conservation which go beyond the criteria and
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

standards for the evaluation of historic buildings. It would be an over-simplification to

say that the tremendous public protests that arose from the Queen’s Pier campaign
were only due to the different preferences among different stakeholder groups, as
social, political and economical factors all played a contributing role (Yung and Chan,
2011).
Differences regarding the evaluation criteria for historic buildings. Critics argued
that the government did not properly develop the criteria used to determine what
should be preserved (SCMP, 2007). The experts assessed the Pier on the basis of the
often quoted evaluation criteria adopted by the AMO and decided that it did not
contain significant architectural merit or value for declaration as a monument to be
justified. Although a grade 1 historic building can be designated by the AAB experts, it
has no binding effect and demolition is not prohibited.
In contrast, the protest activists advocated for the preservation of the Queen’s Pier
on the grounds that it was the people’s public space, it reflected a collective memory
and represented Hong Kong’s local culture rather than on the architectural merit of the
Pier’s structure. The case also challenged the government’s narrowly adopted
definition of “monument” from the colonial era which should be updated with the
present public’s perception of what constitutes built heritage. However, during the
interviews with conservation activists in the campaign, they also challenged whether
the public has the proper knowledge to determine what is worth conserving, arguing
that the public may not really understand the value in heritage conservation.
Different stakeholders’ concerns. The case also further illustrates the complexity of
various stakeholders with different preferences, roles and identities. The stakeholders
include the government, political parties, private developers, NGOs, community
interest groups, individual professionals, protestors, and the general public, all having
different and even conflicting social, economic, political and environmental concerns
(Yung and Chan, 2011). Although the government had met and consulted with the
public concerning the central harbour reclamation where the Queen’s Pier was located,
critics have argued that these consultations were by no means effective (Loh, 2007;
Chu, 2007).
Transition of the social context of Hong Kong. The transition of Hong Kong’s social
context also contributed to the unprecedented campaign. Since the change in
sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong’s general public has been increasingly concerned
about the environment, good town planning and preserving heritage. It is also argued
that people view heritage conservation as a means to express their democratic right in
the urban planning of the city (Lu, 2009). In addition, the gap between the rich and the
 poor has widened, and the working-class segment is increasingly opposed to the Conservation of
economic and political power acquired by property developers and other big historic
companies in Hong Kong (Lu, 2009). They see high rise development as deteriorating
the environment and the quality of life. In light of this phenomenon, the general public buildings
and protestors often oppose the demolition of historic buildings that make way for
profit-making commercial or residential developments.
Effectiveness of the community participation. In the Queen’s Pier case, although 557
some public participation activities on the behalf of the government were organised,
the former chairman of the conservation and heritage committee stated that the public
consultations were more or less tokenistic, as the public only had the right to know and
to express their opinions rather than make decisions. Likewise, the critics said the
meetings were just for show, as it was announced before the forum that there would be
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

no negotiations to preserve the Pier. As a result, the different stakeholders’ preferences

were not addressed.
Priority in economic growth. It is often argued that the economic context in Hong
Kong creates an unresolved tension between economic development, conservation and
urban planning as a whole. In the Queen’s Pier case, the government was concerned
about the high price of preserving the Pier as part of the reclamation project, which
aimed to improve the infrastructure and quality of the central business districts and
provide a vibrant waterfront. The issue has been raised that economic growth plays a
vital role in the way Hong Kong government deals with the various heritage
stakeholders (Du Cros et al., 2007).

