Proceedings of 27th March Workshop for DHKHD
Designing Hong Kong Harbour District
Building Consensus on Sustainable Planning Principles for the Harbour District
Paper No.3
Public Opinion Survey
16 June 2004
1
GML Consulting Limited
Public Opinion Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Survey Methodology
4. Summary of Findings
5.Detailed Findings
APPENDICES
Appendix AQuestionnaire
Appendix BSummary of Results
Appendix CDetailed Results for Rating Questions
Appendix DCategorised Comments
Appendix EDetailed Comments to Open Questions
1
GML Consulting Limited
Public Opinion Survey
1. Introduction
1.1 Designing Hong Kong Harbour District (DHKHD) is a consensus building initiative to design a world-class foreshore in the harbour district for Hong Kong. The study was conducted by GML Consulting (GML), covering a series of interviews with stakeholders, desktop research, a stakeholder workshop and a survey.
1.2 In addition, the EnviroSeries Conference held on 3 May 2004 allowed local and overseas experts to present their views and experiences on the design of the foreshore, land-use infrastructure and institutional issues which are relevant to Hong Kong. The information presented at the Conference has been incorporated together with our own research.
1.3 In this paper, we present the findings of a public opinion survey conducted between April and May 2004. We have organised this report under the following headings:
- Objectives
- Survey Methodology
- Survey Findings
- Conclusions.
2. Objectives
2.1 The objective of the survey was to canvas the views of the public on key issues affecting the Harbour District and to extract quantitative data to either support or refute our research to date.
2.2 The results of the survey will further serve to prioritise the needs of the public in developing the design principles necessary to make the harbour district world-class.
2.3 In many cases, we have encountered different terms to describe the harbour district. The Protected Area of Victoria Harbour is defined in the Harbour Protection Ordinance as the foreshore extending from Tsuen Wan to Tseung Kwan O and from Green Island to Shau Kei Wan on the north and south foreshore respectively. Our definition for this study is taken as the harbour district areas surrounding the protected harbour foreshore from Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter to Kwun Tong, and from Quarry Bay to Sheung Wan. Within the Harbour District itself, the area of greatest concern is the foreshore land and facilities immediately connected with the Harbour, specifically all Government-owned land, facilities and infrastructure directly or indirectly connected with the Harbour.
3. Survey Methodology
Questionnaire
3.1 The questionnaire was organized under the following headings:
- User details
- What makes the Harbour District world class?
- What are your views on reclamation of land and reducing the harbour?
- Planning for the future.
3.2 The questions were initially prepared by GML and subsequently revised based on the comments of various experts and an independent panel of advisors. We would like to take the opportunity to thank those involved who voluntarily gave up their time to help us, in particular, Mr. Michael Golyer, Mr. Christopher Robinson and Dr. W.K Chan.
Target audience
3.3 Our target audience was Hong Kong citizens who cared about the Harbour. We deliberately chose to approach the Chambers of Commerce for inputs from their members who represented both business and personal interests. We also contacted various associations and community groups including Citizens Envisioning @ Harbour and District Councils. Different versions of questionnaires in both English and Chinese were used. Copies of the questionnaire are attached in Appendix A.
Distribution method
3.4 The questionnaire was sent to the following organizations for distribution to their members:
Channel / Target / Group sizeHK General Chamber of Commerce / Chamber committees / 630
Australian Chamber of Commerce / All members / 800
Canadian Chamber of Commerce / Sustainable Development Committee / 40
British Chamber of Commerce / Corporate members / 450
American Chamber of Commerce / All members / 2000
Friends of the Harbour / All members / 500
Business Environmental Council / BEC members, SME / members and associate members / 68 organisations, representing 1000's of individual businesses
Citizens Envisioning @ Harbour / All members / 30
DHKHD / Stakeholders / 350
District Councils / Chairmen / 18
Hong Kong Council of Social Service / Members / N/A
St. James Settlement / Members / N/A
Collation
3.5 The period for response was from 15 April 2004 to 22 May 2004. The responses were returned via fax, email and post. In total, 239 responses were received.
Overall
3.6The summary of results is presented in Appendix B as a grouping of the results for questions 4 (“features of a world-class harbour”), 7 (“statements of importance”) and 9 (“planning for the future”) under three bands of answers:
- Unimportant, neutral and important; or
- Disagree, neutral and agree.
3.7 Using this approach, the majority views on certain issues are clearly presented.
3.8 In all, the survey responses helped consolidate the features for making the Harbour District world-class (as in Question 4 responses) and showed strong support for the statements provided describing the measures in order to do so (as in Question 7).
3.9 In planning for the future (see Question 9), there was also strong support indicated for the key planning principles presented. Under the question of having a single harbour authority, a majority expressed a positive response and a similar majority also voted “yes” for an overall integrated master planning process for the Harbour District.
3.10 Further breakdown of the results for questions 4, 7 and 9 is shown in Appendix C.
3.11 In Appendix D, the comments for the open questions are categorized and the answers summed up under the respective category headings, whilst Appendix E lists out the comments in detail.
