9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.1.1 The Study is basically a technical study and is highly specialised in nature. To ensure openness and transparency, opportunities have been taken to engage the public and stakeholders throughout the Study process and to obtain their feedback on the Study. This consultation process included the following key activities:
Early consultation with key stakeholders on the Study scope before the Study commenced;
A Value Management Workshop;
A Public Consultation on the initial findings of the Study;
A Focus Group Workshop for stakeholders;
Soliciting feedback via public Information Pamphlet and video; and
All the technical reports prepared in the Study were provided to the HKILA, HKIP, and academics in universities to seek their expert responses.
9.1.2 This Chapter of the Report very briefly describes the principle points at which stakeholders were engaged and summarises the main points raised during those activities, namely, the Value Management Workshop, the Public Consultation and the Pilot Study Focus Group Workshop.
9.2 PRE-STUDY CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
9.2.1 In mid 2000, the Town Planning Board, Planning Sub-Committee of the Land and Building Advisory Committee and the Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects (HKILA) were consulted on the study scope before the Study commenced.
9.3 VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
9.3.1 On 14th December 2001, a Study Value Management Workshop was held, to which all key stakeholders were invited, in order to discuss key issues relating to the Study.
Objectives of the Value Management Workshop
9.3.2 The primary purpose of the Workshop was to involve stakeholders in the study process and invite them to contribute to the further development of the Study. The objectives of the Workshop were to:
Introduce the Study;
Present findings of the Study to date;
Discuss and identify key issues;
Identify the best elements of international best practice applicable to Hong Kong;
Review the initial system of landscape classification parameters developed so far in the Study
Review quickly the different types of landscape in Hong Kong; and
Discuss and establish an initial set of landscape evaluation criteria.
Summary of the Findings of the Value Management Workshop
9.3.3 It is fair to say that there was widespread support for the Study from those attending the Workshop. Whilst there was some discussion on the wider merits and perceived benefits of the Study, discussion at the Workshop focused mainly on the subject of evaluation. This section of the report summarises the main points raised at the Workshop in relation to this topic:
The Workshop highlighted the different points of view that exist regarding the use of Landscape Value Mapping, as well as the different ways evaluation can be carried out.
One point of view was that there was a need for an absolute evaluation of all landscape units, carried out by following a list of criteria so as to be above argument. Where information is collected on an area basis, analysis can be carried out on the basis of evaluation criteria to determine the current status of the landscape. The resources, such as area of woodland, can be quantified. The other point of view was that an absolute value for the LCA would be difficult to obtain and may be counter-productive because it would raise issues outside landscape evaluation relating to property prices and ‘planning blight’. A comparative evaluation of levels of landscape sensitivity would be preferred.
A form of evaluation which avoided controversy and confrontation would require a descriptive analysis of the landscape.
As a compromise, it was suggested that key parameters or features of each LCT might be evaluated but that the values did not have to be aggregated. No absolute judgment would have to be made on the landscape value of the area as a whole if this approach were adopted. The change in individual parameters could then be monitored in a neutral way; at a later stage decision-makers can make judgments as to whether the impacts of the changes are good or bad. This approach would be in line with the requirement for an Indicator in the SUSDEV21 model.
To assist decision-makers, an agreement on what sort of changes would be detrimental and so cause negative impact and what sort would provide change for the better and cause positive impact and a value of the sensitivity of the landscape would be useful.
Whilst an initial set of landscape criteria had been discussed, by the end of the Workshop, no agreement had been reached. The remaining objectives of the Workshop had been fulfilled and it was generally felt that the Workshop had raised some worthwhile discussion and interesting ideas and points of view.
9.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
9.4.1 A public consultation on the initial findings of the Study, i.e. landscape classification criteria and evaluation framework, was carried out between July and September 2002. There were altogether eight presentations and briefings to various statutory and advisory bodies and professional institutions. In addition, a Focus Group Workshop was held in July 2002 and attended by about 30 participants.
9.4.2 Another workshop for stakeholders (Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, HKIP, Green Lantau Association, academics from universities, Real Estate Developers Association, etc.) was held in September 2003 to share views on the findings of the pilot field survey of Lantau Island with a view to improving the survey process. There were also further exchanges of views through correspondence between these parties.