Policy implications and recommendations regarding the conservation of

historic buildings
The survey confirms the issue of difference between policy makers’ decisions, the
preferences of laymen and professionals in the architectural, planning and
conservation disciplines concerning the conservation of historic buildings. It also
shows that laymen are reasonably capable of understanding and evaluating the built
heritage. The results show that the laymen indicate slightly different relative
importance in the evaluation criteria and preference regarding what is worth
conserving. The case study provides an example of the multi-faceted issues of heritage
conservation in a dense urban city, one of them being how different stakeholders
perceive the value of conserving historical buildings and how this apparently differs
from that of policy makers. The case clearly confirms previous research that the
designation of historic buildings, emerging from perceptions and interactions between
people and the built environment rather than through organised lobbying, can better
reflect the public’s view than a designation determined by experts’ evaluations
(Rautenberg, 1998; Dupagne et al., 2004; Tweed and Sutherland, 2007).
A number of possible recommendations are proposed in the following section. First,
it is suggested that decision makers should incorporate more public perception and
preference in the decision-making process in identifying, listing and designating
historic buildings. In particular, the government should update the legislation and
administrative framework in urban planning related departments to incorporate public
evaluation into the conservation decision making process (Chan and Yung, 2004).
Second, the public should be educated about heritage conservation and the government
should share with its citizens the complex task of balancing the overall needs of
 F society. Third, further exploration and incorporation of social factors that go into the
31,11/12 evaluation of historic buildings and policy making through social research methods
rather than primarily relying on architectural and historical research is recommended.
In addition, the criteria for the evaluation of historic buildings should be specific to the
context of the city, which may vary according to the types of the buildings and the
changing sets of social, economic and political factors.
558 Fourth, the case also addresses the importance of understanding and balancing the
different interests of various stakeholder groups. In order to tackle these problems, the
government should identify all the stakeholders involved in the conservation of a
specific built heritage and understand their identities, roles and interests. In doing so,
they will better understand the public’s preference regarding conservation of historic
buildings and develop systematic ways to analyse, resolve and balance the different
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

interests of various stakeholders. In particular, the government should strike a careful

balance between conservation and economic development, which has been one of the
major obstacles in achieving the goal of sustainable built heritage conservation.