User Breakdown
3.12 Out of the 239 responses gathered, the largest group (34.7%) of respondents were aged between 45-59 years, followed by 35-44 (30.5%). Of the respondents, 31% stated professional services as their professional affiliation with the next largest affiliation being government (13%).
3.13 39.7% of the respondents visited the Harbour regularly, almost every day.
4. Summary of Findings
4.1 Through this survey, it can be seen that those surveyed held strong views on what Hong Kong had to do to achieve a world-class harbour, i.e.
Vibrancy /- Appealing harbour views
- Marine tourism and leisure activities
- Historic significance
- Impressive architecture and building design around the harbour
- Environmental quality
- A “living” harbour (birds, fishing, etc.)
Activities /
- Wide choice of arts and culture
- Green areas/landscaping
- Wide range of dining and wining
- Plentiful open air spaces
- Provision of fun and entertainment
Access /
- Ease of pedestrian access and mobility
- Wide range of public transport links
4.2 Of least interest was the need to have Government offices on the foreshore and easy private vehicular access to the Harbour District.
4.3 Those surveyed further disagreed with allowing unplanned development. A strong preference was expressed for more pedestrian accessibility, pedestrian promenades along the entire waterfront, traffic management and alternative routes and minimizing pollution and better urban design.
4.4 Limited reclamation is acceptable provided space is provided for public use and amenities.
4.5 The survey also showed that respondents supported the setting up of a harbour authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure in the entire Harbour District, that the community should be strongly represented and that a “Chief Planner” be appointed to be in charge of integrated land and transport planning.
4.6 More public consultation, integrated planning and alignment of transport with land-use was called for.
5.Detailed Findings
What makes Hong Kong Harbour District world-class?
5.1 In this section, for question 4 (see Appendix B) on the importance of certain features for a world-class harbour, all of those listed were important (scoring 60% and above was taken as the criterion) except:
Statement / Possible Explanation“Government offices are nearby” (61.9% stated as unimportant) / Opposition to the building of government offices on Tamar
“Working harbour, supporting industries” (28% stated as unimportant) / Lack of clarity on a future division of the Harbour into a working harbour west of the Star Ferry and a leisure harbour east of the Star Ferry. 28% recognition that the Harbour remains a working harbour supports the need for Hong Kong to focus on its role as a logistics center.
“Wide range of shopping” (28.5% stated as unimportant) / Concern on development of more shopping malls
“Commercial offices can easily access the harbour” (28% stated as unimportant) / Concern on building of more offices on harbour foreshore
“Wide range of sports activities” (25.9% stated as unimportant) / Concern with inward oriented facilities, such as stadia [stadiums?] and cultural centres,on the harbour foreshore whichwarrants [suggests?] more outward oriented facilities, such as sailing, benefiting from the views
“Residential locations can easily access the harbour” (24.3% stated as unimportant) / Concern on building more residential buildings on harbour foreshore
5.2 Breaking the replies down further (see Appendix C), the top five features are listed below. The percentages in parentheses are the percentage of respondents who rated this feature as “extremely important”.
- Appealing harbour views (54.0%)
- Pedestrian access and mobility (50.6%)
- Environmental quality (49.4%)
- Plentiful open spaces (41.0%)
- Green areas/landscaping (38.5%)
5.3 Amongst these top features (in fact, out of all the listed features), “appealing harbour views” is the only feature that the respondents consider Hong Kong’s Harbour to currently possess (57.7%). In particular, more than 60% of the respondents rated “environmental quality”, “a living harbour”, “green areas/landscaping” and “wide range of sports activities” as absent from the Harbour District.
5.4 Under the “not important at all” category, prominent were “ease of government offices nearby” (36%), “private vehicular access” (10.9%), “commercial offices can access the harbour” (7.9%), “residential locations can access the harbour” (6.3%) and “wide range of shopping” (5.4%). These findings reflect the respondents’ opposition to using the limited foreshore land space for the interests of government, vehicles, commerce, residential development and shopping.
5.5 In the question, “what do you least like about the harbour,” the majority of the 200 responses to this question concerned “pollution”, “lack of facilities for leisure and enjoyment” and “lack of access to harbour front”. This can be attributed to the public concern for deterioration of the harbour quality and the fact that the public cannot currently enjoy the harbour due to lack of facilities and extensive road networks blocking the waterfront.
5.6 Under “any other comments you would like to contribute about the current status of the harbour”, a number of opinions from the 136 responses to this question were offered (see Appendix D), chief amongst these were “no more reclamation”, “benchmark with other cities” and “more pedestrian access”. Opposition to reclamation is clearly the spur for many respondents’ comments, and the availability of other harbours, which have been adapted for public enjoyment, to compare with in overseas cities.
What are your views on the Harbour District?
5.7 For question 7, all of the statements were supported by a majority of respondents (see Appendix B) except “development of the waterfront should take place naturally rather than as large planned and major developments” to which 29.7% disagreed. The possible explanation to this may be the perception that unplanned development would lead to uncoordinated development and loss of control.