9.4.3 All the technical reports prepared in the Study were provided to the HKILA, HKIP, and academics in universities to seek their expert responses. A full list of the presentations and activities which were held as part of the Public Consultation is presented in Appendix 13.
Objectives of the Public Consultation
9.4.4 The objective of the Public Consultation was to elicit public feedback on:
the Study approach to classification and evaluation of landscapes;
the initial list of Landscape Character Types (LCTs) that had been produced and which landscapes and landscape features in Hong Kong are felt to be of particular value.
Figure 9.1 Focus Group Workshop, July 2002
Feedback from Consultation
9.4.5 Overall, stakeholders and the public were generally supportive of the Study. Their positive response showed that there was an expectation that the Study would provide a timely and useful contribution to the appreciation and protection of Hong Kong’s landscape resources.
9.4.6 In particular, there was much useful feedback from the public consultation exercise held in late 2002 which had a bearing on the approach to the Study. Some points worthy of specific mentioned are as follows:
9.4.7 There were suggestions that the Study should include a regional context and that it should extend to cover Shenzhen. The study team considered that the main objective of the Study was to obtain landscape baseline information of Hong Kong and there were deemed to be practical difficulties in conducting field survey across the boundary. Nevertheless, the effects of the visual setting of Shenzhen on the landscape of northern parts of the New Territories have been examined in the Study
9.4.8 Comments were also made on the classification and the scale of LCTs, in particular that areas such as street markets, public squares or streams/waterfalls had not been captured as individual LCAs. The Study team was of the view that some of the features mentioned were in fact, too small to be considered landscapes in their own right. However, under the study approach, all such features could potentially be considered as significant landscape features of wider landscapes and were addressed in this way during the Study.
9.4.9 There were concerns over the extent to which the assessment of landscape involved elements of subjectivity. The Study team considered, as explained in Section 5.5 of this report, that the key to the Study’s evaluation process was that value judgements were made by trained professionals during field surveys, on a rational basis (i.e. on reasoned grounds); transparently (i.e. using clearly defined criteria with reasons clearly recorded) and consistently (i.e. applying the same criteria in the same way across different locations). The Study also reviewed and took into account relevant published literature and the results of available opinion polls on landscape issues.
9.4.10 Many consultees suggested that significant natural or cultural landscapes should be identified for protection. The study team pointed out that recommending designation of specific landscapes for protection or enhancement was not part of the Study’s objectives. The Study has, however, yielded sufficient information to be used as the basis for designation of special landscape areas, if it is considered desirable after completion of the Study.
9.4.11 A range of landscape types or attractive / unattractive landscape features was provided by consultees. Specific places and landscapes that were thought to be of high or low landscape value were also suggested. All these suggestions were subsequently taken into account in the Study during landscape evaluation.
9.5 FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOP FOR PILOT SURVEY IN LANTAU ISLAND
Objectives of the Public Consultation
9.5.1 The Focus Group Workshop was held on 20th September 2003. The objective of the Consultation was to present the findings of the Pilot Survey which had been carried out on Lantau Island to the public and to solicit their views on whether they felt the classification and evaluation carried out on Lantau was accurate and satisfactory. The list of attendees at this Focus Group Workshop is in Appendix 14
Summary of the Findings of the Focus Group Workshop
9.5.2 There was general support for the Study and the accuracy and quality of the interim findings for Lantau. However, a number of key points were raised about the findings of the Pilot Survey which are summarised below.
It was noted that there was often considerable variety in the sizes of LCAs and that this might sometimes lead to a deterioration of assessments. It was suggested that the sizes of LCAs be made a little more similar.
It was mentioned that the 'Moderate' value category as originally developed included a very wide range of landscapes from those that were only slightly degraded to those that were significantly degraded. It was suggested that it would be useful to develop a fourth category of value that could distinguish between these landscapes and thereby allow them to be better represented in the planning system.
There was some discussion as to whether the abandonment of agricultural land led to a reduction in landscape value. Points were put for and against this point of view.
Specific comments were made relating to the classification and evaluation of specific areas of Lantau.
Others mentioned the importance of recording ongoing landscape change during the survey and also of updating the LCM in the future.
9.5.3 The points made were reviewed and incorporated into the LCM as appropriate. In particular, following on from the public consultation, a fourth value category was created, termed 'High (Qualified)' (in addition to the categories of 'Low', 'Moderate and 'High' ).