Conclusion
The study was not designed to present the wide range of stakeholders in heritage
conservation, gather extensive data on different stakeholders’ preferences regarding
the conservation of historic buildings or to identify a robust list of criteria for the
evaluation of historic buildings. Nor was it intended to derive any conclusive findings
representing the preference of the general public as a whole. The case of Queens’ Pier is
contentious whether the conflicts that arose from the conservation campaign were
primarily the result of the differences between the public’s and the government’s policy
maker’s preferences in heritage preservation, or whether it was the public’s anger
towards government top-down bureaucracy in overall decision-making or the
opposition against economic development. The difference between the public’s and the
government’s concerns and perceptions reinforces the importance of involving public
preference in heritage conservation. Thus, the case vividly highlights the urgency for a
proper and comprehensive public participation mechanism in formulating a robust
heritage conservation policy. This study also initiates a broad examination of the
laymen’s and professionals’ evaluation of historic buildings with survey data collected
in Hong Kong and comparing it with the policy makers’ actual decisions. The criteria
for the evaluation of the significance of historic buildings could also change over time
when the social, economical and political status of the society has changed. The
validity of the method can be tested through further application in different
characteristics of historic buildings. In addition, the numbers of sample historic
buildings and the numbers of respondents from different stakeholders groups can be
expanded in future studies. Hitherto, there is no unanimously accepted protocol being
recommended for incorporating public opinions into the decision making process in
relation to conservation issues. More in-depth case studies should be incorporated with
the surveys to understand people’s evaluation of historical buildings.
The results of the surveys enhance the understanding of the laymen’s and
professional’s evaluation of the important criteria associated with historic buildings in
cities which face strong development pressures. It is of utmost importance that
conservation practice should value the public’s preferences which reflect the everyday
experiences and interactions between people and the built environment, rather than
 solely relying on experts’ opinions. The effective public participation mechanism Conservation of
becomes the complementary issue to address. historic
This study provides insights for policy makers in formulating a more holistic
approach to designating and listing historic buildings and to achieving a sustainable buildings
urban conservation framework. The recommendations suggested would also be
applicable to other countries that face rapid urbanisation and development pressures,
particularly in those compact dense cities where land supply is limited. 559
References
Antiquities Advisory Board (1976), AAB Committee Minutes, No. AAB/1/77, the Antiquities
Monuments Office.
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Antiquities Monument Office (2004), “Historical building grading form”, Antiquities Monument
Office.
Australia ICOMOS (1999), “The Burra charter”, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of
Cultural Significance, ICOMOS, Sydney.
Brown, S. and Loh, C. (2002), Hong Kong: The Political Economy of Land, Civil Exchange, Hong
Kong.
Byrne, D., Brayshaw, H. and Ireland, T. (2003), “Social significance, a discussion paper”,
Research Unit Culture Heritage Division, The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,
2nd ed.
Chan, E.H.W. and Yung, E. (2004), “Is the development control legal framework conducive to a
sustainable dense urban development in Hong Kong?”, Habitat International, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 409-426.
Chan, H.M. (1994), Culture and Identity, The Other Hong Kong Report, Chinese University Press,
Hong Kong, pp. 443-468.
Cheung, P.T.Y. (2011), “Civic engagement in the policy process in Hong Kong: change and
continuity”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 31, p. 113.
Chu, W. (2007), “Logic defied on phase III”, South China Morning Post, Vol. 18, p. 2007.
Clark, K. (2001), “Planning for the past: heritage services in local planning authorities in
England”, Cultural Trends, Vol. 11 Nos 43/44, pp. 61-95.
Coeterier, J.F. (2002), “Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites”, Landscape and Urban Planning,
Vol. 59, pp. 111-123.
Conservancy Association (2005), Report on Heritage Conservation – We All Gain, Conservancy
Association, June 2005, available at: www.harbourdistrict.com.hk/enews/20070218/rpt-
lord_wilson_heritage_trust.pdf (accessed June 20, 2010).
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Culture and Heritage Commission (2002), Policy Recommendation Report, available at: www.hab.
gov.hk/file_manager/en/documents/policy_responsibilities/CHC-PolicyRecommendation
Report_E.pdf (accessed 15 July 2010).
Delafons, J. (1997), “Sustainable conservation”, Built Environment, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 111-120.
Development Bureau (2008), Heritage Conservation Policy – Statement, available at: www.
heritage.gov.hk/en/heritage/statement.htm (accessed August 20, 2010).
Du Cros, H., Lee, Y.S.F., Lung, D. and Distefano, L. (2007), “Economic growth and cultural
identity”, in Du Cros, H. and Lee, Y.S.F. (Eds), Cultural Heritage Management in China,
Preserving the Cities of the Pearl River Delta, Hudson UK, London, pp. 85-116.
 F Dupagne, A., Ruelle, C., Teller, J. and Cornelius, B. (2004), “SUIT: sustainable development of
urban historical areas through integration within towns”, Research Report No. 16,
31,11/12 European Commission, Luxembourg.
English Heritage (2007), Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable
Management of the Historic Environment (Second Stage Consultation), English Heritage,
London.
560 Federal Heritage Building Review Office (2008), “FHBRO evaluation criteria”, available at: www.
pc.gc.ca/progs/beefp-fhbro/itm1-/index_e.asp (accessed August 20, 2010).
Feilden, B. and Jokilehto, J. (1998), Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites,
ICCROM, Rome.
Fong, G. (2001), “Public participation in Hong Kong case studies in community urban design”,
unpublished PhD thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, September.
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Gospodini, A. (2004), “Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: built heritage
and innovative design”, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 2, pp. 225-248.
Graham, B. (1998), “The past in Europe’s present: diversity, identity and the construction of Place”,
in Graham, B. (Ed.), Modern Europe. Place, Culture, Identity, Arnold, London, pp. 19-49.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000), A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture
and Economy, Arnold, London.
Henderson, J.C. (2001), “Heritage, identity and tourism in Hong Kong”, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 219-236.
Henderson, J.C. (2008), “Conserving Hong Kong’s heritage: the case of Queen’s Pier”,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 540-554.
HKIA (2007), “The Hong Kong institute of architects response to built heritage conservation
policy public consultation”, Press release, 18 January, available at: www.hkia.net/
UserFiles/Image/position_paper_press_release/BHCP_20070118_eng_final.pdf (accessed
10 August 2010).
HKIP (2007), “Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong”, position paper, March, available at:
www.hkip.org.hk/En/Content.asp?Bid¼7&Sid¼42&Id¼71 (accessed 15 December 2011).
Hobson, E. (2004), Conservation and Planning Changing Values in Policy and Practice, Spon
Press, Abingdon.
Hopkinson, L. (2007), The way forward, Civic Exchange, available at: www.civic-exchange.org
(accessed January 30, 2007).
ICOMOS (1987), Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas, Washington
Charter – 1987, London.
ICOMOS (1999), Burra Charter, available at: www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html.
Kalman, H. (1980), Evaluation of Historic Buildings, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Kerr, J. (2000a), Conservation Plan, National Trust of Australia, New South Wales, pp. 11-17.
Kerr, J. (2000b), Public participation in cultural resource management: a Canadian perspective, in
ICOMOS general assembly entitled “Patrimonio y conservación. Arqueologı́a. XII
Asamblea General del ICOMOS, INAH, Mexico City.
Lamei, S. (2005), “Insights into current conservation practices”, Museum International, Vol. 57
Nos 1-2, pp. 136-141.
Lau, C.K. (1997), Hong Kong’s Colonial Legacy: A Hong Kong Chinese View of the British
Heritage, Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.
Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2008), “Factors affecting urban renewal in high-density city: case
study of Hong Kong”, ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Design, Vol. 134 No. 3, pp. 140-148.
 Loh, C. (2007), “Response to HAB/LCSD consultation document”, Review of Built Heritage Conservation of
Conservation Policy, available at: www.civic-exchange.org (accessed October 15, 2007).
historic
Lu, L.D. (2009), “Heritage conservation in post-colonial Hong Kong”, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 258-272. buildings
Ng, M.K. (2005), “Quality of life perceptions and directions for urban regeneration in Hong
Kong”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 71, pp. 441-465.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 561
Pendlebury, J. and Townshend, T. (1999), “The conservation of historic areas and public
participation”, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 72-87.
Pignataro, G. and Rizzo, I. (1997), “The political economy of rehabilitation: the case of the
Benedettini Monastery”, in Hutter, M. and Rizzo, I. (Eds), Economic Perspectives of Cultural
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Heritag, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 91-106.