5.8 The responses for the top five statements as “strongly agree” (see Appendix C) are listed below:
- The Harbour District is one of Hong Kong’s main attractions for tourists (67.4%)
- Pedestrian promenades should extend along the entire waterfront (56.9%)
- Traffic management and alternative routes should be considered as part of transport policy (55.2%)
- Improving the quality of the Harbour’s water is a top priority (54.4%)
- Visual intrusion of harbour views should be minimized with building height restrictions, open spaces and other urban design regulations (53.1%).
5.9 Whilst tourism, accessibility, transport management, environment and urban design are prominently supported, respondents are against unplanned development , which bears the risk of inappropriately designed locations and facilities.
5.10 Other points to note which respondents supported are:
Statement / Possible Explanation“When the Harbour District works for Hong Kong citizens, then we can be sure that tourists will enjoy it too” / This addresses the controversial issue of making the waterfront, West Kowloon, etc. a tourist “showcase”. The sentiment clearly expressed is “make it work for Hong Kong and the tourists will enjoy it too”.
“Landsales around the Harbour should be minimized to allow less roads and more open space, even if this means higher taxes” / The support for this statement suggests that higher taxes are acceptable provided there are less roads i.e. people don’t want roads.
“To enjoy the harbour better, roads along the waterfront should be submerged as much as possible in underground tunnels, even if it costs more” / 50% strongly agree that roads should be submerged or underground and 78% agree, even if it costs more. This is of direct importance to planning in Hong Kong and needs to be strongly highlighted.
“Better traffic management, limited loading times, redesigned bus routes and bus stops, revised tunnel charges, and electronic road pricing mechanisms are required to minimize new roads and avoid traffic congestion in the Harbour District” / Support for this statement indicates a strong public interest for alternatives to road building.
“Convenient pedestrian access to the waterfront is more important than maintaining travel speed on roads along the harbour” / A minority (7%) think road travel speeds are more important than pedestrian access.
What are your views on reclamation of land and reducing the harbour?
5.11 47.3% of respondents stated “yes, but under certain conditions”, and 37.2% stated “no, not at all”.
5.12 Of those that stated “yes”, the mains reasons provided for allowing reclamation to take place were “more space for public use including leisure, amenities, beautification etc.” (see Appendix D).
5.13 Of those that stated “no”, the mains reasons provided for not allowing reclamation to take place were “loss of aesthetic and symbolic features” and “inadequate consideration of alternatives” (see Appendix D).
Planning for the future
5.14 The results for this section indicate the respondents’ wishes for visionary and integrated planning with inputs from the public. In general, there was no strong disagreement with any of the provided statements.
5.15 In question 9, all of the statements were supported by a majority of “agree” (see Appendix B). The only point to note is the statement “rather than reclaiming more land, we should re-engineer existing land and infrastructure (even if it costs more)” to which 6.7% of respondents disagreed. The possible reason for this could be the need to know exactly how much the costs would be before forming a decision.
5.16 Respondents provided the following top five “strongly agree” statements on key planning principles for the Harbour District (see Appendix C):
- An integrated Harbour District master planning process is needed rather than a project by project approach (58.6%)
- Visionary, long term and future thinking instead of cost- and transport led planning (56.5%)
- Quality of life planning, rather than an engineering-led process is needed (51.9%)
- Clear analyses of public concerns and willingness to change is needed from planning authorities in the course of consultation (49.4%)
- Public must be consulted with alternative planning choices together with clear cost and environmental implications (48.5%).
Support for a Harbour Authority
5.17 As in ‘Planning for the Future’, the findings indicated the respondents’ concern on ensuring that the public were involved in planning decisions for the harbour particularly in stopping/reducing reclamation.
5.18 4.4% of respondents supported the setting up of a harbour authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure in the entire Harbour District.
5.19 The “community” was identified as the most appropriate party to lead this initiative (20.5%) while a similar number of respondents supported a joint effort by indicating “all” i.e. government, private sector and community (20.9%).
5.20 51.5% were in favour of a “Chief Planner”, similar in status to the Chief Secretary or Financial Secretary, being appointed to be in charge of integrated land and transport planning.
5.21 77.8% of respondents supported the concept of “an overall integrated master planning process covering the whole of the Harbour District, rather than the current project-based approach”.
5.22 Under the question “what should be the terms of reference of this body; at what level of government should this body report to?”, few respondents answered the first part and the majority gave answers to the second part (see Appendix D).
- Those who answered the first part referred to “existing bodies like the Urban Renewal Authority”, “protecting the harbour” and “addressing community needs”.
- Those who answered the second part stated that the authority should report to, in descending order of replies received, “the Chief Executive / Chief Secretary” or “the Financial Secretary”.
New approaches to planning for the harbour
5.23 117 respondents provided comments (see Appendix D) to the question “what new approaches do you think should be adopted for Hong Kong’s planning process for the Harbour and its surrounding districts?” The main comments concerned “more public consultation”, followed by “integrated planning” and “alignment of transport with land-use”.
5.24 Under personal suggestions for short-term or intermediate measures to improve the harbour district, “stopping reclamation” figured most highly.
5.25 The findings therefore showed that the notion of setting up a harbour authority was widely supported under the leadership of a Chief Planner who would hold the equivalent rank of the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary. The seniority aspect came out strongly in order for the body to have adequate powers for execution of its goals.
Conclusion