Pugalis, L. (2009), “The culture and economics of urban public space design: public and
professional perceptions”, Urban Design International, Vol. 14, pp. 215-230.
Rautenberg, M. (1998), “L’emergence patrimoniale de l’ethnologie entrememoire et politiques
publiques”, in Poulot, D. (Ed.), Patrimoine et modernite, L’Harmatan, Paris, pp. 279-291.
South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2007), “Much achieved by Queen’s Pier protests”, South
China Morning Post, 30 July.
Sirisrisak, T. (2009), “Conservation of Bangkok old town”, Habitat International, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 405-411.
Taylor, K. (2004), “Cultural heritage management: a possible role for charters and principles in
Asia”, International Journal of. Heritage Studies, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 417-433.
Teather, E.K. and Chow, C.S. (2003), “Identity and place: the testament of designated heritage in
Hong Kong”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 93-115.
Throsby, D. (2006), “The value of cultural heritage: what can economics tell us?”, Capturing the
Public Value of Heritage, English Heritage, London.
Townshend, T. and Pendlebury, J. (1999), “Public participation in the conservation of historic
areas: case-studies from north-east England”, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 313-331.
Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G.J. (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a
Resource in Conflict, Wiley, Chichester.
Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. (2007), “Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban
development”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 62-69.
Tweed, C., Sutherland, M. and Teller, J. (2002), “Identifying the relations between historical areas
and perceived values: introduction to issues and indicators”, SUIT project report on Task
2.1a, p. 20.
Yeoh, B. and Kong, L. (1996), “The notion of place in the construction of history, nostalgia and
heritage in Singapore”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Yung, E.H.K. and Chan, E.H.W. (2011), “Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage
conservation: two controversial cases in Hong Kong”, Habitat International, Vol. 35,
pp. 457-466.

Further reading
Antiquities & Monuments Office (2009), “Definition of the grading of historic buildings”,
available at: www.amo.gov.hk/en/built3.php (accessed August 20, 2010).
 Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

562
31,11/12

Figure A1.
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
 Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

buildings
historic

Figure A1.
563
Conservation of
 F Appendix 2. A 5 3 5 Graeco-Latin square (created by SAS PROC PLAN)
31,11/12

564
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

Figure A2.

About the authors

Esther H.K. Yung is a Research Fellow, whose publications focus mainly on the area of heritage
conservation, adaptive reuse and sustainable development. Esther H.K. Yung is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ehkyung@gmail.com
Edwin H.W. Chan is a Professor who has published extensively in the area of urban renewal,
planning and sustainable development.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Mastura Jaafar, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Shuhaida Md Noor. 2016. An investigation of the effects of
an awareness campaign on young residents’ perceptions: a case study of the Lenggong World Heritage
Site. Tourism Planning & Development 13:2, 127-139. [CrossRef]
2. Mastura Jaafar, Shuhaida Md Noor, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh. 2015. The Effects of a Campaign on
Awareness and Participation Among Local Youth at the Lenggong Valley World Heritage Site, Malaysia.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 17:4, 302-314. [CrossRef]
3. Meysam Deghati Najd, Nor Atiah Ismail, Suhardi Maulan, Mohd Yazid Mohd Yunos, Mahsa Dabbagh
Niya. 2015. Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: The determinants for urban heritage
conservation. Habitat International 49, 115-125. [CrossRef]
4. Mastura Jaafar, Shuhaida Md Noor, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh. 2015. Perception of young local residents
Downloaded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University At 01:56 17 October 2016 (PT)

toward sustainable conservation programmes: A case study of the Lenggong World Cultural Heritage
Site. Tourism Management 48, 154-163. [CrossRef]

View publication stats